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."

I am Jessica wrt hurt feelings.

I hope that feelings haven't been hurt because I do care very much about the people here. Any attempt to suppress expression of our thoughts on any subject doesn't seem very Buffista possible or desirable. It would be helpful when we are discussing the tender subjects to keep non-personal. Perhaps avoiding quotes of offending posts in responses.

Laura method: I read the first few posts in Lightbulbs to see what the issue is, then skip it until the last day to see the final arguments. The conflict avoidance gene is strong. When I read sharp, bitchy, even nasty posts, in any thread I either shrug it off as normal for bitchy!pants!buffista, or sometimes I am concerned that usually!sane!pants!buffista is having a bad day. I ignore the Evil posts because of said conflict avoidance gene.

As circular and tiresome as the anti-proliferation ~ pro shiny new thread discussions may be, it is that process or appointing a thread czar. Who wants that job? Discuss and vote. That's what we do. (ok, I could be Thread Czar, I would be fair and unbiased, really. Also, bribes gratefully accepted.)

appointing a thread czar. Who wants that job?

Oh, I imagine a HELL of a lot of people would like it. Imagine being able to quash discussions that you don't like! Hec would never have to read about cats again! Allyson could banish the very word "cilantro"! Theo could burninate any mention of Julia Roberts!