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.
I seem to recall that the day thread idea has come up before. Am I wrong?
The main problem I see with a day-of-the-week TV thread is that those of us with DVRs often have no idea what day of the week our shows actually air on. (I dimly remember a network-based-TV-threads idea from a ways back that bumped up against the same problem.)
It seems to me a perfectly reasonable proposition, though, to ask that certain discussion take place in specified times and places.
It seems to me to be unreasonable to shut down a relevant (and, in my opinion, valuable) aspect of the thread-creation discussion simply because some people disagree with it or are tired of hearing it.
I am curious what percentage of voters actually bother to read lightbulbs at all. If I could be high overlord, I would make reading the whole thread of arguments and submitting a thumbnail summary a prereq for being able to vote at all. But that is just me.
I seem to recall that the day thread idea has come up before. Am I wrong?
It has. Objections as I recall included the Tivo issue, lack of commonality between shows, and holy crap seven new threads. Also, it doesn't really help the spoiler issues that much. At the time, we weren't discussing these as substitutes but rather additions to existing threads, and ended up going the thematic/network buckets instead. IIRC. Which I'm pretty sure I do since the idea of closing the existing tv threads all together would probably have left deep emotional scar all over the place.
I'm not saying don't discuss it or that it doesn't have merit at all, just trying to remember how we turned away from that idea before.
The main problem I see with a day-of-the-week TV thread is that those of us with DVRs often have no idea what day of the week our shows actually air on
Both of my DVR's list which day they were recorded. But, maybe this could be alleviated with in the thread description "Discussion of Thursday TV shows. This includes CSI, Survivor, Smallville, Office, My Name Is Earl, ER, Supernatural, and others". I think once you get in the habit, you'll remember which show is on which day.
Would network instead of day of week be better? Seems there are far too many of those with cable channels and all.
Again, just brainstorming here. Trying to find a middle ground. I am *not* dug in on this idea. Happy to jump on bandwagon for other ideas. Just thought if we have smaller buckets, there is less likely for solo show threads being proposed. Then a higher bar to add solo show threads. For non-show threads (like Gaming) same old standard would be in effect.
The delayed viewing issue is compounded not only by people watching on DVR-delay, but waiting for shows to come out on DVD (right?). So there's essentially no way to guarantee that a thread that includes more than one show will make every single person happy.
Of course, I don't believe there is a solution at all that will make every single person happy. In truth, I think that, even though it's even less likely to happen than reducing discussion, the thing that would help is not taking these discussions personally. Not to diminish the importance of this board, or the community, but come ON, people. I genuinely don't understand why people can't disagree without hurt feelings.
No idea how this would work, but just an idea. What if we did that thing like they do prior to real voting in which an issue is presented neutrally and then there is a single pro and a single con argument for it? If there were some way to distill each side (including content and prolif stances) so that just one statement for each side appeared rather than a back and forth for days on end. Again, no idea how or if this would work, but throwing it out there.
Glam, we used to do it more like that, and I do think it's a better way, but it does require someone (the proposer, or, at the time, a saint like Sophia) to put a lot of time and effort into synthesizing the various arguments and vetting them in the thread over and over.
