Tact is just not saying true stuff. I'll pass.

Cordelia ,'Dirty Girls'


Bureaucracy 4: Like Job. No, really, just like Job

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


esse - Aug 01, 2007 8:46:24 am PDT #533 of 6786
S to the A -- using they/them pronouns!

The one difference in the way I see that statement is that we were created to talk really about one fandom since day one, and often we digressed.

I disagree, because I think we were created to talk about television, and the creation of the thread enabled the fandom to develop. But it's possible that I'm arguing semantics, and the point of where we came from isn't as important to me as where we are now.

And the question of being a general TV board,

Mmm, I still don't understand this. In what way would the creation of new threads about/for television make us a television board? We're a culture board, who happens to talk television a lot. But to me there doesn't seem to be any more inclination to talk television than Harry Potter or theremins or fanfiction. The only difference to me is that we're changing the way in which we talk television here. It's not changing the entire tenor of the board to do so, because it was already there! Along with a bunch of other stuff that we talk about.


bon bon - Aug 01, 2007 8:46:32 am PDT #534 of 6786
It's five thousand for kissing, ten thousand for snuggling... End of list.

Having a nonfic thread is not the same thing, to me, at all, from having a "survivor dvds" thread

We have a Veronica Mars DVD thread. We still have a Firefly thread. Nevertheless, the hypo is not about the types of thread that get voted in, it's how we might have a lot of threads even if we ultimately want to preserve a large thread like natter.


juliana - Aug 01, 2007 8:48:01 am PDT #535 of 6786
I’d be lying if I didn’t say that I miss them all tonight…

Um. Obviously I am very interested in this discussion. I've not had much to say that Beverly hasn't said (bless her for wading in when I was too tired of Discussion). But I wanted to raise my voice in agreement with the polling, and maybe request that we shut the heck up for a day or so once the poll results are announced? Just to give everyone time to digest and whatnot? Because we are incapable of shutting up if it's not clearly stated that we will shut up, and this is a huge issue in a lot of people's minds, one that takes a while to process, even if certain people are good at thinking on their feet.

So, to sum up my hugely ungrammatical post: Poll Good. Shutting up for a specified amount of time after poll Very Good. Accommodating the "core" over the casual users also Very Good.


Kat - Aug 01, 2007 8:50:08 am PDT #536 of 6786
"I keep to a strict diet of ill-advised enthusiasm and heartfelt regret." Leigh Bardugo

But to me there doesn't seem to be any more inclination to talk television than Harry Potter or theremins or fanfiction.

If that were true, then there would not be a push to have multiple TV threads.


msbelle - Aug 01, 2007 8:50:48 am PDT #537 of 6786
I remember the crazy days. 500 posts an hour. Nubmer! Natgbsb

I am willing to go offline with a few other folk to form the poll questions (FOR A GENERAL BOARD USAGE POLL - NO GD ?S ON TV THREADS YET) from what has been suggested if such people will volunteer.

I would be available to IM/skype with folk after 8 or 9 pm ET.


brenda m - Aug 01, 2007 8:51:35 am PDT #538 of 6786
If you're going through hell/keep on going/don't slow down/keep your fear from showing/you might be gone/'fore the devil even knows you're there

Well, we have numbers from votes we've taken. Can we look and that and at least get a range of the number of people who are voting, even no pref, on everything? I'd be happy to go back and tally the numbers but I can't do it until tonight.

That gives us something, anyway.

Other thoughts - we used to be able to run scripts to list frequent posters in the various threads. I think ita used to do it, but I don't know if other stompies can. Maybe we can pull the numbers and someone (again, I'm happy to do some of the heavy lifting) can throw them in excel and actually find out some of this stuff. It won't pick up threads someone reads but doesn't post, but we do have some information available if we can figure out the best way to compile it.


esse - Aug 01, 2007 8:53:27 am PDT #539 of 6786
S to the A -- using they/them pronouns!

If that were true, then there would not be a push to have multiple TV threads.

I disagree. Mostly because I think the wish for multiple television threads stems for accessibility, not more talking for the sake of more talking.


askye - Aug 01, 2007 8:56:47 am PDT #540 of 6786
Thrive to spite them

msbelle I'll volutneer.


Kat - Aug 01, 2007 8:59:02 am PDT #541 of 6786
"I keep to a strict diet of ill-advised enthusiasm and heartfelt regret." Leigh Bardugo

Mostly because I think the wish for multiple television threads stems for accessibility, not more talking for the sake of more talking.

I'm confused. Because this seems to say that plethora of TV threads are about allowing smaller and smaller discussions to take place... places where there isn't more talking? So the threads become increasingly less inclusive and more select because it isn't about creating a place where there "is more talking" but just a thread where X people want to talk?

Actually, nevermind. It doesn't actually matter.

I am still thinking that we need to eliminate no preference in voting.

I'm not sure how the poll will work to actually compile the info everyone desires, since it seems we all want different info. But I suspect that I'm like whomever posted upthread about wanting to know where my posting habits are in relation to others... sort of trying to figure out what is normative behavior.


amych - Aug 01, 2007 9:01:08 am PDT #542 of 6786
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?

I am still thinking that we need to eliminate no preference in voting.

This. I have a hundred different responses going in my head to a lot of this discussion, and no time to put them in order for the next few days, and I hate that, but this one? Actual and real and getting stronger.