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.

See this helps clarify what guidelines could be. In your scenario (post-threshold), Buffista A would be free to argue that the contents or purpose of the thread are not a good contextual fit within b.org. They simply could not argue that b.org should not add the thread because they are against adding threads on principle.

Buffista A would also be free to vote (and say she's voting) against the thead for antipro' reasons. It just wouldn't be fiar game to debate it.

As the sky goes dark, so do I. I'll be around Sat. nite.

I think, generally, that telling a Buffista, "No you may not argue on this topic" is a proposition doomed to lose any way you slice it. Talky meat will find a way! Even if talky meat ends up substituting the codeword "left-handed fork" to mean "politics."

In general, when developing legislation, I prefer to legislate with the tendencies of human nature rather than against.

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.

Concur. I don't have a good name for the "it's aired but I haven't seen it yet" phenomenon -- I don't think we ever named it, back when 99% of the board watched Buffy and the west coast all unsubbed from the thread at 5pm their time -- but it's not the same thing as "not yet aired." They can end up acting the same way (and I think the verbal confusion began because of several shows in a row that aired in Britain/Canada weeks before the US, which were widely ahemmed), but at base they are not the same thing.