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.

I ... don't. For many people the argument against Thread X is the proliferation argument -- there are people who would feel the same way about Thread Y or Thread Z, for the same reasons. It would basically cut off a whole segment of the discussion.

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

I'm irritated because the majority of posts in lightbulbs are about the proliferation argument. I feel there are no new points to be made in that regard but if I want to read the posts specifically about the thread being proposed I have to comb through the broader argument to find them. Also I do get a sense of a lot of hurt feelings and it makes me uncomfortable knowing that people feel hurt. One of the main reasons I love it here is because people are compassionate and I hate to watch that break down.

Earlier I said this:

In your scenario (post-threshold), 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.

This is stupid and would never work. Steph (and everyone else) is right, a system that tells anyone what they cannot argue would never work. My above posting actually veered off from what I really was proposing, and after reading everyone's comments I can try to articulate better what a threshold would look like and why I think it would help (and not stifle or censor) discussion.

Back in my lightbulbs post I had suggested crude guidelines like this:

1) There is a demonstrated interest in such a thread; 2) A genuine attempt has been made to have the proposed type discussion in an existing thread, unless incontrovertible proof is offered that such attempt would be futile; 3) Thread has some relation to the overall theme or purpose of the board; and 4) Creation of the thread will not do irreparable harm to some other active thread on the board or to the board in general.

Having a thread meet guidelines like these wouldn't eliminate proliferation arguments, but at least it would help minimize thread proposals and this alone should minimize the need for pro/antipro smackdown in ever thread.

Just to be clear, I think our current voting process works, and I don't advocate changing any of the details. I was also here when we worked a lot of those details out. There are definitely good arguments on both sides to up or down the number of the quorum or seconds, and to eliminate or retain no pref., and because of that, I don't think we're going to be able to change a single detail.

Maybe a threshold is a pipe dream. If the idea of it doesn't gain some kind of traction here, coming up with guidelines never will.

Also I do get a sense of a lot of hurt feelings and it makes me uncomfortable knowing that people feel hurt. One of the main reasons I love it here is because people are compassionate and I hate to watch that break down.

Bureaucracy/Lightbulbs are not antithetical to this board. They are the reason for this board. They are the reason we are still here. I'm sorry you feel hurt because of your impression that people are hurt, but we participate because we want to be a part of making this board, and an appeal for people to stop participating is an appeal for people to stop caring.

There are definitely good arguments on both sides to up or down the number of the quorum or seconds, and to eliminate or retain no pref., and because of that, I don't think we're going to be able to change a single detail.

I actually like the idea of some tinkering here and there, but maybe that's just because I know the larger conflict will never be resolved.

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

Irritated, and in favor of tinkering/streamlining the process. Not hurt, at least not on this end.

I actually like the idea of some tinkering here and there, but maybe that's just because I know the larger conflict will never be resolved.

I'm throwing my hat with the cowgirl.

we already have a system where certain discussions go in certain places. I think it would be great if the proliferation vs. anti proliferation argument stayed in Bureaucracy.