There are a lot of shows airing against each other and I think it's going to end up being TV!Natter.

It didn't before. We didn't discuss every.single.show out there. Not even the Buffistas watch everything--I don't think. There's not a lot of watch-and-posting going on for House, for example, other than big "Oh, you did *not* just punch him!" moments. And the shows don't generate the big analysis that things like SPN do.

I would love a place to really get to talk about FNL. But either way I'll be fine.

We started off talking about a show, dissecting it and analyzing the parts. I miss that, but Buffy's gone, Tim doesn't have a show on yet. So some people watch Heroes or Eureka or SPN or what have you, but there's no Buffy or Angel anymore.

I don't know what my point was with that or if I'd found a point in it. Just something I was thinking about, reading this discussion.

It didn't before. We didn't discuss every.single.show out there. Not even the Buffistas watch everything--I don't think. There's not a lot of watch-and-posting going on for House, for example, other than big "Oh, you did *not* just punch him!" moments. And the shows don't generate the big analysis that things like SPN do.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but how is that different than Natter now? Just with extra cats and baseball and life? The things that make a community for me?

how is that different than Natter now?

The difference is that the few posts about House were not scattered and lost between baseball and cats and life and were left in one place for the next person looking for House to find easily and exclaim over. And those exclamations were not lost between haircuts and babies and vacation plans. A small conversation was held with few distractions, to the pleasure of the participants, which makes it a community for us.

A small conversation was held with few distractions, to the pleasure of the participants, which makes it a community for us.

A community that doesn't include anyone with spoiler issues.

Either way voices are left out of the conversation. Some people have trouble finding and/or carrying on tv conversations in Natter and others can't use the big bucket threads due to spoiler issues. Presumably those numbers will shake out in the vote.

I tried to ask this question in the past and I'm not sure if I was clear. Are those of you who want to recreate the experimental threads wanting a structure than can encompass pretty much any potential show? What is the goal here?

aurelia, I think that's what's happening here. I admit I'm preparing a proposal (or at least a draft proposal for discussion) to create a permanent comedy thread. And I'm trying to come up with something that will accommodate as many levels of spoilerphobia and -philia as possible. (I welcome suggestions but suggest they be made in Bureaucracy at this time.)

The community started out as a fandom (using the term loosely and probably incorrectly) for one TV show. Even though we shouldn't be a purely TV-oriented board, the medium is in its blood.

Because besides concentrating the TV discussion, the experimental threads also contained conversations that (for whatever reason) hadn't happened elsewhere. I hate to keep coming back to The Office, but it's a good example.

I don't know the perfect answer. There probably isn't any way to satisfy everybody.

Why is that structure desirable? Is it to end the tv thread discussion for once and all (aside from individual show threads)? Or are there other reasons?

Why is that structure desirable? Is it to end the tv thread discussion for once and all (aside from individual show threads)? Or are there other reasons?

I don't think it's desirable. I think, and I thought this when the Experimentals were made, that we got something that more or less kind of worked for some people, and we got used to that over a month, and it's easier to just have an experimental than it is to hash things out further. It ends the television b'crazy discussion, it means that the last four months we've spent in Lightbulbs can more or less be concluded for the time being, and there's a thread to talk in.

I think it's convenient, and I think we got used to the Experimentals, but I don't think that's the best we can do.

It's easier for some people, I will admit that. But it does leave some a lot of questions unresolved and it also seems to leave another group of people feeling pretty left out.

Seems to be what it does is allow us to be conflict avoidant.

This is a conflict that is never going to be "resolved." It may eventually be decided, and some people may be happy with the decision, but as many people will be disappointed and disenfranchised, no matter which way it goes.

There are two schools of thought: Non-proliferation, in which we already have too many specialized threads, we try to keep additional threads to a minimum, and keep what is to some a lively, intelligent, diverse conversation going in a few larger threads.

Mega-proliferation, where every interest that more than two people share they can have a thread about, each thread has a couple of posts per day, and busy people can check in on cats, corsets, a show or two they watch, and never go into any other threads or interact with anyone not in the threads they use.

These are two widely diverse views of what people seem to want b.org to be, and I don't think there's a compromise that's going to make everybody happy.