WRT the Previously thread, I'm not seeing the problem with leaving the ballot as is and then seeing how people vote on the issue.

I do think that, at 11 items, it's long enough. I think we can hold off on other considerations like Sang Sacre and LOTR. I say that as someone not invested in either. But I will say that Sang Sacre offers something that can't be found elsewhere on the board.

Are very important points. Even if we need to remove threads eventually to help solve the problem, getting rid of threads that are getting extremely minimal posts is going to have ZERO net effect on the problem, and will only serve to upset the people who do want to keep those threads around, even if they almost never get posts.

Well, Monique is telling us in another thread (or here, I've lost track) that it's like a diet. Little things add up. But as far as Sang Sacre is concerned, because it's so unique, point taken.

eta...

If you felt that the Previously thread has been redundant since it's inception, then I disagree, but you get points for consistancy. I believe that when there were both old and new Buffy episodes, the Previously thread wasn't redundant at all. It was a central place where all users could focus on old episode discussion without getting spoiled for the current season. Now that Angel is going into syndication, the Previously thread should serve the same role for Angel.

Previously does not fill any need that can't be filled in any number of other threads - even for old Angel episodes. Nothing precludes us from moving the talk to UnAmericans, to Natter or even to Buffy. That's why it is a redundancy. The "central meeting place" is habit, not need. There are now other meeting places and the only thing people need to make them "central" is to make it so.

I think we're getting an awful lot of "No, not my thread here.

Not true with me and Previously. I'm not even subscribed. But I might resub when Angel reruns start.

WRT the Previously thread, I'm not seeing the problem with leaving the ballot as is and then seeing how people vote on the issue.

I'm not saying "take it off the ballot". I'm just lobbying for a no vote. A few others said they were for it, so I'm chiming in with a nay. That's part of what this thread is for.

I hadn't thought about whether or not Sang Sacre does or doesn't fulfill a special place before. But now, I'm thinking I don't want to go there, in terms of putting the kaibosh on it.

I am also good with the thought of seeing what happens with the changes we are making at the code level, and any change that passes and is made and then considering a second level of housekeeping, only if necessary. Let's clean up the little bits and take a look again.

God knows with real housekeeping, I rarely tear out the closets, until I try see what things look like when I pick up my clothes. Or that would be true if I ever had time to clean.

FTR, the ballot will undoubtedly change and be massaged. Is it accurate that as proposer I have the right to adapt it without committee changes?

Personally, I think that the Previously thread will become previously on Buffy and Angel naturally when the syndicated Angel repeats start.

Is it accurate that as proposer I have the right to adapt it without committee changes?

It's more than accurate. It's mandatory.

So there.

But there is also an awful lot of Natter when things get slow.

So what? It's what we do, and what we've always done, in almost all of the threads since we were on TableTalk.

Personally, I think that the Previously thread will become previously on Buffy and Angel naturally when the syndicated Angel repeats start.

Absolutely. But not if #4 passes.

(just making sure you read that ballot question correctly, sumi)

God knows with real housekeeping, I rarely tear out the closets, until I try see what things look like when I pick up my clothes.

But Kat... if you don't totally tear out your closets every time you clean house, how on Earth do you ever get new closests?

Sorry. Sorry. The silliness was too tempting, and I though we could use some levity.

Is it accurate that as proposer I have the right to adapt it without committee changes?

Yepperdoodle.