Let's do that then, on Mr Poll or something that can remain anon.

Let's just try to clarify two things:

1. Board useage.

2. TV thread preferences.

So where are we doing this? I think this could be really valuable, but it's ultimately going to depend on how many people answer the questions.

The only thing, Sean, is that even with us paying more now, there is always an upper limit to our resources. What has been proven is that if we thread it, we will talk. Increasing the number of threads has never resulted in fewer overall posts. So it's not an infinite number of threads we can support, technically or practically.

We've made some fairly profound changes in the past based on discussions here.

I'm arguing that now is an appropriate time to look beyond this particular vote and get some framework on how we will handle these issues going forward.

Thanks for your explanation, David. The above two comments make it much easier to explain what I'm confused about. To the best of my knowledge, please correct me if I'm wrong, these changes that were made by discussions here are what prompted the voting procedure to begin with, no? Because people were upset by a bullshit consensus? I guess what my question is, is that whatever information this poll and discussion gives us about how thing should be handled going forward, wouldn't that decision have to be put to a vote as well?

Increasing the number of threads has never resulted in fewer overall posts.

Is this actually true? It seems that folks are saying the increasing the threads is sapping posts out of other threads. Do we have any data on what our overall board posting patterns have been lately?

We can set it up on Mr. Poll.

Let's do board useage then.

Let's think about what questions give us the most useful answers.

Maybe just start with very clear and distinct questions that don't create more fuzziness.

1. I read B.org:
a - several times a day
b - at least once a day
c. - several times a week
d. - at least once a week
e. - less than once a week
f. - less than once a month

2. I post on B.org:
same list.

Continue in that vein or some other set up?

Well, in order to save what bandwith we can, what if we did like we did for Supernatural (but with less making people feel bad, *smooches to my SPN peeps*) -- start bucket threads, but if the discussion of one (or more) shows gets overwhelming or takes over, then someone can nominate the show for spinoff. Essentially, if the show shows (ha) that it can handle its own thread, it gets one.

I'm kind of confused now. I see people stating that what the majority of people may or may not want isn't necessarily what's best for the board. But who gets to decide what's best for the board if not the majority?

To me, it's like voting for anything. What if neither of my choices are appealing?

We've had the debate over a big TV bucket thread before in different variations. It's been voted down before. Maybe it will be again. But simply deciding "no thread" hasn't solved the problem of how to handle TV talk. It just delays it for a little while until someone proposes the TV show thread again.

IMHO, the best outcome to this current conversation would be not only finding some middle ground but also not having this particular conversation again in a year or two.

To the best of my knowledge, please correct me if I'm wrong, these changes that were made by discussions here are what prompted the voting procedure to begin with, no?

Correct.

Because people were upset by a bullshit consensus?

Not everybody was upset. There was a general sense that the debate did not always reflect the common will.

I guess what my question is, is that whatever information this poll and discussion gives us about how thing should be handled going forward, wouldn't that decision have to be put to a vote as well?

It could go to a vote, but what I really want to do is for everybody who reads this to come away with a better sense of where our common center is, exactly. I don't think the thread votes reflect a common center anymore, the same way that the bullshit consensus sometimes muddied the waters.

If we only vote on individual threads we aren't really looking at the bigger picture. Oftentimes it amounts to: whether I want it or not, those people want to discuss that subject and we can afford the bandwidth so I vote yes. We're just up-or-down on that issue. But if we spend a little time on this discussion we might have a better sense of whether that approach is causing some damage.

but also not having this particular conversation again in a year or two.

That's the best part of voting! Shutting the Fuck Up.