Handsome brooding vampire guy has to swoop in all sensitive mouth and overhanging forehead. How 'bout leaving some scraps for the homely-looking fellows who don't turn evil when they get some?

Doyle ,'Life of the Party'


Bureaucracy 4: Like Job. No, really, just like Job

A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.

Current Stompy Feet: Jon B, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych, msbelle, shrift, Dana, Laura

Stompy Emerita: ita, DXMachina


msbelle - May 10, 2008 7:59:37 pm PDT #2806 of 6786
I remember the crazy days. 500 posts an hour. Nubmer! Natgbsb

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.


Steph L. - May 10, 2008 8:01:04 pm PDT #2807 of 6786
I look more rad than Lutheranism

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.


billytea - May 10, 2008 8:04:56 pm PDT #2808 of 6786
You were a wrong baby who grew up wrong. The wrong kind of wrong. It's better you hear it from a friend.

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.


msbelle - May 10, 2008 8:27:12 pm PDT #2809 of 6786
I remember the crazy days. 500 posts an hour. Nubmer! Natgbsb

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


Kat - May 10, 2008 8:38:39 pm PDT #2810 of 6786
"I keep to a strict diet of ill-advised enthusiasm and heartfelt regret." Leigh Bardugo

Or preferential voting?

I think I am okay with preferential voting now.


Kevin - May 11, 2008 1:55:35 am PDT #2811 of 6786
Never fall in love with somebody you actually love.

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.


billytea - May 11, 2008 3:07:47 am PDT #2812 of 6786
You were a wrong baby who grew up wrong. The wrong kind of wrong. It's better you hear it from a friend.

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!


Nutty - May 11, 2008 3:50:18 am PDT #2813 of 6786
"Mister Spock is on his fanny, sir. Reports heavy damage."

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.


Jessica - May 11, 2008 4:45:07 am PDT #2814 of 6786
And then Ortus came and said "It's Ortin' time" and they all Orted off into the sunset

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."


msbelle - May 11, 2008 5:16:28 am PDT #2815 of 6786
I remember the crazy days. 500 posts an hour. Nubmer! Natgbsb

I am Jessica wrt hurt feelings.