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.

I tend to be very much "why not" when it comes to thread creation, however I think the point made that natter is actually fairly slow is a good one. Perhaps we have reached a critical mass where there are enough separate show/bucket threads to keep the most number of people the most satisfied. I also think it was Kat making an non-proliferationist argument who mentioned a single thread. I may have also mentioned it in that it is the only way to truly avoid spoilers. I doubt we could sustain it, however.

If someone had a death wish they could make a proposal about thread proliferation. The end result would either open the door or close the door on new threads for six months until it could be proposed again.

I don't think anyone, even here, is that crazy.

I think I stand with Fred Pete.

I also think it was Kat making an non-proliferationist argument who mentioned a single thread

I wasn't making a non-proliferationist argument. In this post Kat "Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!" Jul 25, 2007 12:35:34 pm PDT I was saying that a more honest approach to how we deal with TV is to have single threads per show for every show that people watch and want to discuss. It's honest in that it's probably what would satisfy the people who watch those shows.

And frankly for people who want focused discussion, that's a much more simple approach because it cuts down all of the non-specific-show chatter. It also avoids something like SPN/Boxed Set from happening where people suddenly neither want a new thread but feel like they can't discuss comfortably in the thread they were in.

It also means for people like ND and Kristin who don't want to be spoiled for other things they watch, they can avoid it. And, there's also the added bonus reality that it shunts some discussion that I just don't give a shit about into a place where I never have to deal with it. Kinda like a cats thread for David so he never has to read about them again.

Of course that means a couple of things: there's no cross pollination of other shows by genre and there is greater fragmentation of the community and also a sort of bizarre "me and my 5 friends have our own special place" vibe. The last part, in my opinion, is shitty and it changes the way the community socializes but perhaps that is the way the community feels now: hunker down and give me my thread. Which is whatever it is.

While I AM anti-proliferation, I think single show threads work best to meet the needs of people who are interested in more focused tv discussion.

I wasn't making a non-proliferationist argument.

I apologize-- I misread that and I didn't mean to misrepresent your words. The point I was attempting to make is that I don't really see tons of people advocating and wanting a different thread for everything, just a few posts about it.