If there are truly 60-70 people that are considered the "core" group of people, and the majority of those people are worried about what the board will become if there are too many new tv threads (not saying that's so, just if), why wouldn't those people not change their posting habits regardless of whether there was a new tv thread or not? If 60-70 people continued to discuss everything whitefonted in Natter, if that was so important to them, what difference would the tv thread inhabited by however many other non-core people make to their board experience?

I know I keep coming back to this, but it's a collective action problem. Consider the following hypothetical. We all like natter/bitches (henceforth just natter). But each of us could use just one more thread. Now, just one more thread will not really reduce the traffic in natter. The problem is, the one more thread we want is not the same for all users. Here is what happens:

Users 1-12 want a comedy thread. 12 people vote for it who will post there, 8 people vote for it out of sympathy, 19 people vote against, 3 vote no preference. Comedy thread enacted.

Users 12-24 want a lawyer show thread. Rinse and repeat.

Users 24-36 just got the Survivor season 1 dvds and want to discuss them. You get the drill.

At the end of this exercise we have six threads where everyone just really wanted one more than natter, and what happened to natter?

Okay, no offense to any lurkers, but if that's the case I say who the hell cares? I'm far more concerned with the experience of the 60-70.

This statement bothers me. I don't want to be part of a community that says, "Well, we've been here forever, so our opinion counts more than yours, you n00b. Forget that we were new once, this our sandbox, and just because you're here doesn't mean you're as good as we are."

Okay, I get this connie. Except I come here and don't go other places, because I don't like the massive overabundance of trollish craxxy that seems to permeate the Internets. But part of feeling that way involves being very elitist and standoffish toward newbies, particularly when they're hypotheitical newbies, whether I like that about myself and others here or not.

Wow, I'm really out of the loop on this one, because this doesn't feel like Big Dramatic Change to me at all. I don't see it as damaging to the community, and I don't foresee the board ending because of this. I understand the impetus to restrict change, but I think it's rather unfounded in this discussion, other than as a measure to promote careful consideration of what best serves the need of talking television for this community.

Specifically -- alter the six-month moratorium so that it kicks in regardless of whether or not the 42 person quorum is met.

I don't like this. It seems like it would make it way to easy to shut down discussion for six months with a narrow focus proposal that has minor support. Instead of getting thrown back and worked out it just delays and lets things fester. If we don't meet a quorom then either the issue needs to be dropped, or it needs better definition and refinement before it can pass.

"Well, we've been here forever, so our opinion counts more than yours, you n00b. Forget that we were new once, this our sandbox, and just because you're here doesn't mean you're as good as we are."

Speaking for me, I'm not talking about new people, I'm talking about people who either lurk and never post, or who drop a post once in a blue moon but don't really have any connection here. (And I'm not talking about people like d here, who I think falls on the other side of the line.) The question was posed what if we here discussing use the board one way but there's a whole host of others out there who we don't know about who use it differently. To which I say, fuck 'em. Seriously.

(I also don't think that this is a big issue or likelihood. My point was more "this is so not worth our worrying about " than "we need to take a stand and defend against the unknown masses."

David, only had time to skim, but I think there's a lot of truth in that. Will comment more when I have a few minutes to sit down and think.

At the end of this exercise we have six threads where everyone just really wanted one more than natter, and what happened to natter?

But in practice, I don't see this happening. Yes, we have passed every television thread we have gone to vote on in the last few months, but in my eyes this is filling a distinct and apparent need rather than giving in to the whims of whatever user comes in and proposes a thread. If we were really capable of serving the short-term needs of the user base such as described upthread somewhere, I'd be talking The Riches in Premium instead of in an entirely separate Cable thread. To me it's obvious that we have measures in place to keep thirty new random threads opening. The question here, for me, is developing threads that make the most sense for the people who are going to talk at them, that can foster discussion, and continue in the ever-growing tendency of Buffistas to have a place to talk about things.

Bev! Do you think density is a useful notion for how to view these issues? Do you think that's the right question to ask?

Yes? But equally important is speed and level of involvement of the participants. All of which are mutually inclusive. You remove one element and the other two (probably more) are affected.

Also, I'd just like to say that even if we do collect useful information, nothing says we have to actually act on it. That sounds stupid, but it's true. Even if we find out there are 1,000 lurkers, half of them in single threads, a third of them who contribute to the financial health of the board, unless they are willing to come and discuss their preferences, I don't think an anonymous poll has more weight than a concerned discussion by commited members.

But I do think it's important to find out. Frankly (personal opinion ahoy), I'm tired of trying to preserve the community aspect of the board only to have to argue every few weeks about whether this group or that group of shows, or this show or that show and twenty others deserves its own thread. What I perceive this place to be is at odds with my perception of what others (whose opinions and feelings I care about) apparently believe and/or want it to be. I want to not have to argue every case in point. And I want as few toes as possible bruised in the process.

I'm really out of the loop on this one, because this doesn't feel like Big Dramatic Change to me at all. I don't see it as damaging to the community, and I don't foresee the board ending because of this. I understand the impetus to restrict change, but I think it's rather unfounded in this discussion, other than as a measure to promote careful consideration of what best serves the need of talking television for this community.

My gut SA is that this we're looking a significant change in assumptions but that the actual changes might be relatively small.

If we decide that we need to limit the smaller interest threads (not eliminate! Limit!) to maintain or garden the community then it's a fairly simple adjustment. We just look at thread creation in a different way.

It's not a matter of, "Will this please the most people?"

But the first question you ask when a thread request comes up is, "Will this have a negative effect on the whole?"

I think that's a big change in culture, but a small change in structure. It's more of a long term investment in how we garden around here.

What poll response is going to say "I don't want anything to change"? None.

ftr, this is what I would vote. - which is why I thought one of the poll questions should be on board satisfaction.

I think that's a big change in culture, but a small change in structure. It's more of a long term investment in how we garden around here.

Could I get this in bronze? A nice, attractive plaque for the wall, over there?