Lobby? Camp? Group of people sharing a basic opinion?

Two of those terms are a little more polarising than I'd have used. As far as I can tell, we've had Music, LotR, Minearverse, Firefly, Firefly Spoilers, Great Write Way, Technology -- all formed since we got here, no?

I don't expect everyone to have the same paranoia over board performance that I do -- I take every delay personally. But I think tossing around terms like "lobby" and "camp" are a little much.

---

I was measuring by, among other things, vocality and consistency, and the general impression that more threads have been voted down than approved. Are those numbers wrong?

I believe so, yes. Most threads that have been proposed and remained proposed until a vote occured have been created.

---

Board not called Bookistas, to be blunt.

Not called Cinemistas, LotRistas, Comicsistas, Technoistas either, and yet it accommodates those all nicely. I think it does, anyway. It’s not like books and Buffistas are unmixy things.

I think there's a false assumption that Bookclub would generate a mass of traffic akin to showday and post episode watch and posts. A slow, but steady, influx of commentary seems the more likely possibility.

Why is one a false assumption and one a likely possibility? Closest thing I see is a show thread – we all agree to have a book read (episode viewed) by a certain date, and then we talk about it, most heavily on the date and a few days to a week after. Also, even if it does create a slow and steady pace, that’s all the more reason I’d want it in a dedicated thread – so I’d have a big bunch of back-to-back posts.

discussions threatened to swamp Natter...so we have a thread for that

Is this the only valid reason for creating a new thread? Doesn’t seem to be to me.

So, I figure it this way. If I'm thinking about voting for a thread, is it one that I would send more money to keep us on a dedicated server for? Is it a thread that fills a need not filled elsewhere?

Those are good criteria. For me, the answer is yes, I’d pony up more money to keep us on a dedicated server (actually, I feel this way anyhow) for what I anticipate being a good thread, a book club thread. Is it a thread that fills a need not filled elsewhere? Well, it seems to be. There is no book club, and people who inhabit Literary acknowledge that they don’t have lengthy discussions about one book at a time.

Also, FWIW, I want a dedicated thread, because I think it will be easier to follow, and it will make me happier to have it work like a show thread. I cast no aspersions and pat not the heads of anyone in any thread (unless asked to head-pat for comfort) anywhere with regard to the type of discussion that they have had, do have, or will have … or don’t have, or have been accused of not having.

I just want a book club. You can talk about ‘em however you want, using whatever language and terminology you choose. And there’d better be a good sci-fi read in the queue at some point. IJS

Also? I just did a whole combo color, font size thing in the abbreviated way DX showed me last week, and I’m kind of proud if it worked. Which it didn't. Until just now. Carry on.

---

But I'm a bit disgruntled at the continued statements about how the Lit thread residents are scared off by the big nasty bugbear of critical thinking. I appear to be in the minority on this, but it continues to rankle. Can we kindly stop patting some of the local residents on the head, saying in effect, "You're so cute, with your Bridget Jones and Georgette Heyer reading. Now go sit at the kiddy table while we grownups talk about Middlemarch."

What. Suela. Said.

the general impression that more threads have been voted down than approved. Are those numbers wrong?

To my memory, the only thread that's ever been proposed and voted down is Politics. On the flip side, we've added Movies, Music, Minearverse and Lovesick My Ass. Just off the top of my head.

---

Not called Cinemistas, LotRistas, Comicsistas, Technoistas either, and yet it accommodates those all nicely. I think it does, anyway. It’s not like books and Buffistas are unmixy things.

Nope. Tech and Other Media (which is/was technically a Jossverse thread, BTW) are holdovers from before we paid the bills, and Movies and LotR are from before we had issues that lead to the cracking down on wanton thread creation.

Is it a thread that fills a need not filled elsewhere? Well, it seems to be. There is no book club, and people who inhabit Literary acknowledge that they don’t have lengthy discussions about one book at a time.

Don't != Can't, nor does it = Won't.

Why is one a false assumption and one a likely possibility? Closest thing I see is a show thread – we all agree to have a book read (episode viewed) by a certain date, and then we talk about it, most heavily on the date and a few days to a week after.

Because the closest is probably the Other Media thread, where most of us get and read our titles within a certain date, and then we talk about it, most heavily on the date and a few days to a week after.

I could be wrong, and we could all have a sudden, blinding urge to discuss books, but I suspect that like comics, the OC, Alias, or any of our other subinterests, you're not going to get a huge percentage of board participation, and I don't think that more dedicated server money is worth it in that event.

---

Nope. Tech and Other Media (which is/was technically a Jossverse thread, BTW) are holdovers from before we paid the bills, and Movies and LotR are from before we had issues that lead to the cracking down on wanton thread creation.

Right ... so we found ways to accommodate people's interests. Buffistas' interests include books. To me, if enough vote for it, that would not be a product of wanton thread creation.

Don't != Can't, nor does it = Won't.

True. Book Club could be tried in Literary. But as of right now don't does equal don't, which is what I want to change. And creating a book club thread is one way, too.

I could be wrong, and we could all have a sudden, blinding urge to discuss books, but I suspect that like comics, the OC, Alias, or any of our other subinterests, you're not going to get a huge percentage of board participation, and I don't think that more dedicated server money is worth it in that event.

Heh, well, if we ever all had a sudden, blinding urge to do anything all at once, I'd be worried. And you might be right about how it works, but I still would prefer the discussion to be back-to-back posts rather than interspersed throughout another thread. It is something I'd value enough to pony up money for. And, we don't know how many people will be interested. Could be a lot just as likely as a few. Or, a few could generate interest of a few more.

---

But I think tossing around terms like "lobby" and "camp" are a little much.

So, it's utterly unfair to group any collection of people for any reason, including a similarity of opinion on one specific subject?

It's verbal shorthand, ita. I'm sorry if you or anyone else are offended. No offense was intended.

In fact, all I meant to do was describe an actually existing group of people who are against thread proliferation, and that group does exist.

I know you guys don't have a clubhouse, or jackets, or a secret handshake, or regular meetings where you come to uniform accord as to how you'll all be anti-proliferation this week.

Sometimes "lobby" and "camp" mean to imply all that, but sometimes, as I was using the term just now, they only mean to imply "group of people."

---

I know you guys don't have a clubhouse, or jackets, or a secret handshake, or regular meetings where you come to uniform accord as to how you'll all be anti-proliferation this week.

t stops making up handshake

---

I think they implied some sort of unified front, Sean. To be honest, until discussion starts, I can't remember who's cautious about proliferation, and who puts it lower on their list of priorities.

If that's not what you meant to imply, I'm glad to know it.

Seems like I counted new threads wrong, but I agree with what Plei said -- most threads that come to a vote, come to pass. It is possible that said group of people is very effective at yelling people down, but really? If you don't care what they (or anyone else) has to say, vote your conscience.

---

So the main objection is that we already have a book thread, and another thread will cost us money.

On the other side we don't know that it will cost us more money- have the others? There was a lot of talk that the original thread structure didn't lend itself to discussing a book in-depth. I read that to mean that we'd either have to change the structure of the original thread, or make a new one.

People didn't think a general tv thread would work because people watch a bunch of different shows and there would be too much whitefont/unfocused discussion- why is that different for Literary?

---