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.

I don't know, there were many points that I finally got after the umpteenth restatement in the most recent discussion in Lightbulbs. I think a lot of us already tend to say "well, everyone knows how I stand on this so I won't go into it again" already, and that's fine, but revisiting it is also fine. Ultimately, I think making some topics Things We Don't Talk About will fragment the community more than having the discussions over and over even when tempers flare.

I don't actually disagree with any of what bon said (including the last sentence, which possibly sets us apart from the norm). I do think that we (I) could do better at asking myself before I post whether I'm doing that, or considering whether I need to a) let it go or b) watch the discussion a little longer and see if it's still a needed clarification. I wouldn't suggest anything stronger, certainly.

ETA: because as -t says, sometimes the clarification or restatement is helpful, and there's a loss to the discussion in shutting it down, even aside from the personal.

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.

New shorthand styles for Lightbulbs --

Tivo font: I watch shows after they're aired and don't want to be spoiled.

Spoiler whore font: What's the big deal about spoilers?

Willy nilly font: People should be able to open threads on their own.

Proliferation font: A thread for every show! A chicken in every pot!

Antiproliferation font: More threads = less community

Clarifying my position font: Hey, guys, that's not what I meant at all.

Clarifying someone else's position font: What she really meant was...

someone's feelings get hurt. Is there any way to avoid this?

Well maybe we all need to have slightly thicker skins? The truth is everybody doesn't get along so well, especially around this topic. Perhaps everyone takes it a leeetle too seriously. Perhaps, to that being like, "WHY DOESN'T EVERYONE HEAR WHAT I'M SAYING AND BE APPROPRIATELY SYMPATHETIC OVER CREATING A THREAD?" is a little much.

But, much like bon bon, the long discussion doesn't annoy me overly much. Or if it does, it doesn't hurt my feelings that people don't agree with me.

I think a lot of us already tend to say "well, everyone knows how I stand on this so I won't go into it again" already,

This is why we have voting! I feel X about M issue. I have learned in the 8+ years that emphatic statements about my beliefs don't change most of the opinions of people in lightbulbs and that's fine. I still get to say have a say via voting.

I also realize that the way I use the board is not the way many do. The creation of threads means something different to those people than it does to me. So be it. It doesn't dramatically change the way I personally use the board even if it means I don't post with some people (hi Laura!) as much as I'd like. It also means I don't post with some people who actively make me @@ anymore either.

Which is my way of saying I'm good with the current process. But if we were to change, I'd like to see two open thread creation periods each year and thread creation limited to those times. That means there wouldn't be as frequent discussions.