I guess so ita. How many other shows (most?) are on a similar time delay for Unamericans?

How many other shows (most?) are on a similar time delay for Unamericans?

All! (Well, all US shows, at least.)

By the way, about Natter...I didn't mean earlier to sound like I thought Natter was not serious enough, too flippant, etc. I like Natter the way it is, but I also think that because of the posting volume and the fact that people skip and skim, there's a certain kind of conversation that we used to be able to have across time zones that we can't have any more. Certainly ita is right, we can't have a new thread for every single topic that I or anyone else happen to be interested in, but I do think that that's at least an argument in favour of a new thread when there's a critical mass for a given topic. (Ie the "just talk about it in Natter" response doesn't really work for me anymore.)

Am I allowed to ask a question in her not related to my tantrum?

t For which I apologize yet again.

I have been following this thread discussion a bit, but I'm not sure I get the gist of why adding threads is a problem. Is it a problem?

My wife, for one, would probably be keen on an Alias thread.

Schmoker to distill our arguments, I think the argument isn't really against thread proliferation. It is rather us as a whole deciding what kind of board we want to be. (I cribbed this from Kat)

Is it a problem?

That's pretty much the question. On the one hand, more specialized threads will give a place for more in-depth discussions that won't get drowned out by the volume in other threads. On the other hand, more threads will lead to more individual communities rather than one big one. But on the other hand, we might have too many people and too many posts to be able to stay as a community where everyone knows everyone else. But on the other hand, lots of little threads could mean less cross-pollenization of ideas and posters and more of a cliquish feel. t /Tevye

That's pretty much what I meant, Hil! That was way more explanatory!

I think another argument against thread proliferation is that it creates an environment where people stick to one or two threads and never become part of the community as a whole, or where long-time members disappear from some threads because there are too many for one person to follow. I know that when I go into threads I don't follow, I often see people I've never met before anywhere else on the board. So it may be a valid concern.

Edit: And it turns out Hil said what I meant, only better. Whoops.

Well, it is and it isn't. I'm trying to think of a good analogy and I can't. But in general, the spirit we're trying to maintain here is sort of like a big cocktail party - lots of different conversations going on, with some of us hanging around the bar, a few people over in the corner having deep conversation, a few people nipping out to the kitchen here and there. The worry about thread proliferation is that it becomes more like all these conversations going on in separate rooms, where we might pass each other in the hallways but are otherwise more cut off. There are varying positions on how likely this is too happen or how much of a Bad Thing it would be.

If that makes any sense.

I think another argument against thread proliferation is that it creates an environment where people stick to one or two threads and never become part of the community as a whole...

Realistically speaking, with 750 registered members that's going to happen and in fact has already happened. Keeping the thread size small just makes each thread that much less manageable.

However, when the threads aren't managable, people will probably go away, ensuring that they become managable again. I am actually FOR thread proliferation in a logical and not haphazard manner. I think it is probably the only way for us to grow without losing a whole bunch of people.