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.

Are those of you who want to recreate the experimental threads wanting a structure than can encompass pretty much any potential show?

Sure. If it's a new network drama that Buffistas are interested in, a Network Drama thread seems the perfect place for it. If it gets talked about in Natter, OK, it doesn't bother me, but if it seems like a few folks find themselves wanting to do a little more focused discussion of a network drama, why, look, there's a little nook of chairs over there waiting for them to sit down and get comfy.

The avoidance of spoilers is something each person has to decide for themselves. But to me it seems like it's getting to the point of "Protect the children! They might see something that will damage them!" and then were heading towards a nanny state vis a vis spoilers. I'm sorry, but I come down on the side of personal responsibility on this one. If you don't want to be spoiled, talk about the show in Natter and come in later when you know what happened.

As long as we keep doing that, we're going to see this discussion come up again, and again, and again, and again.

Wrod. We're going to have to get our hands dirty and risk a little strife eventually.

Beverly, I see it as a few (probably four, because that's how many experimental threads there were) that pretty much cover all of TV that didn't have dedicated threads before. Because the downsides of the non-proliferation stance are problems in getting/staying caught up, which limits the number of people that can post without major skipping, and having to pick out posts on the topic(s) you want to talk about from the other posts.

Which is not to say I consider myself a proliferationist. I've never thought of myself as pro- or anti- on that issue. Though I do agree that there's a cumulative effect of proliferation and that it'll be very difficult (more likely, impossible) to satisfy everybody.

If a show breaks out strongly enough that it deserves its own thread, we can discuss (and create, if the vote warrants) a show-specific thread. But that's a case-by-case matter down the road.

But do we have any way to decide things apart from a case-by-case basis?

This is, in essence, a Common Law board. We don't have a constitution, or a statement of much of anything. We've got a few processes in place, and we're using them. I agree that we could probably do with some sort of larger decision, but I don't see how.