I don't feel that maintaining bright lines dissuades discussion. Rather I think it facilitates it, by allowing newcomers and new-to-the-show-comers to easily find where the discussion is happening. I think it avoids ongoing meta with discussion inthread about whether or not a particular show is appropriate and thus improves the signal to noise ratio.

I know that's the theory, but really it isn't all that hard to find a thread for discussion. You pop your head into Natter and say "Where are we talking about Rome" and somebody points to the Premium thread. Or you try to talk about Rome in Boxed Set and somebody redirects you.

I don't really see scads of newcomers roaming lost on the boards anyhow.

I think you'll get a very clear bright line if we take a more experimental approach. Otherwise (until we run into band width issues) the trend will continue where popular single show threads will be voted in. It would be beneficial to the anti-proliferationists to address that very slow moving slippery slope. There will always be pressure to add new show threads - so let's find a way to accommodate that and keep clean bright lines by lowering the barrier to creating show threads, but creating some probationary structure to prune them out if they fail to maintain discussion.

Bon's approach is also an interesting new direction.

My concern there is that from my admittedly unscientific observation threads function best with something like 3 to 5 shows, and that having such large buckets will inevitably lead to big white font gaps.

So I'd think we'd need something like a rule that says it's open season for discussion on any show that aired that day without whitefont.

If you go into the general TV threads then you have to be willing to risk spoilage if you've saved things on TiVo and haven't watched them yet.

and that having such large buckets will inevitably lead to big white font gaps.

So I'd think we'd need something like a rule that says it's open season for discussion on any show that aired that day without whitefont.

I feel like if I can deal with a lot of whitefont in natter, I can deal with it in another large thread. I do do a lot of timeshifting though-- work late a lot of nights, Bob has classes, some nights are better TV than others. So I wouldn't want to avoid such a large thread so frequently.

nobody ever remembers to update those things.

Then remind an admin. I mean, once we've made a decision here to change the description/slug, is there really a significant delay in getting it done.

The divisions that Bon suggests are too big for me to consider useful for me. Blame TiVo or whatever, but there it is. Boxed Set is just as big as I can handle, and I'm hundreds behind right now because my TiVo refused twice to record The Dresden Files. And now I'm wondering if I should watch my ahemmed Doctor Who before going back in.

But I'm okay with that. SciFi's smaller than Drama.

You'll still have classification issues, so listing may come up again.

The whole "people can too find stuff" is a bit of a...it's a bit misleading.

I mean, if the Premium thread gets changed as described, and I go into Natter and ask where to discuss the next Homicide-level show, amych will tell me to go to Premium, and SA won't.

So far, people are asking for different threads but agreeing with each other. I'm not seeing how that's going to play out in reality without confusion.

I am starting to think that I could go along with three TV threads:
• one for drama, and that includes Premium (check the dramatic forum at TWoP, that's what I mean);
•one for comedy (e.g. Adult Swim, HIMYM) and
•one for non-fiction tv-- this would include docus like Planet Earth and TAL, and reality television like TAR.

So all tv would go to tv threads? I don't really have an opinion on comedy or non-fiction but as Hec noted, that is a pretty big bucket of drama.

It seems to me that Boxed Set works and that the Premium folks want a bigger bucket.

While switching to 3 big threads would eliminate the need for repeating this discussion it seems unwieldy to me.

My concern there is that from my admittedly unscientific observation threads function best with something like 3 to 5 shows

I think there could be more, but certainly smaller groupings than "drama".

It sounds to me that what's wanted is a thread where in-depth discussion of complex shows can take place. SA, Corwood, David, et al.: is that a more or less accurate statement?

Issues with such a thread:
(1) Define "in-depth."
(2) Define "complex shows."

So... Is there a way to clearly define a type or genre of show such that synergetic discussion can take place AND potentially encompass new shows by virtue of that existing definition?

Then remind an admin. I mean, once we've made a decision here to change the description/slug, is there really a significant delay in getting it done.

No, there's no delay -- but the people who know the slug should change are the people who were there when the topic began to drift: they usually don't notice that the slug should change. Like how seeing a teenager every day, you don't notice he's growing, but when his kin visit from out of state they're boggled by how much he's grown. Poor ND spent like a year with noplace to talk Stargate because Stargate talk was happening in Boxed Set, and it hadn't occurred to anybody who was actually in that thread to ask for the header to change.

So unless there are self-designated header police, slugs and descriptions are going to fall out of date quickly, just because we are both talky and forgetful meat.

In the thread's defence, the description was specific for those of us that thought genre was sff. I didn't know you guys had a different glossary. As noted, the idea of it being an sf thread predate its creation.

And these days, as shown above, thread 'drift' (or even actual drift) isn't going very unnoted.

I'd like to throw something out there. Can the people in Premium who think these types of shows would be a good fit maybe take a step back and take a stab at defining why they fit? Gut-wise, I think I get it. But I don't really follow any of those currently, so beyond gut, I can't help.

If y'all who are watching them can come up with something more defined, then I'd be down with shifting the focus of Premium to a cussing and fucking thread. I don't think just the channel listing will work anymore, and the nebulous level on which we're talking about them right now is clearly causing people some issues. If there's a way to better define or pinpoint the points of connection so that they're more concretely stated, I think we'd have an easier time with this discussion.

My hunch is that that might be more easily done back in thread - but please don't take that as a "take this discussion elsewhere" or as trying to keep other people out of the convo. Just that my gut, once again, suggests that it might be better to have a more specifically show focused conversation and then come back here with a more solid proposal proposition.

I'd rather see it here, because even if it's not something I can participate in, I'd like to see it play out.

think "genre" first came up around here: Kat "Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!" Aug 20, 2003 9:37:46 am PDT as a consolidating term.

GAH! In my head, each time this comes up, I'm always bitching about the moron who came up with the word genre to signify sci fi. HA to find out the moron is me.

I have no strong opinions about how to subdivide TV. In reality, I think it's a sort of hat trick with the, as ita aptly put, desire to talk about the shows one wants to talk about with the people one wants to discuss with, which is a very amorphous categorization in my book.

As it is, I don't discuss TV here as I only watch 3 shows. So discussing in natter suits me just fine.