That was my plan, too.
Stompies are nothing if not thorough.
Stop means no. And no means no. So . . . stop.
Xander ,'Conversations with Dead People'
Bureaucracy 4: Like Job. No, really, just like Job
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: Jon B, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych, msbelle, shrift, Dana, Laura
Stompy Emerita: ita, DXMachina
DXMachina - Apr 24, 2008 12:45:31 pm PDT #2697 of 6786
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
Glamcookie - Apr 24, 2008 12:47:22 pm PDT #2698 of 6786
I know my own heart and understand my fellow man. But I am made unlike anyone I have ever met. I dare to say I am like no one in the whole world. - Anne Lister
Yay for stompies!
t /cheerleader
Laga - Apr 25, 2008 6:13:41 am PDT #2699 of 6786
You should know I'm a big deal in the Resistance.
Stompies are nothing if not thorough.
future thread title
DCJensen - May 08, 2008 4:52:55 am PDT #2700 of 6786
All is well that ends in pizza.
ita's link in Press to "your set profile page" sent me to the login page.
I suspect because she used buffistas.org instead of www.buffistas org.
Wolfram - May 09, 2008 6:31:35 am PDT #2701 of 6786
Visilurking
So there's really no good time for this (only less inconvenient times for me). I wanted to discuss the issue that arises in every thread proposal dicussion - proliferation. I think this one issue provokes the most hurt feelings and is avoidable. I suggested in the last Lightbulbs discussion ( Wolfram "Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!" Apr 18, 2008 10:10:30 am PDT ) - the possibility of coming up with a "thread creation threshold" (thanks Kristen) to try and minimize this acrimony.
The problem with the current system is that any proposed thread gets created provided it gets the four seconds, a majority and a quorum. This requires active debating in Lightbulbs over every proposal to ensure only appropriate threads make it through. If we could create guidelines for what those "appropriate" threads might be - even if the guidelines were broad - I think it would significantly cut down on the nature of the debates, narrowing the argument from whether any thread should be created to whether a particular thread fit the guidelines.
Before discussing my thresholding proposal, do we think this is something we should do? Do we think this will be useful, or is this "cure" going to do more damage than the "disease"? Are there other "cures"? Is there really a "disease"?
Vortex - May 09, 2008 6:34:05 am PDT #2702 of 6786
"Cry havoc and let slip the boobs of war!" -- Miracleman
Well, first, I think that we need to identify what (if any) the base issue with proliferation is. Is it bandwith? Is it fractioning of the thread? Something else?
Jon B. - May 09, 2008 6:41:47 am PDT #2703 of 6786
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!
As I've viewed the discussions, the base issue is the way in which people perceive and use the board. Some people worry that having too many threads destroys what they see as our community. Others have difficulty using and enjoying the board if they are forced to have discussions in the more general threads.
Frankenbuddha - May 09, 2008 6:56:37 am PDT #2704 of 6786
"We are the Goon Squad and we're coming to town...Beep! Beep!" - David Bowie, "Fashion"
I think if there are technical reasons against proliferation, they should take precedence over other considerations. So it might be best to determine that first. I know ita has commented on what the limits are, but I totally memfaulting on what they were.
Wolfram - May 09, 2008 7:03:35 am PDT #2705 of 6786
Visilurking
Well, first, I think that we need to identify what (if any) the base issue with proliferation is. Is it bandwith? Is it fractioning of the thread? Something else?
I think it's all those things, and more or less, depending on who's making the argument.
The premise of my proposed solution is that all (or most) antipro's would agree that under certain conditions a thread is warranted despite their base reason(s) for being antipro'. And that all (or most) pro's would agree that under certain conditions a thread is not warranted (or may be subject to closure) despite having no other standing objection to thread creation. The space between these conditions would form the guidelines.
Fred Pete - May 09, 2008 7:35:17 am PDT #2706 of 6786
Ann, that's a ferret.
The proliferation question comes up regularly and seems to get pretty heated -- at least heated enough that a number of people end up with hurt feelings. So I agree that we should explore why people oppose or support thread proliferation and come up with some ideas that will at least reduce hurt feelings.
My mind is completely open as to what the solution might be.