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.

Beverly, I think that's a serious exaggeration of the proliferationist (if you want to call it that) argument in this case, or, really, the majority of the cases.

If so, I apologize. I may be reading things differently, but I did hear mentions of separate threads for each show, and complaints about the diverse topics in Natter preventing show discussion. I extrapolated, and no doubt exaggerated. My concern is, quite literally, how much I exaggerated.

This disagreement is perceived by some to be a case-by-case issue, and I don't really think it is. I think it's a philosophical issue on the direction the board will take. I've heard more than one person mention "settle this issue," and more than one wish that it doesn't get brought up again. Not with regard to any one show or group of shows, but simply "Why can't we have a thread about something we wish to talk about?"

This particular discussion may, on the face of it, be about this particular group of shows. But it plays into how the board accomodates its users, and the decisions are cumulative.

Just my opinion, of course, and all are free to disagree.

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.

Okay, this is a bit of an extreme view. I'm not advocating a thread for every topic. I'm advocating threads with less 4 shows or less in them when they are dedicated to televison. I don't really need individual threads for cats and corsets. I'm worried about getting spoiled on lacing techniques.

This disagreement is perceived by some to be a case-by-case issue, and I don't really think it is. I think it's a philosophical issue on the direction the board will take. I've heard more than one person mention "settle this issue," and more than one wish that it doesn't get brought up again. Not with regard to any one show or group of shows, but simply "Why can't we have a thread about something we wish to talk about?"

To me, this is the salient point. This is a bigger issue about how the board goes. It does keep getting reduced to "in this exact instance with this particular show/bucket." As long as we keep doing that, we're going to see this discussion come up again, and again, and again, and again.