This push for structure definition, is to me, another burden being placed on this proposed thread (the first would be insisting Wolfram insert an I'll-shut-it-down clause), that we never insist upon for other threads.

Okay. Except that's not true.

When the Minear thread was proposed, we did discuss how the thread was going to work and what it's focus was going to be. Was it just for Wonderfalls discussion or all things Minear or were we going to talk about whether or not Tim mows his own lawn. We also discussed whether or not was going to be NAFDA and what the spoiler rules were going to be.

I don't feel that asking the proposer to clarify how this new thread is going to work is an unreasonable request. For me, a lot of threads, like the general TV one, sound good in practice. Then we start talking about how it would actually work and I realize it would be, for me, a flipping nightmare and I'd never use it.

one recent on-topic post in the Firefly thread (which I really don't have anything against, but it seems like an easy target given that the show's been cancelled for well over a year)

There's a forthcoming movie, and people are linking to cast and crew postings on other boards. Firefly-the-topic is very much alive.

Literary is the dreaded general tv thread that was our last discussion in here. I went up and read some of the posts.

I think these sum up my feelings about Literary and the need for a dedicated thread (though if the proposal fails, I do think we should try Literary). I'm not going to list the posters' names, because I'm not sure if that's an ok thing to do.

When the thread is created, everyone will sound in on the shows they like and dislike, then there will be nothing to talk about.

Is how I feel the thread is now without a single text to work with.

I'm strongly against a new TV thread not because I'm antiproliferation, but because general threads make the conversationunweildy. I'd rather see show specific threads (though that will get cumbersome fast... so it would be board resource dependent) because I want to talk about that show specifically and don't want to wade through conversations of everything on the show grid.

Is why I'd prefer it to be dedicated.

I think it has to do with my brain being single focused and wanting to discuss X right NOW and not wade through stuff to get there. Same reason Literary doesn't work quite right either. I want discussion, not just, I read X what did you think?

Why the two are linked for me.

I mean, is one recent on-topic post in the Firefly thread (which I really don't have anything against, but it seems like an easy target given that the show's been cancelled for well over a year) worth however many posts people feel like they might contribute to the Book Club thread?

You're going to need a new thread to use as your example, hayden. Firefly has current on-topic posts in it. While Firefly lives, it will probably continue to.

shouldn't we conduct periodic reviews of existing threads to make room for new discussions?

Oddly enough, it has come up. cf all my posts about threads being hard to close.

I don't feel that asking the proposer to clarify how this new thread is going to work is an unreasonable request.

Kristen I don't feel that, either.

I don't recall any member of Literary who wasn't advocating a Book Club thread expressing any concern whatsoever that this would happen. This seems to me to be an argument made up by advocates of the Book Club thread.

Miracleman, your take totally ignores the fact that there is a cross-over element between advocates of the Book Club, and Literary thread posters. If I have the chronology correct, brenda made a comment IN LITERARY, expressing a wish for a structured discussion. Heather made a suggestion IN LITERARY, that a book club might provide structure. Wolfram got the idea IN LITERARY, to come to bureaucracy and make his proposal. If any of these three have said they don't want to use Literary the way it is used right now (and they may have--there have been a lot of posts here), then I've missed it.

...

Re resources

I have to say again that it seems to me that at least one (and usually it's a combination of more than one) of the following elements are what makes a thread grow into a resource hogging beast; and/or we find one/some of the following listed elements of those threads that do increase our traffic just by existing:

• Unfocused discussion (e.g. Natter, Bitches, Minearverse)
  
• VIP presence (Minearverse, Firefly)
  
• Premature cancelation (Minearverse, Firefly)
  
• VIP announced cancelations (Minearverse, Firefly)
  
• Active Buffistas involved in save-our-show campaigns, etc.
  
• Links from the outside, because of one of the above elements

Focused discussion doesn't seem to grow at the same rate. I am hard pressed to convince myself that the "more threads equals more traffic" axiom is true in the case of every thread, and not just because a person can only post in one thread at a time (although that's part of it).

There are certain threads for which the axiom does not hold true. We can tell, because they're only on their first or second thread, almost two years after we've opened, and they don't seem to be the threads which draw people to our board.

Admittedly, the axiom certainly is proven in the case of certain threads. It seems to me though, that those threads have an "if you build it, they will come" element built in from the beginning. Now whether this book club will be a draw, I do not know. I do know Literary doesn't seemed to have been either a huge draw or resource problem.

I think we need to stipulate that proliferation is a valid and serious concern, and it is serious for at least three reasons.

1) Good stewardship of board/community resources is important

2) Threading too much can have a profound impact upon our culture, and most of us like our culture as is. That's why we're here.

3) The more hardline a-p people are really arguing from a point that is looking out for the community as a whole.

I know I am not seen as hardline a-p this time (although I was seen in an entirely different light, when we did the consolidation), but I have no desire to see this become a board where any fool opens a new thread, any time he is in the mood.

And although the point was made last night, that every thread proposed has passed, I'd like to make a couple of counter points. There are five threads I have *really* wanted. I have never mentioned four of them, because when the a-p people spoke up, I saw the wisdom in their arguments.

The a-p POV has totally convinced me that one thread (general tv--which has been floated a few times) would NOT work here, and might also be bad from a resource perspective, as well. I've never brought the other four thread ideas to the table, because in large part, I share the a-p concerns, and couldn't justify the them strongly enough to myself, never mind anyone else.

So everyone who feels like they're never listened to on the a-p front? I can assure you that's not the case with me. I don't know if anyone else has ever not proposed a thread because of you--but you've had success on five counts with me, without ever having to argue me down, on four. You've also had success at least once, when a thread proposal (by someone else) was withdrawn. That may have happened more than once, but I'm too lazy to check. The atmosphere, thanks to you (and I'm sincere in saying that) is such that there needs to be a damned, demonstrable desire/"need" before I'll ever support a thread, never mind propose one. And that's a good thing.

Since people have valid and serious a-p concerns, perhaps they really do need to be addressed in bureau. Perhaps those points of view will be best addressed by making a proposal to address them in a larger sense. People shouldn't feel brow beaten, every time they bring up their a-p concerns, particularly since the concerns are valid. I do know, I don't have the emotional energy to get involved in that one. I'm still licking wounds from the consolidation, last year.

I literally felt sorry for ita yesterday, when I saw her post the "insert anti-proliferation argument here" thing, because I know what it feels like to beat the same drum all the time, because it feels like few people are paying attention to the rhythm. I felt sorry for Kristen and Monique last year, when they were trying to convince us that the number of threads we had (last year, pre-consolidation, when they were still our resellers) had an impact upon our resource use.

Also, I felt and feel mightily sorry that I offended Kat (and any other a-p person) with my opinions yesterday, mostly, because y'all are way more important than any thread, and certainly more important than my speculation. But also, because I think to a large extent the a-p philosophy has served this board very well, in very serious ways. And so thank you.

(And there's no handshake, which is a shame)

As far as I can tell, every time someone proposes closing a thread, posters pop up and defend the community in that thread. Which is fine. Except for the fact that I then get a little snarky about the fate of the Farscape, due South, and Smallville threads. But I like Boxed Set, so it worked out okay for me.

Huh. Not too helpful, huh?

I think I'm another who'd be unlikely to participate in the book club stuff and who'd find it a little intrusive in Literary. And I'm pretty sure I have more tolerance than most for skipping past posts or white-fonted stuff. It might depend on the length of the discussion.

I oppose the book club thread because we can't be all things to all people. We have hashed out why we don't want to start every passing fancy thread before, and I don't see why book club is distinguishable from the Alias thread, the OC forum, Alias spoilers, Alias backstory, the all cats all the time symposium, the diet colloquy, the knitting thread, and the one-person "bon bon rules" thread. Why after book club gets going shouldn't I propose any of the preceding threads? Why shouldn't I get one?

Miracleman, your take totally ignores the fact that there is a cross-over element between advocates of the Book Club, and Literary thread posters. If I have the chronology correct, brenda made a comment IN LITERARY, expressing a wish for a structured discussion. Heather made a suggestion IN LITERARY, that a book club might provide structure. Wolfram got the idea IN LITERARY, to come to bureaucracy and make his proposal. If any of these three have said they don't want to use Literary the way it is used right now (and they may have--there have been a lot of posts here), then I've missed it.

No...the fact that the idea germinated IN LITERARY doesn't mean anything. Since I said that I have seen two people who were not actively pushing for a book club thread to participate in come in and voice the opinion that a book club might disrupt the Literary thread. So I stand corrected on that point. But this part...

If any of these three have said they don't want to use Literary the way it is used right now (and they may have--there have been a lot of posts here), then I've missed it.

Had nothing to do with what I said. I never claimed that proponents of a book club thread would abandon Literary or not use it the way it is right now. I actually have no idea what you're talking about.

I'd say if you had enough seconds you should, we'd all talk about how much we did or didn' want it and vote. I don't see how a book club is that much different than music or movies.

I might skim it for recs, but I probably wouldn't be as posty as I would be in a book club.