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.

The one change I would like would be a higher threshhold for a vote to pass - 42 seems like a very low number considering that we have over 1500 registered members. (Lurkers still vote, after all.)

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

ok. I have an idea here. First, let me apologize to the anti-prolif's, you will see why. Second, I hope that it creates discussion and everyone is free to talk about it. Call me wacky, but I learned from a young age Freedom of Speech, and I think it should rule here as well. Let me also apologize in advance for over-simplification of the past.

The board started (as I understand it, as I'm one of those Johnny-come-later dudes) as a spot to talk about a favorite show. Then those cool group of people realized they like other shows in common too. The board grew. Then TiVo came along, and peoples lives grew busy and started watching shows after they aired. White font was deployed somewhere in there to be polite to those who have not watched yet. (Ok, I have no clue the order on all that, like I said, sorry for over simplification). By the time I have arrived, I see bucket threads for shows. Huge buckets. So if I want to talk about BSG, it's lumped in with I dunno how many other shows. If work has kept me at bay, and I only watched BSG this week, I'm hearing discussion about all the other shows while scanning for BSG. As a result, I don't subscribe to ANY bucket threads. My choice, yes, I understand. But I do not think I am alone in this.

What I propose is (and here comes the apology to the Right Handed Forkers) what if we have (7) TV Time threads. One for each day of the week. And then, if a show survives more than each year or TV season or time frame to be decided on by the hive mind, we vote to see if any of show gets its own thread. Since (7) have already been created, new TV SHOW threads need a 2/3rds majority and not 50%+1. Maybe precede that vote with a "which shows should we vote for making their own thread" with the top 2 getting the nod, each with it's own election to get the 2/3rds. Also, at this "open enrollment" time, we trim the fat, so to speak. We vote to close any dormant threads. Maybe say it needs a 2/3rds "Bye Bye" to close it ???

So it sets up a smaller bucket for general show discussion. It makes it harder to get additional show solo threads, and sets up a trimming the fat. Just an idea. I realize the 7 day thing will be difficult, as some locals might air a show on a different day, but, no proposal will be perfect. But if I'm working late on tuesday, or, get lucky enough to have a date on friday, I can avoid THAT thread, but still read on Thursday and talk about Smallville (ya, I know, why am I still watching that).

Just a brainstorm. It came to me in the early morning, so be kind as you rip it to shreds.

The one change I would like would be a higher threshhold for a vote to pass - 42 seems like a very low number considering that we have over 1500 registered members. (Lurkers still vote, after all.)

Just the quorum number, yes? Not a bad idea, but where to refix it? Have we ever come close to not making it? If we refix it, do we set the quorum closer but below our lowest historical "turnout" number? Do we set it somewhere that some previous votes would not have succeeded? How big is that window?

(These questions are not at you, specifically, Jess, just the questions that are occurring to me)

We have over 1,500 registered users, but somewhere between 100 and 200 active posters. Any guess as to the true number of "active" lurkers is absolutely blind.

What I propose is (and here comes the apology to the Right Handed Forkers) what if we have (7) TV Time threads. One for each day of the week. And then, if a show survives more than each year or TV season or time frame to be decided on by the hive mind, we vote to see if any of show gets its own thread. Since (7) have already been created, new TV SHOW threads need a 2/3rds majority and not 50%+1. Maybe precede that vote with a "which shows should we vote for making their own thread" with the top 2 getting the nod, each with it's own election to get the 2/3rds. Also, at this "open enrollment" time, we trim the fat, so to speak. We vote to close any dormant threads. Maybe say it needs a 2/3rds "Bye Bye" to close it ???

Iiiiiiiinteresting. Not sure how well it's going to fly, but it's a decent suggestion for discussion.

Also, I'm generally okay with the idea that Kristen brought up about open enrollment, but I do also share Jon's suspicion that we'd have problems sticking to a schedule of any kind.

Omnis, I love you, but that proposal makes me head hurt. We're conflicted enough about TV posting as it is, and I don't think trying to abolish current TV threads in order to have day of the week buckets is going to help anything.

I'd like to go back to Wolfram's additional idea, which I understand as basically agreeing to disagree on the proliferation issue and, with some sort of mechanism to take it into account, agreeing not to discuss it during thread discussions.

It was mentioned that it was impossible for Buffistas not to talk about anything, so this wouldn't work.

People can decide that they don't want to do this, but I think evidence shows that Buffistas can decide not to talk about all sorts of things in all sorts of contexts and to follow that decision. We have decided not to talk about certain shows in certain threads at certain times. We have decided to stop talking in Bureaucracy at the end of four days and vote. We have decided that if a thread is voted down, we won't bring it up again for six months. And we have decided that crafts and soaps are discussed in Minearverse. Sure, we don't follow any of our rules perfectly, but I think we do pretty well.

I agree that not discussing any topic ever, anywhere, would be difficult and probably not desired. It seems to me a perfectly reasonable proposition, though, to ask that certain discussion take place in specified times and places. Perhaps, for example, when the thread discussion moves to Lightbulbs, the proliferation discussion could remain in Bureaucracy, or could move to some other predetermined thread.

As a side note, I would be completely against raising the bar for new threads unless it came with some mechanism to avoid the proliferation (spork!) issue during thread discussions.

I understand the desire for each side to convince the other, but it seems to me that each side is well and truly entrenched and, much as I wish it were different, no amount of rephrasing is going to change anyone's mind. I, like some others, find that it's hard not to take it personally when there's a thread I really want, and others are saying no for a reason that seems to me to be "just because." I also have seen in the most recent discussion, when I had a position but wasn't really emotionally involved, how anti-proliferationistas also were hurt when their strongly felt opinions were dismissed as not real reasons. So, this is a long way of saying that I think that anything we can do to minimize this real hurt for many on both sides would be good.

I'm kind of intrigued by omnis's idea, too, but I think I need to mull it over a bit.

Kristin, no worries. Just an idea. If it helps spur other ideas off of it, thats what brainstorming is about. Again, it came to me early in the morning, and my brain isn't used to that hour yet.