But more importantly, I think there's no case to be made that the people who have expressed the most interest in a gaming thread would disappear from the other threads. We would not be locking ourselves up in our own cul de sac, just trying to find a small room where we could hear each other speak about gaming above the din.

Yeah, okay. I get (and generally agree with) Plei's anti-cul de sac stance. This helps, some.

I think the arguments for a gaming thread are the same arguments for a cooking thread, really.

I would violently oppose such a thing - that would absolutely be stripping prime meat out of existing threads.

Question from a non-gamer: Obv, there's a desire for more game talk. But is the talk you're going to get from a thread where actual gaming is unpractical going to be satisfactory? Is it likely to peter out or devolve into nattery space because of that?

Or, thinking out loud, would there be support for (or a point to) a natter-discouraged stance in such a thread to keep things on topic and to head off the potential cul de sacking?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that using only "volume of discussion overwhelms other topics" as a thread creation litmus test, I think you are ignoring some other valid thread creation conditions. Possibly only in this specific case, but I think it does hold true here, and thus makes it worthy of consideration.

If I am understanding the gamers correctly, the condition precedent is that people here want to talk about it, and cannot talk about it in existing threads. Are there other conditions here that should agitate for a thread? In my view if we create a thread every time that condition is present, we run the risk of ruining the board. So that's anti-prolif in a nutshell, I hope.

is not that gaming talk is drowning out other discussion in some other thread, but that in any thread it *could* happen in, it is so overwhelmed by other topics that it basically doesn't happen.

points and nods at this ^^^^

I'd like to talk gaming here, because y'all are about the only people I'd like to talk gaming with (except for the hub, but he doesn't want to join the board for some strange reason). But there isn't a place that it fits, so the conversation just doesn't happen at all.

I see this as a very different case from activity-sucking, which I'm wildly against. Hell, I still want to revoke the charters on music and movies, because I miss having that discussion in Natter. (Cooking would be a similar loss, not that I saw that as being seriously proposed). But for a conversation that isn't happening elsewhere, I don't see it as a loss in the same way.

Or, thinking out loud, would there be support for (or a point to) a natter-discouraged stance in such a thread to keep things on topic and to head off the potential cul de sacking?

I guess I could support a loose anti-natter stance. I mean, I wouldn't wanna be all "THOU DIDST NOT MENTION DICE IN THINE POST! SUFFER THE GM'S WRATH!" but if it goes way off-topic...

In my view if we create a thread every time that condition is precedent, we run the risk of ruining the board. So that's anti-prolif in a nutshell, I hope.

I point upward at the hot lawyer lady.

The thing is, I know there are a lot of conversations that could be had that don't happen on the board, or are hard to have in a fast-moving thread. There are enough people with enough overlapping interests that this will be the case for a huge number of topics. But that doesn't, to my mind, justify creating splinter threads for them. I think Other Media would sustain the conversation. There are, after all, Buffy tie-in games, which I believe are part of the original thread charter, before it was repurposed as Comics and Other Stuff.

Are there other conditions here that should agitate for a thread? In my view if we create a thread every time that condition is precedent, we run the risk of ruining the board. So that's anti-prolif in a nutshell, I hope.

I got hauled up short at "should agitate." I don't think anyone's talking about scouring threads for any wee forgotten topics and putting forward a slate of thread candidates. And there's no automatic thread on account of neglect. If there's a strong desire, it'll show itself and there'll be discussion.

Hrm, how is this...

Something like 60-80% of daily activity involves gaming in one form or another. So you can expect that I look for opportunities to bring it up whenever I can. I've managed to do so maybe, at most, a half-dozen times this year.

I admit that I am not the most gregarious of people, or the best conversationalist, but I would say that is emblemetic of the trends here...

I think the arguments for a gaming thread are the same arguments for a cooking thread, really.

Also, I disagree with this (with respect, Jesse).

There's plenty of current cooking talk in Natter and Bitches, and is a fundamental part of those threads. Sectioning cooking discussion into its own thread *would* leech discussion. I would hate to see that happen.

Gaming talk currently occurs sporadically, if at all, and can be almost impossible to find. It happens (to the very little extent that it happens) in threads filled with people who probably don't even register that it happened.

Now, having said that...

Question from a non-gamer: Obv, there's a desire for more game talk. But is the talk you're going to get from a thread where actual gaming is unpractical going to be satisfactory? Is it likely to peter out or devolve into nattery space because of that?

Or, thinking out loud, would there be support for (or a point to) a natter-discouraged stance in such a thread to keep things on topic and to head off the potential cul de sacking?

Oh, I can say from personal experience with MM and ND that we are capable of talking about gaming until the heat death of the Universe rolls around. This is something I've found to hold true with just about every gamer I've ever met.

Are there other conditions here that should agitate for a thread?

In this specific instance? I'm not sure. I think there's more to it than just that, but I'm not finding the right words.

I think it's more than just "I like underwater basket weaving, I want a thread for that." As Wolfram says, I think the toping of gaming discussion fits in here in a way that underwater basket weaving does not.

I think Other Media would sustain the conversation. There are, after all, Buffy tie-in games, which I believe are part of the original thread charter, before it was repurposed as Comics and Other Stuff.

But it doesn't sustain the conversation. I don't know specifically why, but gaming discussion simply does not fluorish there, whether the charter allows for it or no.

I understand that you don't want to start a thread every time someone says "I would like to discuss hydrangeas, but my posts get lost in Natter." But I believe if there is enough interest, and enough people agreeing that they would probably be discussing a topic more if they didn't have to shoehorn it around another subject or a bevy of other subjects, than that desire should be respectfully considered.

I'm with Sean with the not understanding the reflexive anti-prolif reaction. It would be nice if there were other arguments beyond "We just don't want more threads."

I mean...we've established that people want it. We've established it's not happening elsewhere. We've established that it probably won't happen elsewhere. I think the next thing we need to do is see if enough people want it to warrant its creation based on predicted self-sustainability and amount of discussion of the thread's topic.

In other words...oy, four days of this? Is that right?

Why would gaming discussion not work in Other Media? The current thread is about 16 months old and has less than 1500 posts. That's about 3 posts a day.

I don't subscribe to Other Media, so maybe I'm missing something.