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.

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.

I like this idea, at least for an initial discussion. I could help keep things from getting personal. There would probably need to be some sort of announcement about it in Press. If we decide to go that way, I should add.

I thought it was pretty clear from the last lightbulbs that people just flat out disagree with how adding threads affects the board and/or with what makes the board enjoyable.

I think that is why it gets heated - people like adn use the board differently.

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.

Personally, I don't feel comfortable having someone else speak for me in bullet-point form. YMMV.