I couldn't believe it the first twenty times you told us, but it's starting to sink in now.

Riley ,'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!


Zenkitty - Aug 15, 2006 1:35:50 pm PDT #6167 of 10289
Every now and then, I think I might actually be a little odd.

I think that such a thread would be sustainable, because by the time the current shows run out of steam, there will be others. It's not really such a narrow focus in a group of people who watch a lot of tv.

Me, I wish we had a general-tv-talk thread, because like Corwood says, general-tv talk gets lost in the flood of posts in Natter. If all you want to do is W&P House or talk about TAR, wouldn't it be better to have a thread for that? Rather than making the people who can't/don't keep up in Natter wade though 500 posts to find where the W&P starts, or conversely, making Natterers who don't care about the tv show wade through 30 posts of whitefont.

Also, I don't see the point really in making a thread that excludes everything except HBO/Showtime, when after so doing, we'll still have tons of whitefont posts in Natter and some people (me) will still be wondering if we're posting in the right thread. If we could say, genre goes in Boxed Set, everything else tv goes in Glass Teat, that's simple enough even for me.


SailAweigh - Aug 15, 2006 2:06:23 pm PDT #6168 of 10289
Nana korobi, ya oki. (Fall down seven times, stand up eight.) ~Yuzuru Hanyu/Japanese proverb

What Zenkitty said. I usually just skip to the end of Natter when something like House starts, but then I'm in the midwest and I'm viewing at the same time as the east coasters who will be posting. But for those on the west coast, they have to cope with trying to back track to where the conversation starts through all the natter. Having a TV thread would still have some of the backtracking, but at least it would be faster.


bon bon - Aug 15, 2006 2:13:36 pm PDT #6169 of 10289
It's five thousand for kissing, ten thousand for snuggling... End of list.

The threads have a lovely search function; I don't know why people keep having to wade through all the new posts to find a searchable term like Deadwood. Another easy way to find a discussion is to go straight to the first post the next day after airing, since the show probably aired about 3-6 hours before.

In any case, even if a general TV thread were on the table, it's not clear it would help with the problem of finding a discussion if you're not there when the show airs. One of the things mentioned when the general tv thread was proposed last year is that the discussions will just keep interrupting each other.


DavidS - Aug 15, 2006 3:59:33 pm PDT #6170 of 10289
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."

I don't know why people keep having to wade through all the new posts to find a searchable term like Deadwood. Another easy way to find a discussion is to go straight to the first post the next day after airing, since the show probably aired about 3-6 hours before.

My observation about online discussion dynamics is that this doesn't really allow for the close-to-real-time discussion that really generates its own momentum.

In dedicated threads it doesn't matter if different Deadwood fans are in different timezones. It's compressed enough to sustain a discussion. In Natter, though, the intervening chat kills off discussion.

Natter is, by definition, not focused. That's the problem with using Natter as the de facto TV thread.


SailAweigh - Aug 15, 2006 4:53:05 pm PDT #6171 of 10289
Nana korobi, ya oki. (Fall down seven times, stand up eight.) ~Yuzuru Hanyu/Japanese proverb

Thanks, Hec. That's more or less what I was trying to wind my thoughts around to, but somehow they just never got there. And even with the search function, you still have to weed out the chaff from the exact post you're looking for.


Jesse - Aug 15, 2006 5:27:29 pm PDT #6172 of 10289
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.

The more shows involved, the more people who are going to want whitefont -- what if I can see show X on channel A, but don't see show Y on channel B until later? If everything's blackfont, I don't want to read the thread until I've seen show Y. This is the issue that has been discussed regarding a broad TV thread, and I think it still stands.


§ ita § - Aug 15, 2006 7:50:56 pm PDT #6173 of 10289
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

PR conversations seem just fine in Natter, I repeat. I mean, the people having them seem not to be not having them well.

God, it's too late to speak English.

Basically, I still really don't like the idea of a general TV thread. I'm anti-proliferation yet would rather see one thread per show than a thread I, a TiVo addict, just can't use. There's nothing in it for me, and I don't think there's enough practicality to the idea for me to vote for it for other people.


sumi - Aug 15, 2006 8:12:18 pm PDT #6174 of 10289
Art Crawl!!!

I'm more confused by ita's first sentence then I am by reading whitefonted conversations about various tv shows in Natter.


DebetEsse - Aug 15, 2006 8:12:58 pm PDT #6175 of 10289
Woe to the fucking wicked.

I don't like the general tv thread, either, but if people really want something like that, I wonder if there would be a way to do a few/some Boxed Sets that would cover more or less everything, but in easy-to-chew segments (Current, Premium, Reality, I don't know what else we would need). It seems like that would be more workable than a general tv thread.


§ ita § - Aug 15, 2006 8:16:24 pm PDT #6176 of 10289
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

I'm more confused by ita's first sentence then I am by reading whitefonted conversations about various tv shows in Natter.

Exactly my point.

Pretty much.

I think.