Each time a new thread is proposed the argument of left handed vs. right handed forks escalates until someone's feelings get hurt. Is there any way to avoid this?

And the path to enlightenment is a long and difficult one, but someday we shall achieve nirvana Spork.

What's a Spork? - Spydaddy

My favorite thing about b.org is how well everybody gets along. I hate it when that breaks down and I'm wishing there was a way to avoid it.

Zany humor is the best way I know how. Did you ever hear the story about how my butt is made out of cottage cheese?

does your butt go well with peaches?

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.

(I just got home from Eddie Izzard, or I would have addressed this earlier.)

Wolfram, your interpretation/extrapolation of my example is definitely NOT what I meant. What I mean, in plainer terms, is that some people are against new threads for reasons that have nothing to do with the thread topic. Laga's suggestion was that people could only debate the merits of the thread topic, and I was trying to point out that that doesn't work in this scenario.

Each time a new thread is proposed the argument of left handed vs. right handed forks escalates until someone's feelings get hurt. Is there any way to avoid this?

I don't mean to sound like a Bitter Old Buffista Islander(TM), but -- no. There isn't really any way to avoid it.

That's not meant to be snark; just observation from 8-ish years of these discussions.

Yes, but how was Eddie Izzard?

He was awesome when I saw him last Monday.

t /natter

I think the best we can do in these circumstances might be a gentleman's agreement to try and avoid the kind of "but let me explain my position again" thing that Nutty (?) brought up. I don't think we can legislate that, and certainly not through banning certain arguments or telling people to come up with side arguments about content when that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it.

Generally speaking, I'm in agreement with Sean that there's a fair bit of weeding that goes on before we ever get to the Lightbulbs point, and that's a good thing. If we think we need a structural fix for this, I'd rather work on that side of things than Lightbulbs. How do we make the vetting process tougher? More seconds for a new thread idea? Urging (but not mandating) that people think harder about flipping out seconds? Dunno.

I don't see how thresholds for creation/maintaining would work since threads are so different. But I haven't really thought it through, either. I'd love to see this discussion turn more to specifics (what thresholds, for what kind of threads, what open season period and how would it work, etc.) rather than trying to fix something that at bottom isn't fixable.

Maybe we can voluntarily put the "but let me explain my position again" points in tiny font or pale green font to make skipping easier. It would make me giggle instead of cry each time it happens.

I think the best we can do in these circumstances might be a gentleman's agreement to try and avoid the kind of "but let me explain my position again" thing that Nutty (?) brought up. I don't think we can legislate that, and certainly not through banning certain arguments or telling people to come up with side arguments about content when that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it.

The problem I have with this in theory is one of perspective. Say you and I are on opposite sides of a proposal. Whenever I try to explain my opposition, your response indicates to me that you don't really understand what I'm trying to say. So I try to explain it better or restate it in a more persuasive way. But from your perspective I'm just saying the same things over and over again. You point out that I'm violating the gentlemen's agreement, which implies that I'm arguing in bad faith or just being annoying by trying to convince you. That would annoy me a lot and just lead to more hurt feelings.

Said in a different way, I think it's pretty likely that if person Z thinks person A is saying the same things over and over, it's because they oppose person A. And I don't want to give person Z the power to shut up person A.

Maybe I'm one of the people who says the same things over and over again. But I'm a big believer in the idea that the words you choose have a big impact on the persuasiveness of the message, and I've tried to say it in different ways. And it doesn't seem unjustified, to me-- lots of people posted "I just don't understand the non-proliferationist position" in the gaming discussion, or made claims about the position that were not true. On the other hand, the fact that there's a long, robust voting discussion doesn't bother or annoy me, personally.