This is purely out of curiosity. And I realize it sounds a bit "big brother"ly. It's been raised a few times of "we have x number of members but only y number post on a regular basis". Is there a way Stompies could look at stats of some sort? Sort the member list by visits and posts? I say visits too for those that merely lurk. No clue if it's possible to look at those stats if they aren't somehow already built into the profile to collect. But an idea. Again, out of curiosity. But those figures could help set a bar for voting. Say 10%.?.?

I don't know if this is overstepping the bounds of anonymity, but from counting votes, there are hardly ever names I do not recognize as either current posters, people who used to post, or people who donated back in the day when we first built this board.

Not so surprising that a small percentage of users post and/or vote. There have always been a few unknown names when I vote counted, but the overwhelming majority were the active posters.

No clue how many active lurkers we have. No clue how many people registered then fled to the hills. There is a core of active users and voters. We make the decisions. We voted that 42 was the number of votes needed for a real vote.

It is likely that some users think it is too easy to take issues to vote, and that some think it is too hard. I thought that we hashed this all out when we went through the huge effort of creating our voting process. I'm not quite ready to go through it again, but I am in the camp that thinks our system works well enough.

We have seen lists of recent or active posters before, although maybe it was just in particular threads?

I'm willing to bet money that a vast majority of the people who vote are active members, and that low count votes are when people don't really care about the issues enough to vote, or they're unsure which way to vote. Let's face it - if you don't care about Gaming, I doubt many people would have waded through the several hundreds of posts in Lightbulbs about it.

Actually, the Games Thread vote had 93 votes, at the top of the range.

If I was a gambling man I'd totally be broke. Doh!

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 think it would crystallize discussion, and prevent totally inappropriate threads from getting proposed. I think this would result in less rancor in light bulbs, and take away some of the antipro' concerns - the creation of inappropriate or unnecessary threads. Other than that, it's not going to make a big difference.

Just to reiterate, I don't think any discussion on any topic or from any perspective should be shut down, relocated, censored, stifled, dissuaded, discouraged, or disallowed at all. Tone should be moderated as appropriate.

Have we had any totally inappropriate thread proposals?

Have we had any totally inappropriate thread proposals?

We could try! We have had ideas that never went to light bulbs. The notion of general tv and politics have been rejected. If a thread proposal didn't have wide support here it didn't make it to LightBulbs. I'm sure there are other examples, but too busy to look for them.

Sports thread! (kidding)