More or less, yeah.
Huh. I guess I'm wondering why the rush to create many tv threads at once, instead of letting threads arise as the perceived need arises, but perhaps the logic is that a bum rush on the threads is the best way to circumvent the much mythologized anti-proliferationistas from nixing the idea.
Personally, I do not have an investment at this point in the outcome of the vote, but I do see this proposal as trying to reshape the board into a general tv board. That may not be the intended aim, but I suspect that it will be the ultimate outcome.
I was hoping we could do it all in one vote, Cindy -- that saying "I would like to discuss JoA" in the poll would count as a vote for a JoA thread. But that's just 'cause I'm impatient, not necessarily because I think it's the One True Way. Do other people want one vote, or two?
I'd like to have a better idea if we all really want one, or just think we do.
This is a big part of the proposal, too. It seems to me that continuing to try to consense about the type of TV thread wouldn't really get us anywhere; even if this fails, it will at least give us some signposts. (The signs may say "Dead End," but at least then we'd know that most people are happy with the status quo.)
perhaps the logic is that a bum rush on the threads is the best way to circumvent the much mythologized anti-proliferationistas from nixing the idea.
I don't consider it a bum rush, or think it will turn us into a General TV board, given that we're probably talking about fewer than four threads. But yes, I am trying to avoid having the same discussion over and over again for the next year. If everyone else feels repeating the discussion for every show is the best thing for the board, or feels repeated discussions won't happen, the proposal will fail, and there's no harm done.
Oh, I get it. Sorry. I think "poll" threw me.
Oh, I get it. Sorry. I think "poll" threw me.
I've been going back and forth on it, Cindy, so no surprise. Right now, it seems to me that asking people to first vote in a poll, and then vote on the results of the poll, was a little redundant. OTOh, it might ensure we don't end up having to start more threads than we really want, so ... I dunno.
Also, re; poll -- should we do multiple-choice, or fill-in-the-blank? I can see arguments for and against either.
Well, let's see. If there were to be a decision on upper limit of new threads for this idea ... say two ... you could give people the option of: For which shows would you like to see a thread created? Then give an option to pick two or three. And, hey, why not let a preferential thingie happen? I've been dying to see it happen on something (no, really, I have), and this seems kind of a logical test case.
(Also, phrasing it that way - as opposed to, For which show would you participate in a separate thread? - might be good for the voter who, say, doesn't watch Lost, the OC, or Alias but who does indeed wish them to have their own threads so as not to cause the whitefonting thing in Natter that is bothersome to some. I hope that makes sense.
Well, and would you also have a No new threads option? Or would the poss be strictly, What shows are you watching/would you want a thread for?
ETA: It's possible I'm talking about a different aspect of this than what you're actually thinking about right now. If so, ignore.
I'd do multiple choice, with folks allowed to make nominations ahead of time.
So to respond to the poll is to vote for the thread? That doesn't make sense to me. Or maybe I am confused. Is the idea that we decide ahead of time how many threads we can create, then there's a vote on what shows get threads?
That seems to put the creation of the thread before establishing the need.
Maybe one choice should be: No new threads
