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.

Yeah, I'm not sure I see the point in summarizing the basic pro/anti stance. I know what the position opposite mine is; and I think I understand where it is coming from; and I like to think I give it the time of day. But that doesn't mean people who hold that stance don't want to explain it, just as I want to explain mine.

There's something basic and human about "But if I tell you all over again, this time you'll find my argument convincing!!" that attempting to short-circuit would probably not be effective, and would probably contribute to, rather than ameliorate, tension.

I thought it was pretty clear from the last lightbulbs that people just flat out disagree

I'm with msbelle. No explanation in the world will overcome that disagreement; if we're to deal with it, I think we would be dealing with methods for accommodating disagreement.

Gotcha, we are a talky-meat group.

One of the biggest problems I can see with the current process is that, as hard to believe as it may seem for the pro-proliferation side, once the thread proposal has gotten the prerequisite seconds, the process favors the creation of the thread. As long as the proposer doesn't withdraw it, all those who want the thread generally have to do is wait out the discussion, as we've voted in far more threads than we've voted down (as far as I can recall).

I feel I should add that this favors my pro tendencies, but that doesn't make me feel very good about alienating a substantial chunk of the board, at least during new thread creation discussions.