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

I think there's a feeling of (and I'm not using this like it's a dirty word) entitlement for TV threads that you'll never get for, say, baseball. Now, you might get a baseball thread because other people want to shoo baseball away from where they are, but you're never going to think it's about what we are.

I know people keep calling us a TV board. I think we aren't, really. We grew up around two specific shows, branched out almost effortlessly to follow the work of two specific guys.

It doesn't generalise. It won't generalise. You can add all the Lost/SPN/whatever threads you want, plus quotables and Canadian and NAFDA, but it's not going to be the same.

For me it's different enough that it's just coincidence that Veronica Mars is on TV too.

Was it ever confirmed that NP helped something pass that wouldn't have otherwise? I went looking for it up thread, but I think it might be in Bureau 3, which I cannot find.

Bureau 3 is in the Closed Threads folder.

Beverly "Bureaucracy 4: Like Job. No, really, just like Job" Aug 1, 2007 9:43:17 am PDT

Thanks Beverly. I acknowledge that I may have read your reference too negatively. Thank you for confirming this.

from my quick look back at Press - the only things that would not have reached quorum in the recent past:

rules governing whitefont and how long it would be in effect for the new threads.

Question that may be obvious, but I feel the need to ask it: how many more threads might be proposed? I saw network drama (in whatever form) and a comedy thread? Might that be it?

Are we discussing and discussing something that may only result in the addition of 2 threads? I just don't want things to get out of hand for a minimal result.

I know people keep calling us a TV board. I think we aren't, really.

I would agree with this. However, I would add that we are a board made up of a lot of people who like to watch tv and would like to discuss it with each other.

I also agree with SA in that I don't think adding threads will signficantly change things around here.

We keep tossing around the phrase "board culture." My guess is that everyone defines b.org's culture differently. I wonder if we should develop some sort of mission statement or whatnot of the board. Part of me says it could be helpful, part of me says that as people change, board culture changes, so who cares about a mission statement. Conflicted much? Yes, yes I am.

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.

Look, juliana has my brain! Because that's exactly what was going through my mind.

As to the "core" vs. lurkers thing: to me, lurkers are people who do not interact with the community. They may be here reading all the time, but if they don't make an effort to post and integrate themselves into our existing community of talky meat people, then I don't think that we should worry too much about what their wishes are.

Cor! Does the core members notion relate to your idea of governance? Not to revisit the issue, but doesn't it basically acknowledge the same thing?

That was pretty much where I was going, yes. It seems that a lot of people consider themselves core members with preferences that overlap on some things but not on others. But people hate this idea, and emotions are running high, so I'm kinda done.

Question that may be obvious, but I feel the need to ask it: how many more threads might be proposed? I saw network drama (in whatever form) and a comedy thread? Might that be it?

That's what's unknown. If it is just recreating the threads that were in experimentals then yes, it is just two threads, but it has been expressed that the experimentals didn't work well for everyone so we are exploring other options as well which may lead to more threads.