A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
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.
What everybody else said about natter. Natter fills the vacuum. I think that if a new thread interests a person, and they have to drop another thread to make time for it, they'll drop the thread that's lowest on their interest list. I never used to skip in the show threads. Now I do, so I have time to read TTT. People will shift around.
And I think Plei's right about the speed thing.
So - in addition to process set a maximum number of threads? Cause everything I hear seems to argue for that.
And in terms of what it takes to start a thread, I'd agree that it should be more than a simple majority.
I don't think we need to have a set maximum number of threads. I also don't think that we really know enough at this point to be able to say what an ideal number would be. I think that if we've got a good process for figuring out when to start a thread, that ought to be enough to keep things under control.
WRT the speed idea:
Does this boil down to we built a better mousetrap therefore there are now more mice?
Does this boil down to we built a better mousetrap therefore there are now more mice?
Are you insinuating we're cheesy?
I hope none of y'all are telling tails.
sorry, sorry...
NO PUNS. THIS THREAD IS SACRED.
So we operate on the premise that "we don't know what our maximum number of threads it, but ita will know it when she sees it?"
