the proliferation discussion is no different (aside from possibly its endurance) than many other things the board and the people on it (and that group changes over time, trust on that) discuss that gets heated. Compassion is not breaking down.

I am so confused by this whole emotional framing of discussion basically about "can't we all just get along". Probably not, to be honest. But what we discuss here and decisions we make here are not life and death and as I know I have said before, I doubt anyone's life would be the worse for taking extended time way from the board. perspective.

Or is, you know, the definition of proliferation.

Which is exactly why requests for making it verboten during discussions of same confuse me. Unless it was a request for splitting the discussion into two locations, which confuses me for different reasons.

Site going down in seven, peeps.

I think the difference is that there is no new way to frame the argument. People who feel strongly one way or the other shall never be swayed.

see also: cilantro, muffalettos (sp?), fork holding, seatbelts, quality of various seasons of Buffy, allowing new people to register, voting (see also preferential)......

Can I request a hold on all those topics for the next decade, por favor.

I think the difference is that there is no new way to frame the argument.

That doesn't really matter, though.

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but even if there's no new way to frame the anti-proliferation position, that doesn't mean that the anti-proliferationistas should be forbidden from discussing it, or shunted into a non-related thread just because some people don't like that discussion.

Count me as opposed to limits on discussion. On the specific issue of thread proliferation, I think limiting discussion would carry a systemic bias against the anti-lifs. More generally, whether or not it sometimes seems futile to some people, we've opted for open discussion to allow any relevant points or positions to be aired, and I think it's too hard to prejudge what's relevant to a particular issue.

I also think that it's a shame that the discussion generates acrimony, but I feel that since we decide things with voting system that treats all users equally, we probably can't completely avoid that.

Oh was that an opening for tiered or weighted voting? Let's discuss that.

Or preferential voting?

I think I am okay with preferential voting now.

Just to weigh in on the proliferation argument for a second - when the Gaming thread was proposed, there was a long disagreement about how splitting gaming off into another topic divides the community.

Here's what's happened for me - I've met new people on the site I've never spoken to before, I've got a few of them on my Xbox Live account now, and we actually chat and play games. It's added to the community experience I've had here. Really.

Oh was that an opening for tiered or weighted voting? Let's discuss that.

Hee. No, I'm good with the voting system we have. I think we have too many people here for bullshit consensus to be workable, but not so many we'd need any sort of representative system.

I think I am okay with preferential voting now.

Walk towards the light!