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!

I could start the Why Teppy Sucks thread!

(sorry, couldn't resist)

WRT raising the number required to pass. I know we have over 1500 registered users but many of them don't seem to post much. I'd be curious to know how many people vote. Is there a general number or does it vary widely. Because say the vote is generally somewhere around 100. We could raise to "required to pass" number to 50, or 70, or whatever we all feel is right. That would require more agreement before a new thread is created.

I think I am okay with preferential voting now.

Who are you and what did you do with Kat?!

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.

I appreciate the effort to come up with a new threshold for thread creation, but all of these conditions seem awfully subjective to me. They are the sorts of subjective questions that already get asked and discussed in Lightbulbs. So I'm not sure how adopting these conditions will change anything.

I guess, like Jon, the quoted conditions seem to objective which is why my mind went to a numbers place.

I'd be curious to know how many people vote. Is there a general number or does it vary widely.

I just went back through Press announcements and the number of votes cast in some past votes (there should be a separate word for this) were: 65, 77, 93, 92, 59, 69, 49.