OK - the joke I made above that was a real idea pushing it's way up from my subconcious. I don't think we will never ever have a new thread again. But we do need a limit. So here is a proposal - one that will require refinement, but I think can work.

1) Set a limit on the number of threads. Not just bandwidth (though it can't go above bandwidth obviously). But there are other limitations. For example 100 threads with 2 posts a day would not eat up much bandwidth. But would still be absurd. So the number of posts should be set by the old hands - ita, Allyson, Kiba - anyone who has been involved with this type of message board for a long time. (And if the number is lower than we have now - not out of the question.)

2) Set a general procedure for starting new threads. Here I have no idea - you folks decide.

3) But whatever the procedure is, this gets added to the procedure once the limit is reached. Anytime a new thread is to be added after the thread limit is reached, it must be decided what old thread is to die to make room. If nothing dies, nothing is added.

Really we can't indefinitely continue to add new threads without such a procedure.

Am I on crack?

I'd say that we need to look at how threads got started in the first place. I think that Smallville was people deciding, "we need somewhere to discuss this so we won't clog up Natter." Bitchy Fic was from when people were complaining about fic taking over SB. Fanfiction was, I think, people deciding, "We need somewhere to discuss this, and we don't have one."

Pretty much, I'm seeing two different impulses here. Some are "we want a place to discuss this." Others are "we don't want that stuff being discussed here; make somewhere else to discuss it." I'd think that, for there to be a decision on a new thread, there ought to be at least some of both going on. (OK, I just tried three times to explain why a little bit, but I couldn't get it right, so I'll just put this out there and maybe try to explain my thoughts on it a little later. I just can't get it phrased right now.)

Acknowledging that Natter (and Bitches, granted) throws off the average, how many posts/thread are we at currently?

Anytime a new thread is to be added after the thread limit is reached, it must be decided what old thread is to die to make room. If nothing dies, nothing is added.

That's sort of the way TT handled it. Every so often they would close the slow movers. OTOH, they were running about a hundred threads per forum, so the top 80 or so got to stay. I'm not worried about new threads taking up bandwidth, because if someone starts posting in a new thread, it means they'll probably be posting less in another thread. I think the only real bandwidth worries come from the total number of users who are actually posting, regardless of how many threads they're posting in.

if someone starts posting in a new thread, it means they'll probably be posting less in another thread.

But is this true? Because it doesn't seem like there has been less posting in Natter since the birth of the TTT thread or the music thread.

I totally understand what you mean, Hil. It should be a balance between those who want the new thread as a new place for them and those who want the discussion to just shut the hell up and move on. But in a nice way.

My sense is PMM, who initially asked for the Alias thread, isn't an Alias watcher. Is that true, Plei?

Except more threads attract more users. An Alias thread may attract an alias fan who is not a fan of any other show we discuss.

And there is a problem completely seperate from bandwidth. 80 threads are too many. I know that intuitively. How many few than this is too much - that I don't know. Which is where the old hands come in. People who have run fan boards or moderated fan boards or just hung out a long on fan boards. We do need a procedure for new threads. But we also need to set a maximum number of threads. Unless, we don't for some reason I'm not getting.

Mean3400.38 Maximum10024 Minimum53 Standard Deviation3775.954178 Mode10003

Because it doesn't seem like there has been less posting in Natter since the birth of the TTT thread or the music thread.

I post in TTT, I don't post in Natter. TTT has my great interest; Natter, I can't keep up enough to be involved. My point, and I might not have one, is that .. Yeah, I don't have one. But new threads might not mean less posting in Natter. In fact, it might mean more. People who don't usually post there might venture forth if a massive subject (like TTT) was taken out and there was more room for other things that interested them.

I think new threads will definitely have a net increase effect. Both from people who'd not have posted otherwise, and from people who now post in the perceived space left over. We've never really had an indication that ANYTHING slows natter.

We've never really had an indication that ANYTHING slows natter.

HA! And oh so true.

Followed by a pondering of what would slow Natter? Perhaps the Bubonic Plague?