Kristen, thank you for the list! Because now I know that Men in Trees is coming back, and that gives me a happy.

I think this thread would be really challenging to navigate. Multiple overlapping mini-watch-and-posts during original broadcasts, high likelihood of spoilers for folks who watch delayed (unless we sail in a sea of whitefont), and really difficult to go back and find discussion.

Yeah, I'm starting to think the volume here isn't going to be any big improvement over having the talk in Natter. The only difference I see is if there are no whitefont rules. For THIS thread, I might avoid due to being spoiled (though I usually don't care about that).

I'm with Laura in that this feels too much like a general TV thread for my comfort.

I'm with Liese with not just wanting to recreate the experimentals. Plus with the added bonus of I'm pretty much sick of thread creation in general and the current boom of it in specific.

Yeah.

(Jon! Can you make a new natter plz?)

It just sounds to me like it's going to pull too much discussion out of Natter. And I may be a minority opinion on this since SO MANY new thread proposals have hit lately, but I don't actually think there's anything wrong with Natter as it is right now.

The reason we pulled the shows out of Natter was because the talk got lost. The experimental thread worked beautifully because people saw a use for it. Putting these shows back in Natter says, "Just because it worked doesn't mean you can have it, we prefer the clunky chaotic method."

Multiple overlapping mini-watch-and-posts during original broadcasts

I don't recall this being a problem with the experimental thread. I don't have time to analyze the experimental thread, but does anyone who was in there regularly remember traffic jams?

As I recall, there might have been half a dozen of us talking about any one show at a time. Talk would peak for a show the night of and the day after, then maybe generate 5 or 6 posts until the next episode. It was a cyclical flow.

Also, this presumes that all those shows will have people watching with the same level of interest and interactivity. That was not borne out by the experimental thread. The bucket thread would be for conversation. If you simply want to say "So and So on such and such a show should not wear orange," then that's perfect Natter fodder.

this feels too much like a general TV thread for my comfort.

I have yet to understand what's so terrible about a general TV thread--which this isn't.

Putting these shows back in Natter says, "Just because it worked doesn't mean you can have it, we prefer the clunky chaotic method."

Or maybe "Just because it worked for you doesn't mean it worked for everyone."

I saw no difference between the discussion in the experimental Drama thread and Natter except that I had to subscribe to an extra thread, and Natter felt kind of empty and lifeless when people felt they couldn't talk casually about network TV. I prefer the feel of Natter with network TV talk in it than the feel of Natter without TV + dedicated TV thread.

people felt they couldn't talk casually about network TV.

I thought the question about whether people could talk casually abuot TV in Natter was settled in the discussion about the Reality thread, ie, if you want to mention something in Natter, nobody has the right to shoo you out.

I felt like there was a lot more sustained discussion with the thread, and it didn't get unwieldy for me.

I definitely preferred Natter once we had the "there shall be no thread nannying" talk, and I personally ended up talking tv in both - I'd like for that to be an explicit element of the proposal.

That's a huge list of shows, but yeah - some of those are going to go away quickly, some of those are never going to drive much discussion.

Re the general tv thread question - I'm not sure how to handle that. I'm fairly certain I would not be in favor of a specifically defined bucket thread - "this thread is for shows a, b, c and f" - it feels too stagnant, especially since we really don't know what specific shows could really carry that at this point.