Well, I resent the implication that I'm trying to circumvent board voting policy. That is most adamantly not what I was attempting to do; I was trying to meet the needs of television watching we will likely be doing according to the poll results, while going forward with a proposal because we've been talking in circles for awhile now.

That said, I think the difference is that the Network Drama thread was meant to encompass all the drama shows airing in the fall on the network stations. If we start filtering shows down more, I think the limited scope of the remaining shows could--and should--have its own thread. Call it "Quirky Network Shows" or whatever, but I think it's sufficiently different from the scope of the previous network drama proposal to be within the purview of our rules.

But "Quirky" drama is a lot like "media fannishness." Frankly I think it ends up being "quirky" in a faux-intellectual "we think its quirky because we watch it" way and I would object to it being proposed within the next 6 months

I'd agree with Kat. My quirky may not be your quirky (for example, House does not seem quirky to me. Yeah, the main character is odd but the show is what I would think of as a procedural, a medical procedural that is).

How are you defining quirky though? Does quirky mean having quirky characters, or a quirky set up, or a quirky setting, or all three?

eta (or what Lisah said)

I also think Lisa brings up a good point-- do you mean just legal/crime procedurals, or medical procedurals as well?

Just to play devil's advocate further, if we end up defining procedurals as both medical and legal and end up voting on it, and it fails, are we then going to have another round of proposals for a just crime/police shows bucket and a just medical shows bucket? What if one or both of those fails? Do we then refine it even further?

Eta: Rereading my post, it sounds more argumentative than I meant it to be. I just think we need to look at how finely we parse the distinctions between proposals before the 6 month voting prohibition kicks in.

Well, we appear to be looking for a bucket definition that is narrow enough that people won't feel spoiled by entering it.

But how long do we keep redefining and re-voting?

When did the experimental threads get proposed? start counting from there.

To me, it was always a given that if a big general bucket didn't pass, that there would be other proposals for smaller buckets and/or single-show threads. I think it's okay to keep redefining as long as five seconds are achieved. If we keep voting and voting until something gets a majority and passes, well then wasn't that the point of all of this? From the experimental threads through the latest conversations and polls and vote? To figure out what what best suits the board as far as tv talk goes? We didn't get it right the first time. Maybe we won't get it right the second time. But, if we eventually do get it right, does it really matter how many votes it took us to get there?

SA, trying or not, if you get the seconds you need to discuss a "quirky drama" thread, it is circumventing board voting policy. I'm not implying it. I'm stating it.

If you define it as a catchall for anything not a procedural or even as something "quirky" it's too broad and general and it ends up being what was voted down.

In general, I have to say the define/redefine drama into a genre to get a thread that will pass immediately after it being voted down is grating. It would be easy to interpret it as, "I don't like the way the votes went. I want my thread."

sumi, I would also add, as a goal, to find thread categories that will mean that future shows will, as a rule, have an obvious home (e.g.--For the most part, we know what new shows go in Boxed Set).

My largest suggestions would be: Law Shows (And I swear it's not just because we can use "And, together, they fight crime!") and Medical Shows, but I know that 1)They don't cover everything and B)They may be too big, although I'd like to look at the spoilage worry when the poll's done. However, they're pretty bright lines.

eta: I have no real thoughts on the applicability of the moratorium question.