I admit, I feel like we've had this conversation before, and I don't know what's to be gained by having it again. Some people like having only one thread to read where they can talk about whatever: some people want their discussion areas segregated to facilitate more in-depth discussion. Depending on our moods and who's around, either view can predominate in bureaucracy.

I'm not trying to be pushy (especially given my not-a-stompy status), but I really think the best way to handle this is to develop a streamlined thread proposal system. One model could be:

1. Desired thread is proposed in Bureaucracy, open for discussion for 12 hours.

2. Poll is established. Thread goes to a poll vote for an additional 24 hours.

3. Majority rules at the end of the 36 hours.

At the moment, we have proposals for an Alias thread, a Miracles thread, a general TV thread, a general movies thread, and a foamies '02 thread. I think voting is going to be more useful than a rehash of the whole sprawl discussion.

If voting was going to be used I think that more than a simple majority should be used. I don't think 70% interest and/or approval is unreasonable. I voted for the music thread although I doubt I will ever find time to add it to my message center.

I'm another one who likes the idea that a significant majority should approve the new thread.

Desired thread is proposed in Bureaucracy, open for discussion for 12 hours.

I suggest none of this take place over a weekend or holiday. I also suggest some method of closing threads if they fall into disuse (or nearly so). And can we discuss an archive link to clean up all the threads on the homepage?

I think voting is more useful. But I also think that voting off site is not the best solution because it requires people to click and go and to me, that's a huge impediment (especially since my worksite filters out the most popular polling places and I don't have access to even vote).

Also, I totally agree with Jessica upthread. If the conversation isn't to your liking, then do something about it. I have invisible days too. But I'm not sure a sustained deep discussion thread is the answer. Just because I want to have a deep discussion on politics or my latest car problem or whatever doesn't mean anyone else does.

I think one of the big conflicts is that for some people, this is the only board they participate in. Naturally life is bigger than just ME shows, so we've grown and expanded to other topics to accomodate. But for some of us, we have lots of places and ways of interacting that aren't confined to here. I don't really need a TV show thread, because I also read at WX and at utne where I do have conversations of things like Gilmore Girls or The Mole. If I'm having issues where I need advice or to vent, I'm perfectly allright with e-mail or AIM. The board, for me, doesn't have to meet all my needs. But obviously for others it's not the same.

Moreover, I'm also fine with this conversation being here. If it doesn't belong here, where does it belong? Or should we not have the conversation at all?

still lower-case. still proud.

IJS.

I suggest none of this take place over a weekend or holiday. I also suggest some method of closing threads if they fall into disuse (or nearly so). And can we discuss an archive link to clean up all the threads on the homepage?

Seconded, except for the closing-threads part. I mean, maybe if a thread has not gotten a single post in 6 mos., but even then it should be available in the archive for restarting.

I still think 70% is too high a goal. 60%, maybe. Or we could do it by numbers -- if someone could figure out the # of active posters it takes to keep a thread alive (my gut is about 25, but I admit I don't really know), that number of people would have to vote that they would be very likely to participate in such a thread if it were started.

Edited: I like off-site poll voting because it doesn't clutter bureaucracy. But what if we did polls as sidebars, like on TWoP? That would probably up participation, anyhow.

I've gone dim in a lot of threads because I'm on a tape delay for... oh, everything. Including Smallville.

But I like having them all neat and separate, waiting for me to catch up on them.

Of course, considering that I may have to go very, very dim here due to looming insanity, I suppose my opinion doesn't much matter.

I'm not keen on the idea of setting a time limit on any discussion, but if that's what a lot of people want, I think it needs to be longer than 12 hours in order to allow everyone to participate. We can't depend on the Australians all having insommnia at once.

It started with 24. I edited to 12 to shorten the process, but 48 or 60 would work for me, too. The basic idea is just creating clear standards for when a thread is started, because the current process seems clumsy and arbitrary to me.