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!

For the record, and for people who don't remember, I would like to recall all your minds to the fact that, before we had Light Bulbs, we routinely hurt each other's feelings in Bureaucracy! And when Light Bulbs is inactive, but we're discussing a contentious issue? Hurt feelings in Bureaucracy!

So attempting to re-locate an argument doesn't actually make the argument lesser or less disruptive. I very strongly suspect that the vast majority of people who read Light Bulbs also read Bureaucracy anyway, so splitting any argument between them just means more opportunity for confusion.

And confusion never impedes an argument.

Now, off to figure out what the hell CSS is and why my screen looks all funny.

Just as a data point, I've been extremely frustrated in here and in Lightbulbs, but I can genuinely say I've never had my "feelings hurt."