I think that when you make a motion to table a discussion, the motion should include the period of time for which it will be tabled.
Uh, are we gonna fight, or is there just gonna be a monster sarcasm rally?
Stoner Vamp ,'Lessons'
Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!
We open it up, we talks the talk, we votes, we shuts it down. This thread is to free up Bureaucracy for daily details as we hammer out the Big Issues towards a vote. Open only when a proposal has been made and seconded according to Buffista policy (Which we voted on!). If this thread is closed, hie thee to Bureaucracy instead!
sumi - Oct 07, 2004 3:42:06 pm PDT #4527 of 10289
Art Crawl!!!
Kat - Oct 07, 2004 3:43:43 pm PDT #4528 of 10289
"I keep to a strict diet of ill-advised enthusiasm and heartfelt regret." Leigh Bardugo
Meep! Honestly, I don't want this to turn into the navel-gazing tell me about procedures discussion, but I was confused.
aurelia - Oct 07, 2004 4:58:28 pm PDT #4529 of 10289
All sorrows can be borne if you put them into a story. Tell me a story.
Based on the feedback I've gotten, I am tabling the proposal for one week. When/if I bring it back, it will be about starting specific threads for specific shows.
It looks like one week was specified to allow time for polls.
Lyra Jane - Oct 07, 2004 5:04:47 pm PDT #4530 of 10289
Up with the sun
It looks like one week was specified to allow time for polls.
Thanks, Aurelia. And yeah, I'd like to design a poll by the end of the day tomorrow-ish (basically, I just need to know how to write it up and send it to a Stompy to get coded, since it looks like we know what will be on it), leave it up through Tuesday, see the results, and then come up with a proposal we can bring to a vote next Friday or so.
To continue with the theme of harshness, I still haven't really seen any convincing arguments.
And to go with my own harshness, I haven't seen any convincing arguments against starting new threads to reflect new TV interests. And while whitefont and not being able to find discussions may seem like low barriers to you, they're high enough barriers to keep many people out of conversations they would like to have.
I've seen a few people say that they don't feel we should start new threads until discussion about the topics overwhelms Natter; the problem with that is, almost by definition, nothing is going to overwhelm Natter. It's just not in the nature of the beast. It's theoretically possible, I suppose, but vanishingly unlikely. On the other hand, if you're coming at this from the POV that doesn't read Natter constantly, trying to find and pursue a specific conversation *is* overwhelming.
§ ita § - Oct 07, 2004 5:08:38 pm PDT #4531 of 10289
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
they're high enugh barriers to keep many people out of discussions they would like to have.
We're not going to get the perfect world. I mean, if some people consider using bookmarks for one of their designed uses inappropriate/too much work, but other consider the threads pointless, why does one POV win for you?
I haven't seen any convincing arguments against starting new threads to reflect new TV interests
The burden of conviction is on the new thread, isn't it?
P.M. Marc - Oct 07, 2004 5:17:04 pm PDT #4532 of 10289
So come, my friends, be not afraid/We are so lightly here/It is in love that we are made; In love we disappear
Keep in mind also that for any new serious show thread, we'd probably also need a corresponding spoiler thread.
Just throwing that out there.
Lyra Jane - Oct 07, 2004 5:25:16 pm PDT #4533 of 10289
Up with the sun
Keep in mind also that for any new serious show thread, we'd probably also need a corresponding spoiler thread.
It's likely eventually, but I feel that's another proposal for another day.
What do I do to get the poll language up?
Allyson - Oct 07, 2004 5:56:42 pm PDT #4534 of 10289
Wait, is this real-world child support, where the money goes to buy food for the kids, or MRA fantasyland child support where the women just buy Ferraris and cocaine? -Jessica
Someone advocates for the creation of a thread, we open Bulbs, discuss it, vote, and the thread is created by majority rule.
I don't get what the vote is to accomplish. "Hey, someone advocate for this new thread that 14 people seem to want."
Jon B. - Oct 07, 2004 6:51:00 pm PDT #4535 of 10289
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!
Maybe it's the Bronzer in me, but I don't understand why you feel you can't pull a meara and reply to posts about a show three days later. If you have something new and interesting to say that wasn't said days ago, then why not just post it? I don't think there's an expiration date on how many hours/days/weeks a discussion is viable for response.
For me, it's more about the fact that I have a really hard time keeping up with Natter. Oftentimes I have to skip a couple of thousand posts if I want to jump in. But if I want to discuss a show, I need to know what others have already said about it. It's similar to the argument used for the Book Club. Discussions are easier if there's a thread dedicated to it.
That doesn't mean we should have a thread for everything. But that's why Lyra tabled her proposal while we conduct a non-binding poll. She wants to find out how much interest there is in setting up threads for a variety of shows. Using that info, she'll make a formal proposal to open threads for some of them, or maybe drop the proposal altogether.
Polter-Cow - Oct 07, 2004 7:30:27 pm PDT #4536 of 10289
What else besides ramen can you scoop? YOU CAN SCOOP THIS WORLD FROM DARKNESS!
I've seen a few people say that they don't feel we should start new threads until discussion about the topics overwhelms Natter; the problem with that is, almost by definition, nothing is going to overwhelm Natter.
I don't know if this will help, but I did a Nilly of the Natter Lost discussion yesterday:
Polter-Cow "Spike's Bitches 18: A Whole Different Vibe." Oct 6, 2004 8:17:10 am PDT
It's up to the individual to decide whether the pattern of discussion constitutes "overwhelming" or not.