I wonder how many people have joined this board since Buffy/Angel went off the air.

I'm not sure that's a totally relevant number, since we were/are also supporting all things Joss and Tim.

One thing I will say -- if a board isn't a little dynamic, you end up managing it into decline.

Which is one of the reasons I think the poll results are (fairly) unsurprising. People fear change, but at the same time interests do (change). The heart of this website -- from my perspective -- is television and entertainment, with a community based around it.

I think I am vaguely reactionary, because I sort of think Buffy is the heart of this board--

I think that's a good point. Buffy at the very least gives the board a shared language. "Monkey pants," "a ritual sacrifice with pie," "insane troll logic," and "linoleum" conjure the same images.

What happens when I go on vacation and take a few days to catch up on the board?

Briefly, thanks all to the shout-outs: DavidS and JZ in particular. And, (though it probably need not be said), I wasn't one of the snarkers about buffista core groups. I was enjoying looking at the ocean, no bitter "I'm leaving this thread and never coming back" intent here.

That said, I have nothing useful to say about the poll. But I will say this (if you can't say something useful, say something less useful): The only thing that the poll gave me was a sense of peace. We are talking and talking and being angsty and maybe we needn't be angsty about this. There's a lot of people unsure if changes needed to be made and many who don't think it necessary.

Maybe we can tread carefully and say from now until December, we will create no more than 5 (or whatever number) additional tv threads for active tv shows/topics. If they do not reach the level of x number of posts per week by 30 days, the thread retires and cannot be resurrected again for x months.

We can revisit the 5+ thread rule in 2008.

I have to say, it's very hard to see "not interested in participating in the social threads" and not read "not interested in talking to you people." So I have to wonder...which threads would such a person be interested in? COMM? Press? Which are the non-social threads? Why talk about TV here if not because of the people you're discussing it with?

I'm "interested" in participating in the social threads, but Natter and Bitches move too quickly for me. So I tend to stay out.

The thing with the social threads, also, is that they're frelling fast. I also think that there's an argument to be made about the difference between when we're talking about something, and when we're just talking. Now, IMO, both happen in most threads, but the ratio is different.

I don't think a limit on the number of tv threads that can be created in a certain time period is a good idea. If people think that too many new tv threads are being created, they can vote against some or all of them.

Discussion of tv won in the poll for reason most posters post here. The majority thinks that more tv threads would enhance the posting experience. Only 14 people wanted a limit on the number of tv threads that could be created. I'm not even sure of the real percentage of people that think there should be a higher quorum since so many people voted unsure.

It just seems to me that the poll showed that a majority of people think tv threads=good and that there should be no real changes. I don't know what that really leaves to discuss (as far as making changes goes) other than a possible proposal to raise the quorum.

The social threads as I see them are Natter and Bitches (although maybe an argument could be made for Minearverse being social) with all other threads being topic related.

So just because someone doesn't come here to use Natter/Bitches doesn't mean they aren't interetsed in us, it just means they are either more interested in discussing tv, movies, music, movies, books, or writing OR they don't have a lot of time to devote to threads and so stick to the topic related ones. Or maybe talking about tv/movies/music/writing, etc is all they want to do here and I don't think that's a bad thing or wrong.

I go to veggieboards.com and read there and post occasionally but only in the veggie related threads. They have off topic social areas for general natter, tv, etc but I don't read those or post there because that's not what I want out of the forum. I want to discuss vegetarian related stuff (cooking, support, product reviews, personal experiences). It's not that I don't like them but I'm satisfied with that level of participation.

So I could see people doing something similiar here, only posting in the tv/movie/music/etc threads because that's what they want to discuss here and with us. They just aren't interested in the social/off topic threads.

But--but--the fact that people want to create more tv threads to talk about tv *here* rather than elsewhere argues the social nature of b.org. Talking about your shows in Boxed Set is a social occasion--we don't *just* talk about the shows, it's specific people with specific knowledge, preference, and POV talking about the shows. We *know* the other posters, have more than an inkling of what they'll bring to discussion, and are eager to hear what they got out of the show we watched, from our own POV. It's looking to expand our view of those shows, which is what being social creatures is all about, isn't it?

So I think hanging the "social" sign on Bitches and Natter and not on tv threads is not accurate. If all anybody wanted was to discuss a given tv show, they'd be off doing it elsewhere. It's the social nature of discussion here that people seem to want.

If all anybody wants is to be able to create a thread at will to discuss navel lint and see if it attracts other posters, and how long it's active, and to discard it when it sinks like stone, then I'm not being wilfully blind when I can't see what the attraction of *this* board is, other than it's pretty and efficient, loads fast and doesn't go down like a two-dollar hooker everytime the internet hiccups.

This is a social board. It is a community. And people do seem to recognize the difference between it and elsewhere, even if they're not aware of it.