I kind of wanted to see if people had any comments or issues with the poll before we ran it. I mean, I don't want to run it twice if haven't phrased it well.

But I believe the border between lurker and intermittent poster in a side thread--such as, theoretically, someone who pops up with a bit of technical know how to a question over in the Tech thread--is a narrow one.

On the other hand I see a bright clear line. If you have posted or voted, you are not a lurker. End of story. Some non-lurkers are more active than others, but a lurker's pretty simple to not spot.

And being told no one of alleged importance gives a damn what they have to say is not conducive to them speaking up.

No one has said that. Everyone has made it very clear that the definition of a lurker is someone who reads only and doesn't post or vote. (ETA: and that lurking is value neutral) The only way someone will speak up is if they want to.

I've been discussing the marginalization of people who may have posted only once or twice this year and don't feel they have enough street cred to make themselves heard.

That's an assumption about a group of people who may or may not even exist. I don't see the point.

If you want a voice, you have to post or vote.

On the poll: are " don't change anything" and "more threads will dilute" meant to be complementary or opposing positions? "Check one" implies, to me, that the three possible answers should be mutually exclusive, or at least clearly differentiated.

I'm going to delurk to say that the only person who can disenfranchise a lurker is the lurker herself. As long as I'm registered, I can vote. Unless you change that rule to include only active posters, I'm not voiceless unless I choose to be. Some people are trying to be very polite by worrying about the lurkers, but you shouldn't, in my opinion. There are ways we can make ourselves heard if we want to be and if we choose not to use those ways, that's nobody else's fault.

And if we lurkers get disgruntled about board changes and go away, no one will ever know because we weren't participating in the first place. And who knows, maybe that will free some shy lurker to find a new home somewhere else. (Quick, stop me before I start quoting, "If you love something, set it free.")

It is mildly intimidating to read the "Newbies, grr" attitudes that pop up occasionally, but I understand that reaction completely. Other people have cooties. Not you, you're fabulous. Those other other people! You're so fabulous, I'd love to know more about you but I can't subscribe to Natter or Bitches because I've lurked long enough for you to become Real, and reading N/B feels like eavesdropping.

In conclusion, brains are weird. Lurkers' brains, unknowably so. If you try to take us into consideration while structuring the board, your own brains will explode. (True story; I read it on the Internet.)

I said lurkers who post are usually cool peeps, and here's Ice proving my point!

I said lurkers who post are usually cool peeps, and here's Ice proving my point!

True, but sadly, I just went to an Ice-Ice-Baby place.

♥s Ice.

And waves.

I said lurkers who post are usually cool peeps, and here's Ice proving my point!

Duh.

On the poll: are " don't change anything" and "more threads will dilute" meant to be complementary or opposing positions? "Check one" implies, to me, that the three possible answers should be mutually exclusive, or at least clearly differentiated.

Should it be phrased so all three options are mutually exclusive?

Or should the first question be different? Or two questions?