No, wait, not done. I should mention again that the contributions to the b.org fund would likely help separate core members from lurkers. Not in all cases, but as a rule of thumb.

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?

I think there is a decent-sized group of people who would rather see "drama" broken up in some way, which I think is where the discussion starts spiraling out of control. Should it be House in its own thread? That works for people who don't want to get spoiled, but probably wouldn't be a huge amount of discussion. Medical threads together? But the person who hasn't watched House yet couldn't go in to discuss ER. Etc.

No, wait, not done. I should mention again that the contributions to the b.org fund would likely help separate core members from lurkers. Not in all cases, but as a rule of thumb.

In general, you would know the names of the people who contribute. There is a small group of lurkers who give. Ditto with votes that I've counted. Most people who participate, I could tell you a little something about them -- she lives in Idaho, he always hated Xander, whatever.

I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of using money to decide who is a core user or not.

SA, we started on Salon.com's Table Talk as a Buffy the Vampire Slayer thread, so our origins were definitely based on one show. As people got to know one another, we created 4 (or 5?) more threads including Natter so people could have sidebar conversations. When TT became part of the pay site, we moved to WX where more threads were made (Angel, Bitches, Movies) but the main reason for being was Buffy.

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. Once those shows that fueled that fandom died down, the whole board has been a whole series of digressions. And the question of being a general TV board, seems, to me, like a huge shift in focus.

Becoming a general TV board may end up attracting more and more people, something that some b.orgers have mentioned as not being a great thing.

Also, who defines "core"? Based on # of posts? amount of money donated? who was here first?

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.

But suppose they only talk in tv threads? Suppose they make an effort there but have no desire to post in Natter or Bitches? Suppose there are more "peripheral" people that post however often in the other threads than there are "core" users that post in Natter/Bitches? How much should their wishes be taken into account then? Equally? Not at all? Should they each get half a vote?

It just seems like people are saying, "Okay, we'll take this poll, but if we get answers from people that don't post in Natter or Bitches we'll just discount them because obviously they are not truly "One Of Us"."

I know not everybody means that, or is even saying exactly that, but it's still coming across.

I would bet that I wouldn't be defined as a "core member", though I've been around a long time and I donate $$.

Denise, I think people are referring to lurkers who read and post nowhere at b.org.

Le Nubian, I would disagree. You actively post which seems to make you a core member.

As a former dedicated lurker, while I may agree with this:

I don't think that we should worry too much about what their wishes are.

I am a bit worried about this characterization which seems to color a lot of opinions (i.e. not just Jilli's) about lurkers:

they don't make an effort

It is not always a question of effort, interest, or commitment. When I was in grad school, for most of the day, I didn't have access to the internet. At home, I had dial-up via my phone line. There was honestly no way I could regularly participate.

And I don't know why we are making the lurker/member distinction. Do people think they are swaying voting?

And the idea of using contributions to define member status in any way gives me hives.