And possibly the Bitches' Anthology.

I think that could be rolled into there.

I don't want it to go away becuase I can't keep up with Natter..

This is the strongest argument against just rolling all three of them back into Natter, which I think was the least favored option, anyway.

Which leaves us with leaving things as they are, or combining threads.

I like what Liese suggested - combine those three, specifically. It shouldn't draw anyone who wasn't drawn in when each show had a unique thread, and yet the posters still have a home.

I think this may be the best suggestion. It accomplishes one of the things that Kristen has mentioned might help with the technical problems, and it keeps the communitites seperate from Natter/Bitches.

Now, I imagine we'll still talk about other TV shows, and a Farscape/due South/Smallville thread would still be essentially a de facto "General TV" thread, it avoids some of the pitfalls of a general TV thread by not adding any new show names for a search engine to hit other than the ones we've already had (it's no more of a newbie magnet that the other threads already were), and by not being too general in proposed scope or name.

essentially a de facto "General TV" thread

I don't want essentially a de facto "General TV" thread. I will vote against anything that looks to point in that direction.

Roll current Sm/ds/FS conversation into one thread, great, if we can't part with them. Nothing general about that.

I was maybe not too clear in my point. I meant "de facto" simply because we will talk about other shows (Stargate, Highlander), but I don't think it will bloat like a real general TV thread would, hence the not necessary to be as concerned about it like a general TV thread.

It wouldn't be general, but if we're being totally honest, we are not going to limit ourselves to the shows mentioned in the thread title.

That's all I meant, not that we'd all winkingly go into the thread and just talk about any old TV show willy nilly.

Does that make more sense, and perhaps not concern you as much?

I guess I just wouldn't use the term general, in that case. Those three threads don't represent general TV to me now, and rolled together they still wouldn't. Which was why I was worried about you meaning a change that might be reflected in volume.

So is that an argument for one of the options?

Nope. I'm not sure which side I'd argue at this point. My main point is just that no matter what, proposing any change will make some people unhappy.

Yeah, you're right, I don't think they'd quite be a general thread, but I'm betting we're going to see at least a little increased volume. This may be a problem.

I think it will be a fraction of the volume we'd see from a real general TV thread, because if we increase volume it will be from the participants who already check those threads seperately becoming more chatty, not from new users, per se.

We may all get more chatty, we may not. If we get "more chatty" increased volume, how much of a problem is that going to be?

If we get more chatty, then there was precisely no advantage to rolling them together, and we're trying to be as neat as possible, without pissing on anyone's fun.

the original reason for the smallville thread was that it was taking over natter, correct?

So I think (and I do read Smallville) that since that is no longer happening, it could be closed.

As mentioned, it was taking over Bitches, and I think it's possible that S3 Smallville, as the lead-in show for Angel, and with a Buffy writer on staff, will generate MORE talk than S2 Smallville did, and I think that should be kept in mind.

DS was started because it was taking over Smallville back on WX.

If we get more chatty, then there was precisely no advantage to rolling them together, and we're trying to be as neat as possible, without pissing on anyone's fun.

Then that is a problem.

Except that maybe I'm not understanding Kristen's carpool theory. My understanding is that rolling three threads into one would allow for a slight net increase in chattiness because instead of responding to three posts with a necessary three posts across three threads, you're responding to three posts with one post in one thread.

Am I thinking this through wrong, or does this not actually allow for a net increase in chattiness?

And if we're that concerned with even a small increase in the level of posts, aren't we then hosed?

It seems that if even the smallest increase in postiness could crash us, I don't know that there's any house cleaning will have any effect at all.