I don't think sentimentality should be used to kill the thread either. As much as you might want to take emotion out of the equation, it seems like the strong feelings either way are driven by it. Also, it's not the only reason to keep the thread around. The thread is not dead, just slow. Firefly posts pop up consistently at least several times a month.
I don't care in the short term about the Firefly thread. I hope no one is offended by me not caring about their thread. So no, emotion is not driving me w/r/t that thread. I do care that every time we discuss a thread, we're like the cliche of the Democratic party-- a collection of interest groups so busy defending their piece of turf, taking personally how people feel about their thread/interest, that we lose sight of a bigger picture. Now we are trying to create and keep threads for every interest, so we're just a group of co-existing interests, rather than a community. That's what I'm exercised about right now.
I'm confused about your terms "done" and "undone". Show's been dead for 5 years. Serenity DVD was out 2 years ago. Drawing the line of closure at thread posts running out seems in no way related to the done or undoneness of the show. I wasn't aware that renewal of threads had any significance on this board other than an opportunity to pun and consensus.
In my head, the thread has been afforded a lengthy lifespan, and I think that's because of the Jossiness of the whole thing--but how much longer? Does it stay forever when there are other perfectly appropriate places here to have the same conversations?
I'm with bon--the tenacity of a thread once created boggles me.
I think it should be afforded the opportunity to die a natural death. Not forever, just for now.
And I don't think there are other perfectly appropriate places for conversation. But obviously YPAPFCMV.
How are you defining a natural death? I mean, I agree with the idea, I just think the time has come.
We could propose that if it doesn't reach 500 posts in six months, we take it off the feeding tube, as well.
There's no doubt that this rule would help with the housekeeping. By this standard, there are a half-dozen threads that can be closed today.
I imagine that it must feel very unfair to those who are still posting in thread to hear it called dead or useless. I don't see why it hurts to leave it open. I certainly sympathize with their desire to not get lost in the shuffle.
You've got it, Kristin. The show is dead. The movies, probably so. The thread is not. There are other threads that get fewer posts that no one is calling dead. There are both new and longtime posters that both use it and passionately want to continue doing so. It's not a new thread, and we've shown a willingness to eliminate unused or unwanted threads before (book club, experimentals, maybe more), so I don't see a need to get rid of it just to make the point that we will.
By this standard, there are a half-dozen threads that can be closed today.
Threads that are close to 10,000 posts?
The distinction between closing a thread and not opening a new thread after the current one reaches 10,000 matters to me. If we do open a new thread, closing it after 400 messages or whatever would seem less organic to me.
Threads that are close to 10,000 posts?
I don't understand the logic here. It's reaching 10,000 posts because people have been using it. There are other threads that will never reach 10,000 because they are rarely used. Using 10,000 as the decision point ensures that you will kill off threads that get modest use long before you kill off threads that get almost no use. Why is that a good idea?
