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.

The final numbers from this first vote will be needed to really know for certain, but I think 10 is a ridiculously low number. If all we needed to make major changes to the board is 10 votes, then how is that really any different than 10 people getting together in Kafka and yakking for a day and making the change?

And if the argument is, "Well, I think if people really care, than a lot more than 10 are going to be voting," then I think that argument is self defeating.

Why? Because if you think a lot more than 10 are always going to be voting, than setting the minimum vote to 10 is pointless. The point of a minimum vote is not to have an arbitrary number that can always and easily be reached, but to set a number which the group as a whole feels iappropriate support for allowing any change to be made.

I'm not going to propose a number. One, because I have no idea how many people are going to end up voting and don't think I should hazard a guess as to how many it will be, and, two, because I think that no one should just propose a number and we vote on it.

I think what we should do is this: if the "quorum" measure passes, we then hold a vote on the number we think the quorum should be, with it worded as follows:

Choose one of the following for the minimum vote number needed to pass a measure:

a - 10 or more

b - 20 or more

c - 30 or more

d - 40 or more

And you keep adding an E, an F, and a G, etc., until you get up to half + 1 of the total number of voters that turn out for this first vote we are now taking. Then I propose a runoff between the two choices that receive the most votes.

I am sure that sounds like a giant pain in the ass, but I can't see how we are going to decide on a fair number without at least taking two voting passes at picking it. And the reason for that is that if we have three days of discussion on the issue, I imagine we are going to end up with as many suggestions for what the number should be as there are numbers between 1 and 100. And by just taking one vote on every multiple of 10 up to our half+1 number, then a second vote for a runoff, we will avoid a lot of meaningless discussion and carpal tunel syndrome.

Again, my two pennies.