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.

Has the question of whether or not thread proliferation taxes our resources been answered?

Numerous times, and it's always an unequivocal yes.

Ahh OK. I must have missed it numerous times.

Sorry, sorry, I meant numerous times in the history of the proliferation discussion going back at least 5 years - not since you asked the question. That totally came out wrong.

I may be a bit late with this, but I wanted to address this comment:

I think the difference is that there is no new way to frame the argument. People who feel strongly one way or the other shall never be swayed.

I disagree. It seems to me that the pro/antipro argument is slightly different for each new thread under discussion. Sure, it's the same issues at bottom, but they affect each new proposed thread in different ways, depending on the proposed topic, how closely it relates to the "mission" of the board, whether or not it already gets some discussion in other threads, how much discussion, etc.

What I mean by that is, let's say I propose a thread to discuss what we're all eating for lunch today. The antipro argument would be that people already discuss that topic in Natter quite often, and thus taking that discussion out of Natter and giving it its own thread would contribute quite significantly to community fragmentation. The pros could argue that sometimes people just want to talk about what they're eating for lunch, without having to wade through discussions about cats and kids and whatever else.

If I proposed a thread to discuss, say, product recalls, the antipro people could again argue that the topic already gets discussed in Natter, and sometimes mentioned in Press as well, and thus another thread would simply contribute to more community fragmentation. But the pro side might argue that discussion of product recalls is less central to the overall tone and content of Natter, and people who skim or don't read Natter might benefit from having information on product recalls in a separate, smaller thread.

Same argument at base, but the specifics of each case are different enough that there's still plenty to discuss on each side.