I think a summary might be helpful as a conversation starter that gets all of the rationales on the table. Then the give-and-take of discussion can start without anybody's reasoning getting lost in the shuffle.

The problem is, I doubt there are many people who have pure opinions on one side or the other of the question. I suspect very few of us would support throwing thread creation open so anyone could start a thread on any whim, or would oppose any and every proposed new thread purely on general principles.

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).

That logic is flawed. You make it sound like anything could be voted in if the proposer waits it out. But your sample is biased. Several bad ideas (which, of course, I can't recall right now), have been withdrawn before getting to a vote. And USUALLY, it's only thread ideas that have been percolating for awhile that even make it to Lightbulbs.

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).

This is not really accurate. It doesn't take into account all the threads that are created as multitopic or multishow buckets. Yes, a new thread is created, which is against the anti pro, but it's done with as many topics as possible in one thread which in many ways works for the anti pro.

Let me just step over here and give this horse one more kick.

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.

This is my take on it, too.

But your sample is biased. Several bad ideas (which, of course, I can't recall right now), have been withdrawn before getting to a vote.

Well, that's why I added the caveat of "if the proposer doesn't withdraw it", but I see your point.

And USUALLY, it's only thread ideas that have been percolating for awhile that even make it to Lightbulbs.

Right, usually in bureaublahblah. And then once it gets to Lightbulbs we get the extended dance remix of the same discussion, for the most part.

This is not really accurate. It doesn't take into account all the threads that are created as multitopic or multishow buckets. Yes, a new thread is created, which is against the anti pro, but it's done with as many topics as possible in one thread which in many ways works for the anti pro.

Well that's where you get to the other great buffista cultural divide (at least with regards to TV discussion): spoiler-phobes vs. spoiler-whores (or neutrals).

spoiler-phobes vs. spoiler-whores (or neutrals).

For Spoilerphobes, it also seems like "ability to scan a thread without being spoiled" is a part of it. I, for instance, seem to have this ability. I keep up with Boxed Set, but if I ever start watching Battlestar Galactica, I think the only thing I'll be spoiled for is the Dylan song.

Right, I read reality and have no idea what is going on with Top Chef or AI. Not that I watch those shows, but I scan for the shows I watch and seem not to catch anything else.

Whereas I am not a good scanner, and tend to zoom in on the most spoilery part of something being discussed. Which is why I love white font. But then we come up against the people who do not love white font.

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.

Like Nutty and msbelle, I think we need to deal with the reality that no (or few) minds are going to get changed in this or any other proliferation discussion.

How do we minimize the conflicts? Kristen suggested an "open enrollment" format upthread for new thread proposals. I think guidelines would help, but it would require both sides giving a little bit.

Antipro's will have to agree to some minimum of thread creation where proposals meeting that minimum would not have to contend with debates about proliferation.

Pro's will have to agree to a threshold below which they simply cannot propose a thread. They may even have to agree to a threshold below which an existing thread should get closed. (I think these should be different thresholds, but I may have to give on this too.)

I think it's going to have to be painful compromise on all sides.