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.

I think a lot of hurt feelings could be spared if we simply limited new thread discussion to the pros and cons of the thread being proposed without making every new thread proposal about the larger issue of whether proliferatrion is good or bad.

So, antipro people should just not talk about their position? I don't see that being very well received.

Thinking about this, if we are going to find some sort of criteria for creating a new thread, it would have to be something with a higher threshold than what we have now, but still lets some thread through. But I think the antipro people oppose mot new threads on principle.

So I'm not sure what the new criteria could be, although I like the idea quite a bit.

eta: Perhaps a maximum number of threads? Any new thread requires we get rid of an old one? (although that has the potential to piss off two groups - those losing their thread and the antipro group.) But I do think any criteria has to be independent of the thread topic.

I think a lot of hurt feelings could be spared if we simply limited new thread discussion to the pros and cons of the thread being proposed without making every new thread proposal about the larger issue of whether proliferatrion is good or bad.

People can be opposed to a new thread for structural, rather than content reasons. That is, Buffista A might like the idea of a politics thread, but it's more important to them to limit board sprawl, so Buffista A is willing to sacrifice having another new thread — even one that they *like* the idea of — in favor of what they see as the needs of the community as a whole.

If discussion is limited to "you can only discuss this thread and its contents; you cannot discuss how this thread might fit into the larger context of b.org," then you've just created a situation where someone who opposes a new thread because of structural reasons is not allowed to say so.

So Buffista A can say "I like the idea of a politics thread because I am interested in politics," which would give a false impression that Buffista A thinks that creating a new thread is a good idea, or Buffista A can stay silent, which isn't fair either. Or Buffista A can say "I don't like the proposed thread, but I'm not allowed to say why," which is ridiculous.