It seems that the same ideas keep reappearing here that come up in Lightbulbs; it's just that, for now, this discussion hasn't gotten as heated and emotional as Lightbulbs.

The problem, if I understand it, is that discussions about new threads lead to vehement disagreement between those who prefer to keep new threads to a bare minimum and those who think this board should expand whenever the desire for expansion is expressed.

Many people don't like that this disagreement keeps happening, and want to know how to prevent/ameliorate it.

Is that a fair assessment of the issue?

The only way to prevent this disagreement is -- yes, it's simplistic -- to get everyone to agree.

And that's never going to happen. I'm not trying to be pessimistic, but I'm not sure what people think can be done to prevent this disagreement, or why people even think it's necessary to prevent it. No one is trying to prevent disagreement about the *topic/content* of any proposed new thread, right? So why is it necessary to prevent people from disagreeing about the need for new threads in general?

If there were some way to distill each side (including content and prolif stances)

That's a pretty big "if." As much as it sometimed seems like there are two (or three) sides to this argument, I doubt anyone could effectively summarize them without triggering a cascade of "well, kind of, BUT...." posts taking us right back to where we started.

meara, I think more people are skipping the whole thread and voting than reading the whole thread and voting, so I doubt it's just you.

I don't know. Maybe we could just up the quorum, eliminate no pref, and skip the whole discussion stage and wind up with about the same effect we have now with fewer hard feelings.

It seems to me a perfectly reasonable proposition, though, to ask that certain discussion take place in specified times and places.

Again, if someone's objection to a new thread is not because of the topic, but because they think that new threads contribute to sprawl, which they see as detrimental to the community, then proscribing what discussion can take place is a de facto silencing of the anti-proliferation faction.

What they have said; I don't view this request as anything other than anti-proliferation buffistas should shut it.

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.

This too.

It seems counter-intuitive to argue that the way to make these discussions less heated is to force people to argue specifically against threads and proposals, rather on the grounds of general policy. I can say I don't want your thread because I don't want new threads. Or I can say I don't want your thread because I don't like you and what you're into. Which one is more likely to be taken personally?

What they have said; I don't view this request as anything other than anti-proliferation buffistas should shut it.

As someone who pretty much always lands on the opposite side of most anti-proliferation arguments, I again say I am absolutely opposed to any kind of limitation of what can be discussed in Lightbulbs or how threads can be debated pro or con.

I don't know. Maybe we could just up the quorum, eliminate no pref, and skip the whole discussion stage and wind up with about the same effect we have now with fewer hard feelings.

That's an idea I can get behind. While I often end up reading all of Lightbulbs out of the sheer, "ooh, a car wreck, let me slow down and look", effect, I can't say it's ever changed my mind on how I was going to vote. The big reason I like the idea of skipping the discussion stage is to eliminate the hurt feelings and acrimony. It's painful to watch, even from the outside. Can the discussion, have two enrollment periods a year and a solid "the thread doesn't work, close the thread, long live the thread in our archives," policy.

Fuck a duck, I just lost A well reasoned and long post....

let me sum up...

what if each vote had a volunteer facilitator to help guide the discussion in a productive direction and sum up the arguments? Not a moderator but a guide actively and unemotionally trying to suss out what people are saying.

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.

This would be awsome!

It is sometimes helpful to remember that you don't have to argue your position during the entire discussion period. That time is there to allow those who can't check in every day a chance to catch up and weigh in.

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.

Would network instead of day of week be better?

I still feel like that's akin to alphabetizing the kitchen. It's organized, but impossible to use.

I think the process works as it. Yes, sometimes people get worked up. I think that has to do more with personalities and people feeling passionately about some issues than the process itself. I don't see any procedural changes ever changing that.

I'm confused.

Are people's feelings really hurt by not getting their way, on either side?

Or are people irritated, annoyed or other wise irked but not hurt?

Are we worried about people arguing because we don't like conflict?

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.

I think this is a great idea.