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
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"?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree we need to discuss this one and figure something out.
I agree we need to discuss this one and figure something out.
Before or after we propose the Dollhouse thread?
RUNS AWAY VERY FAST
Seriously though, I'm concerned there's no way to discuss this without this devolving into a meta version of kerfuffles that come up around individual thread proposals, and I'm not sure we'll come any closer to a solution.
I think that it's good to discuss this without a thread proposal on the table, because I think that people's opinions can be biased based on how they feel about the particular thread being proposed.
Since this can be such a heated topic, might it help to have people submit their thoughts on proliferation, in brief bullet points, to a neutral party who would then sum up the basic reasons and post them here without attribution. I mean, we KNOW certain people's stance, but this could get the facts and basic pros and cons on the table without the emotion.
If this could help, I'd be willing to summarize.
