I was about to ask whether it was good tingly!!

...that is not as dirty as it sounds.

I wonder if the grouping thing works for Premium, but not (to my eyes) for everything else, because Premium is a "you got it or you don't" type of situation. There aren't that many premium channels; they don't do that much original programming; you've got built-in limits while still providing a variety of shows. Also, the premium channels do not tend to pick up shows from other countries and air them, but produce their own from scratch.

We're kind of in a crazy flux with TV programming, is part of the issue, and the unresolved nature of television sourcing may ultimately confound the question of grouping. Half of SGA is watching it via ahem right now, since it has already aired in Britain, while the other half of the audience is waiting for it to air in the US (on Sci Fi) -- and Boxed Set has developed up a solution for that as we go (whitefont). We had the same problem with the Unaired Firely Episodes, and had to kludge together a last-minute fix for that. If we're going to rework how TV discussion happens, we've actually got a lot to rework. In the absence of overt reworking, we've found solutions on the small scale; it's the big scale that gets problematic.

Everything got all meta and now I'm dizzy.

Reasons for wanting a Heroes thread:

• It's not mediafannish like the other Boxed Set shows
• It overwhelms the thread for people who don't watch it
• There are spoiler issues for people who're up to speed on that and not the other BS shows
• The discussion is hampered by being in BS

Now, I'm not sure all of those have actually been posited, and I'm not claiming it's complete. But I've really lost track with all these restreaming ideas flitting back and forth. I want to get back to the start of the issue.

The discussion is hampered by being in BS

My eyes completely skipped over "in".

Reasons for wanting a Heroes thread:

I think Theo's original reasoning was just #2, and I've seen #1 and #3 added in since Light Bulbs opened.

The discussion is hampered by being in Boxed Set

I'm not sure I've seen this, and I'm not sure I understand it?

Nutty, I think it means that some people don't go into BS to talk about X show, because they're behind on Y show and don't want to be spoiled.

I'm not sure I've seen this, and I'm not sure I understand it?

If you haven't seen it, don't sweat it. I was just trying to be symmetrical. I'm pretty sure I saw the proposition that more/better discussion would happen in its own thread, but I'll be damned if I could Nilly it.

Is anyone willing to step up and provide cites for #2? Hec said even the anti-proliferationistas have generally agreed it's true, and I don't.

I'd call Dresden Files mediafannish, but maybe it doesn't matter.

The tagging idea sounded like the best solution, to me, if it could be done.

My eyes completely skipped over "in".

Mine too, but it's not like that's ever stopped us -- or even made the discussion any less fun!

I haven't seen reason #4 either.

#3 wasn't mentioned in the original proposal, but it's something I've seen people talk about a lot, not only in this discussion, but in Natter, Bitches, sites that are not this one. And it's a big concern for me, because I don't just see muttering about "so many messages, so little time", but also "I want to discuss show A, but I can't because of the spoilage for show B". And (as Maria (I think?) described way more eloquently than I can at the end of a grindingly slow work day with the zombie death flu) that means not only waiting for the DVD's to discuss B, which we've learned to work around in various ways, but losing the chance at what you currently want to say about A. But I'm still banging my head against whether there's a right balance between the fact that the current BS thread is simply too big for a lot of people and the fact that no proposed split is going to feel right in that same organic BS way.

OTOH, I'm quite uncomfortable with mediafannishness as a reason for anything. As an observation, a fun game, a part of the culture, a subtext-within-a-subtext, sure, bring it. As a piece of what-goes-where, it gets my hackles up because I don't see how we do that without getting into approved shows and My Fannish Is More Fannish Than Your Fannish And Mom Likes Me Better Anyway; then again, this may be because my definition of fannish has always been more like KateP's meta-heavy researchy obsessiveness than Nutty and Vonnie's squee-based definition, and I'm feeling a little defensive about how I can too identify that way even if I'm not into the pretty adolescent boys.

I think the current BS BS consensus is actually a good measure of Buffista-fannishness. And it's not the same set of activities or discussions that happen everywhere else -- but so what? Those are the shows that make us start babbling. I've never found Heroes discussion to be out of place in BS, just, well, voluminous.

And yes, I'm deliberately abusing the BS misread. And probably x-posting to the skies, given how long it's taken to type this.

I don't like the tagging idea, and not just because it requires a fair amount of design and coding, and therefore wouldn't be a near future thing, but because it's relying on me to remember to tag a post of mine. Threadsuck the current BS thread, and mentally tag the posts. I can't see it catching on and being accurate. Work all round.

Ah. I figured it would be more difficult than it sounded.