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.

I am laughing a little, because one of the reasons behind voting was to eliminate this very same argument. and we can see how well that worked...

also, I think maybe Pete Wentz blogs from a qwerty phone while wearing false nails, because capitalization and spelling are difficult .

On another topic--I want to change over the code to the css version this weekend. Other than the hour or so downtime, this shouldn't have much impact on the day to day experience of the site, until people want to explore what it means.

So what does it mean? It means that tables are out, and cascading style sheets are in. Not a moment too soon, either. And you can put in your own styles. I just changed my main font from Arial Narrow to Calibri (don't think I'll stick with it, though), and I don't display images or quotes. You can choose to have spoilers visible, although I wouldn't recommend making them normal black, because you're more likely to spoil the more cautious that way.

I don't think we should necessarily offer a tutorial in CSS (although if anyone's willing to step up, that would be magic), but if you do know any CSS it would be good to provide a document that shows how you can go from this to this all on your own.

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."

I propose that from now on, the word "proliferation" be replaced in all instances with "left-handed fork."

Antiproliferationistas will hence forth be known as The Right-Handed Fork Brigade, and spoilerphobes shall be called The People Of The Spoon.

But in all seriousness, I think this:

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.

Is a truly terrible idea. I'll argue my points based on whatever principles I damn well please, thank you very much.

Also, yay css! ita, I'd say schedule it on your own time and don't worry about the rest of us. We'll survive for an hour.

What about those of us who hold our forks with the left AND don't love the prolif? Huh? YOU'RE OPPRESSING ME!!

Other than that, what Jess said, up to and including the yay css.