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.

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."

But doesn't breaking all of Network Drama into different categories make it a different proposal to you? Granted, maybe "quirky" drama isn't the best way to go, but is it that term that bothers you or any kind of thread involving any kind of drama(s) that bugs you?

That's the point of the voting system, though, isn't it? To affirm, deny, or refine. Right now we're refining. I don't think it's out of the realm of our procedure.

For the record, the procedural thread I was suggesting was meant to be both cop and medico. Any kind of mystery of the week type thing,

For the record, the procedural thread I was suggesting was meant to be both cop and medico. Any kind of mystery of the week type thing,

I like that. I also think that a comedy thread would probably pass without any restrictions on what specific shows go 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.

I agree with Kat. "Quirky" is too broad. In my opinion, the only dramas that get discussed here are the quirky ones. Anything that's not quirky is boring and doesn't generate much interest.

I have a weird devotion to L&O:CI.

I have the same weird devotion, le nub.

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

The only sure way to do that is a bucket one show wide. If we went with Procedurals, for example, we'd have 15 shows, give or take a few outliers like House. There were three procedurals with 10 or more viewers in the poll: Numb3rs, CSI and Bones. I can't think of any reasonable way to subdivide the 15, and with 15, some people are bound to be spoiled. It could be "Shows Likely to Include Maggots," which would cover the 3 CSIs, Bones and only occasionally the others, or "Shows that Depict an Entirely Fictional FBI," including WaT, Numb3rs, Criminal Minds and Bones.

Is there still a solid proposal in play? If so, I second it.

is it that term that bothers you or any kind of thread involving any kind of drama(s) that bugs you?

The fact that drama has already been voted down and is being reproposed with an ambiguous modifier is what bugs me.

I have no qualms about a medical procedural or a legal procedural or a comedy because those are clearer definitions that have greater specifity and differentation from a general drama thread. They aren't just a generic drama thread that was already voted down.

That's the point of the voting system, though, isn't it? To affirm, deny, or refine.

Not refine. If it were to refine, then there would not be a 6 month moritorium. It's really to affirm or deny then shut up on the topic for 6 months, which is sort of the oppposite of the refining thing that is going on.