How did we do it when Buffy and Angel were on back to back?

Well, we had separate threads, right? Once we were here and having Serious Discussions we did, anyway; I honestly don't remember about the TT days.

I think that there were Angel threads in TT. . . also the SB thread started there and so did Natter. And Other Media.

Particularly if this level of interest and discussion wanes in a couple of months.

In a couple of months, there will be NEW episodes airing. I can't imagine the volume of discussion waxing. If anything, it will grow.

For example, Battlestar Galactica discussion was similarly dominant in the thread at one point—though perhaps more briefly and only while new eps were airing—yet I think we were correct not to bud it off.

Exactly. It was brief, it only happened while new episodes were airing and (from my perception as someone who doesn't watch either show) it still didn't approach the volume SPN has had. This seems to me an argument for a separate SPN thread.

The points against a W&P thread are quite sound.

I've been skimming in the hopes of being clearly on one side or the other, but it hasn't happened.

It really does please me that the SPN people have such enthusiasm over their show. It is fun to watch and read. Yay for fandom! Yet I have seen at times that the show has overwhelmed discussion of my Boxed Set shows.

No, I don't want to push out the show and banish it to its own thread if the fans don't want to move. But I also think I should feel free to mention that I feel at times that my shows have been pushed out. Yes I could go in and discuss other shows more often, but it seems those posts are doomed to being smothered by the SPN.

Not wanting to rain on anyone's parade here, but not comfortable with keeping quiet either. I'll probably end up No Preference once again and just deal with whatever way it goes.

The one I most remember was the one I referenced early in this discussion. There were new eps of both Dresden and BSG, but the comments got swamped. I thought it happened to Dresden again later, but it looks like I was mistaken.

It is unfortunate that that happened. It is definitely something we strive very hard not to have happen, and I wish we had been 100% sucessful in that effort.

That being said, I have issues with this statement:

I am having a problem with the supposed victimization of SPN folk, since it seems like the rest of us are being told, "We talk a lot. Get over it." We're the ones who are having DVD W&Ps scheduled at the same time as the new episodes of the shows we watch. That's pretty impolite.

It seems like mischaracterization of both what has happened and what we are saying.

No Preference

Actually, I'd love to see this option not apper on ballots anymore at all. I'm not sure which vote it had it on, but there were an equal number of NOs as there were No Preference and only 6 more YES votes.

I guess I see lots of things pass when people don't really care and indifference shouldn't mean a pass.

Which is a longer winded version of me saying pick a side.

Voting "No Preference" isn't exactly indifference, it's a vote in favor of whatever the majority chooses. Not voting at all is indifference. I don't know if people are thinking that way when they vote, but that's the effect.

But if the majority votes "No Preference" then what? Or if No Preference has as many votes as one of the options then it seems just stupid.

And voting is about electing, which is about choosing. Choosing no preference is like choosing nothing. If you are voting just to help get the quorum, why bother? Since voting is the decision making process, and if a vote doesn't have a quorum on its own, shouldn't that be indicative that perhaps there isn't enough actual interest with an actual opinion for the vote to be valid.

And voting is about electing, which is about choosing. Choosing no preference is like choosing nothing. If you are voting just to help get the quorum, why bother? Since voting is the decision making process, and if a vote doesn't have a quorum on its own, shouldn't that be indicative that perhaps there isn't enough actual interest with an actual opinion for the vote to be valid.

I was just about to (try to) post this very thought. I have voted no preference before just to help ensure a quorum... but in thinking about it, if an issue up for vote doesn't have enough interest to enough people to actually vote "yes" or "no," then maybe it's just not enough of an issue to the community at large to warrant implementation either way.

What is the quorum number, anyway?

To win a vote, the option must have 50% +1. So if the majority vote No Preference, that is essentially a Take No Action vote.

ETA: MVT is 42.

The Minimum Voter Turnout means that enough people were interested enough to participate. If not enough of those feel strongly on the issue to take a particular action one way or the other, then they've recorded an opinion, right? I mean, it's an opinion of general neutrality, but, that's an opinion. (And it's essentially a transparent version of how consensus works, too.)

Since the proposer writes the ballot, it is totally legitimate to leave No Preference out as an option. But leaving it in is leaving room for people to just not feel strongly either way, and be willing to go along with what the majority prefer. I know I've felt that way, on some issues, so I don't have a problem with leaving that option open to others.