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
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)
childrearing thread
Has the question of whether or not thread proliferation taxes our resources been answered?
Have we had any totally inappropriate thread proposals?
Arguably yes, but I'm not going to single any out. (I may have even proposed one or two myself). The point is, one of the concerns of the antipro' camp is not to open the precedent floodgates to any kind of threads being opened (i.e. cooking thread). This would take some of that pressure off.
