So then, Bureaucracy is left to thread naming, and...what else?

Off the top of my head? FAQ additions, calls for Stompys to deal with some problem in a thread (open tag, spoiler, etc.)...

Not everything bureaucratic requires debating and voting.

FAQ additions, calls for Stompys to deal with some problem in a thread (open tag, spoiler, etc.)...

Good ones. I wasn't trying to be contentious, I just couldn't think of anything else right then.

So then, Bureaucracy is left to thread naming, and...what else?

Raising issues to bring into the Supreme Court :-).

Personally, I like the time-limited discussion and formal voting things. I'm not certain we couldn't do that and keep things in bureaucracy, but it will make it easier to get up to speed on a specific issue if discussion of it isn't mixed up with posts about 20 other things.

given the love of new threads, I fully expect it to pass.

We in no way have a "love" of new threads. Seriously, on most forums the idea of needing permission to set up a specific area to talk about something would be viewed as, like, unconstitutional censorship. I understand that's not the Buffista view, but the fact is we have very controlled thread proliferation given what a large community we are. Our database problems are due to number of posts, not number of threads.

I wasn't trying to be contentious

I know Jesse. No worries.

given the love of new threads, I fully expect it to pass.

I'm generally not in favor of new threads, but I think that if we go forward with the new debate-n-vote process, a separate Supreme Court thread will be a good one to have.

Our database problems are due to number of posts, not number of threads.

But one leads to another. Natter isn't any slower since we've opened the music and movie threads, is it?

But one leads to another. Natter isn't any slower since we've opened the music and movie threads, is it?

Experience (and theory) shows us that more threads leads to more posting.

If that's how you feel, then you vote against quorum, but I don't think it's reasonable to decide, if quorum is passed, to make the number so small as to effectively render it meaningless.

This is absolutely false. I don't want two people to be able to get the Clem thread because everyone else is asleep at the wheel. I voted yes on the quorum, but if quorum wins, discussion will need to happen on the amount and I'm in the "at least 10 to at most 25" range, not the 50 to 75 person range. I don't think 10 people are meaningless.

And maybe we wouldn't have so many posts if people would stop the numberslutting...

But one leads to another. Natter isn't any slower since we've opened the music and movie threads, is it?

I think number of posts has much more to do with number of posters (and their enthusiasm) than anything else, seriously.

Again, I know this is a minority opinion, and it's not one I'm trying to be persuasive about at all. Cos I'd lose, and I know this. But from what ita posted over the weekend it sounds like the largest single drain on the server isn't what anyone posts today or tomorrow or where they post it, but the fact we have a couple hundred thousand posts in closed threads still sitting on the server.

There are different issues here. The problem over the weekend was not too much bandwidth, which is caused by posts, that is true. We still have a limited amount of bandwidth to use, which we came close to doing during the Firefly frenzy.

I think number of posts has much more to do with number of posters (and their enthusiasm) than anything else, seriously.

I believe there has been actual research done that proves this is not true.