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.

I'm Dana! (I had not aspired.)

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.

How will those be different from the thresholds we already have? You seem to be suggesting that we make it harder to propose a thread, but that if the thread proposal meets this threshold, then people will be forbidden from talking about proliferation issues. I don't see that going over well, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Which is why I love white font. But then we come up against the people who do not love white font

I suspect even if we did create a "threshhold" for thread creation (say that fast three times), we'd still end up in acrimony of this very point. I tend to vote "no pref" when it comes to white font issues, but there are many of us who take firm stances on it and would end up being alienated about a new thread that, while they are enthusiastic about, they couldn't participate in. Do we then go to a strict "white font/black font" rule, too?

You seem to be suggesting that we make it harder to propose a thread, but that if the thread proposal meets this threshold, then people will be forbidden from talking about proliferation issues.

Yes, exactly. From what I've seen (and feel free to prove me wrong) proliferation is an issue that, although relevant, applies fairly equally to every thread regardless of purpose or content. One new thread = one new thread.

I suspect even if we did create a "threshhold" for thread creation (say that fast three times), we'd still end up in acrimony of this very point. I tend to vote "no pref" when it comes to white font issues, but there are many of us who take firm stances on it and would end up being alienated about a new thread that, while they are enthusiastic about, they couldn't participate in. Do we then go to a strict "white font/black font" rule, too?

There are going to be arguments that come up in nearly every thread proposal, and whitefont/blackfont is one of those, but it generally has to do with the content/purpose of the proposed thread and not with the fact of creating the thread. Since it's subjective, a threshold format is not going to work very well. To answer your question, I don't advocate creation of strict fonting rules.

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.

I definitely admire where this is coming from, Wolfram, but I have grave doubts that further "legislation" of the thread creation process, as tempting as it might be, will make things better. I suspect it will actually make things worse.

To answer your question, I don't advocate creation of strict fonting rules.

but, we have them, don't we? Anything aired on tv in the US is fair game.

Personally, when it comes to the spoiler issue, I'd like to have two different terms, one for spoilers as in something that hasn't been aired vs another for spoilers as in something that one particular person hasn't seen. The first is concrete, the second is by definition subjective, and yet it seems to me that the second is the one that seems to interfere most with discussion. I've often been that person who doesn't want to get "spoiled", esp with movies, so I get the frustration, but I also think we should use another term for it or else huge swaths of conversations become verbotten.

Personally, when it comes to the spoiler issue, I'd like to have two different terms, one for spoilers as in something that hasn't been aired vs another for spoilers as in something that one particular person hasn't seen. The first is concrete, the second is by definition subjective, and yet it seems to me that the second is the one that seems to interfere most with discussion.

Especially with bucket threads. If I haven't watched the latest (now three) episodes of Lost, I can easily avoid the thread. That doesn't work so well with Boxed Set where I might want to talk about X, but haven't yet watched Y.

but, we have them, don't we? Anything aired on tv in the US is fair game.

To be more specific, I'm not advocating the creation of a threshold to eliminate spoiler arguments.