if get a few months into it, the post-cancellation/thread-closure talk will turn into the old "subcommunity! subcommunity!" argument.

I get the fear, Kristen. I just don't see what we can do about it, unless we want to either leave all threads open forever, which is obviously unworkable, both in terms of bandwidth and as a community. I'd like people to know going in that the thread may be closed, rather than feel like it's suddenly being sprung on them.

I share Kristen's fear, but (if I were writing the proposal, and I'm not), I'd just spell it out. "In the event that the show is canceled, it will be closed. If the board experiences problems, and we need to close threads, this thread will be as vulnerable as any other, and will not be saved by claims that it is a sub-community."

I think we should do that for every new thread, now and forever (amen) though. We have Natter, Bitches, UnAm, and Atlantic Canadians. I'd like us to actively discourage amnesty on the basis of subcommunity for any other threads.

In the event that the show is canceled, it will be closed.

No quarrel, though we may want to define "canceled" to exclude syndication (if a threaded series gets that far).

I'd like us to actively discourage amnesty on the basis of subcommunity for any other threads.

I'm not sure I understand this. That seems fair in the sense that no thread is sacred. But if it means that new threads are the first to go if the board needs resources, I'm not sure that an active newer thread should be axed to allow an inactive older thread to continue.

But it's not a good sign that only 55% of the people who tuned in for Part 1 of the pilot were interested enough to tune in for Part 2.

I'm not sure where you got those numbers. 18.7 million peple watched the first part - 17 million people watched the second part. And the repeat on Saturday night was the highest rated show of the night.

I'm all for any type of television thread - whether it be general or show related. I would love to be able to talk about Lost somewhere.

17 million people watched the second part.

I read something yesterday about the second part only getting 10 or 11 million viewers.

Not that I'm obsessive about ratings or anything (hah!), but here's what USA Today had to say:

Lost averaged 18.7 million viewers for its Sept. 22 opener; an encouraging 90% of them returned for last week's second episode. Another 9 million (mostly new) viewers tuned in Saturday for repeats, handing ABC another nightly win.

Hmmm...now I'm going to have to try and remember where I read it.

I just don't see what we can do about it

I'm a big fan of waiting and seeing. I guess I don't understand what the rush is to open multiple threads for various shows. I'd feel a lot better if this proposal was about "this specific show has been generating a lot of discussion and I feel it warrants its own thread." As opposed to, "what shows would you like to see a thread for."

I'm not sure I understand this. That seems fair in the sense that no thread is sacred. But if it means that new threads are the first to go if the board needs resources, I'm not sure that an active newer thread should be axed to allow an inactive older thread to continue.

I'm sorry, I meant that specifically with regard to "sub-community" status. Some threads are just us--our community. But every place people talk isn't a sub-community. I don't necessarily think newest has to be closed first. But I don't think every thread gets subcommunity status. I'd define it more than I did earlier, but I'm afraid I'd unintentionally leave out some subcommunity, and it would appear to be on purpose, even though it would be an accident.

I think I agree with Kristen here. I'd rather do this on a show-by-show basis, rather than, "Should we make new threads? Which ones?"

Ah, ok, Cindy. It sounds more like subcommunity status has to be earned -- I'm on board with that.