it's ultimately going to depend on how many people answer the questions.

To that end, I suggest we not put up any polls over a weekend, that we put announcements in threads like music, lit'ry, movies, astounishing--threads that are the only place some people post, to make sure as many people as possible see what we're trying to do.

I'm really excited about polling and finding out some useage information from as many people as possible.

During the recent discussions in Lightbulbs, about the SPN thread and the Drama bucket thread, this was the thing I kept running up against and wasn't able to articulate, what David's getting at, what Denise asked about when she asked "the majority doesn't decide?"

I think, and I acknowledge I may be wrong, that in many cases, people are so frustrated not being able to use the board the way it would work for them, they're ready to make changes simply to get closer to what they want. Or they see a chance to have a thread about a show they're interested in and they vote for that. Nothing actually wrong with that.

But rather than propose, discuss, vote on thread after thread just because that's the way we've done it, this is a chance to examine what each of us, all of us, want from this board. To define it, to reshape it, since the shape it was originally given is no longer working optimally. I think it's worth taking our gaze off the short-term desire and look at the mid-range. I have no doubt we'll be doing this again in four or five years, because static doesn't work. But we need some sort of structure, some sort of accepted management policy, and now is the time to find out what's going to work for most people.

Connie's thread and this discussion are separate agenda items, to my way of thinking, although one has influence on the other. But I'm eager to stop bickering over every.new.thread idea, and find out what's going to work, not next month, but over the next couple of years.

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

And some even feel that the bullshit consensus was actually more accomodating to compromise than voting.

Are we looking for the middle ground on TV or in general?

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

Or ever! which would be my ideal.

But we need some sort of structure, some sort of accepted management policy, and now is the time to find out what's going to work for most people.

Connie's thread and this discussion are separate agenda items, to my way of thinking, although one has imfluence on the other. But I'm eager to stop bickering over every.new.thread idea, and find out what's going to work, not next month, but over the next couple of years.

That's definitely where I'm at. Planned growth. What is our plan? Mid-range is good. Let's avoid suburban sprawl.

eta: Which I realize now is not a bad metaphor. There are things which come from urban density that are lost when you let every subdivision just eat up the orange groves. What makes the most vital community for us?

Someone asked about spinoff threads weakening the original thread. A quick glance says that in just over a week, the SPN thread garnered 600 posts. The Boxed Set thread garnered about 400 posts in the same amount of time. Doesn't seem like Boxed Set really suffered.

1. I read B.org:

a - several times a day ...

2. I post on B.org:

same list.

Continue in that vein or some other set up?

I don't know that frequency of board usage matters as much as *why* people use the board, though.

I would be more interested to see a list like:

I post at b.org for:

a) general social interaction
b) discussion of TV
c) discussion of fandom
d) maintaining establishing friendships

Or better, possibly more specific tickybox options, but along those lines.

While voting is very definitive it does seem to not have a lot of finesse to the result. Lately it's felt like it's been used just as a tool to get people to just shut up about something for the 6 month no fly zone it creates.

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?

Yes, but by taking extra time, rather than the four days discussion and vote we give a proposal, this information gathering and discussion is a larger issue. I don't even think we need a proposal and a vote to put up info-gathering polls. I think we need to take the time we need to get the info, to discuss it, aware that it will determine our policies going forward. It's a larger issue than creating a thread. At least I see it that way.

I post at b.org for:

I do think that's the core of it, really, but I do think frequency would be useful too.

I think that there are two reasons that the vote does not always reflect the common will -- 1. The question is not phrased in such a way that you can vote the way you feel 2. We don't have an option for "I care about this issue, but none of the choices reflect my opinion"

I post at b.org for:

Yeah, that would fail for me unless tickyboxes were there because I would check them all.