Can't we make this process just a little easier? Perhaps with less combativeness every time a proposal is made?

Historically, hasn't any thread that's been proposed been created anyway? Maybe not every one, but I think the majority of thread proposals have passed, despite the fact that we have the same argument every time with no one changing anyone else's mind.

One more post, and then I need to step off for a bit.

Nutty, you yourself, during the SPN thing, expounded at length about how when fannish peeps talk about fannish things, non-fannish people's eyes glaze over, so fannish talk belongs in its own self-defined space.

The gamers of the board have just said the same thing.

By (rather flippantly) dismissing our arguments out of hand, you've just dismissed your own argument.

I think your position is as ridiculous and unreasonable as you think mine is.

I said nothing of the sort. Please point to me where I said your position was ridiculous and unreasonable. What exactly was your position, again?

Also:

Why do we have to become disruptive elsewhere first?

In what way is this an unreasonable question?

Sean, this

This is what I don't understand about anti-proliferation. Why must discussion take over somewhere else before it is ejected into it's own room? Why, if a decent number of people want a thread, can we not just create it? Why do we have to become disruptive elsewhere first? Every other freakin' board on the internet allows individual user thread creation, but we're not even asking for that. I don't want us to become every other freakin' board on the internet, but COME ON. Why does this process have to be like pulling teeth Every. Time.

Is what read as thinking our position is ridiculous and unreasonable, to me.

Interesting, as neither the word "ridiculous" nor "unreasonable" appears anywhere in that post.

The only time I have used the word "ridiculous" was as an expression of exasperation.

Please show me where I used the word "unreasonable" before Nutty did.

Aside from the use of the word "freakin'" twice, which was perhaps ill advised, I thought it was a pretty well reasoned argument.

As someone on your side, Sean, it read that way to me as well.

In what way is this an unreasonable question?

It is a reasonable question with the subtext that "to become disruptive elsewhere first" is unreasonable.

Nutty, you yourself, during the SPN thing, expounded at length about how when fannish peeps talk about fannish things, non-fannish people's eyes glaze over, so fannish talk belongs in its own self-defined space.

Sean, I know you're in an emotional state right now, but this is an inaccurate representation of my position then as well as my position now. I was basically against a Supernatural thread, except inasmuch as a plurality of Bozed Set users were bothered by the Supernatural posts, and I didn't want to piss them off. Discussions about the cultural definition of media fandom, and where that resides on the board, were ancillary -- and I was anxious about media fandom being exiled from Boxed Set, not enthusiastic about its being given its own space. So basically, you've got my position backwards.

I have to say, it's incredibly frustrating to try to have an ordinary back-and-forth discussion when one of the party loses his temper. Sean, when you asked, "Why is this pulling teeth all the time?" you upped the temperature of this thread in a way that was totally unnecessary, and actively deleterious to reasonable discussion. Wanting something and convincing other people to want something are two different tasks. Your emotion is really failing to do the latter task right now.

Historically, hasn't any thread that's been proposed been created anyway?

I think most of them, although we did a bunch all at once, and created only some of those. (And never a General TV thread.) As many times as we've discussed the idea of a Politics thread, we've never actually voted it down; I just did that inside my head a whole bunch of times.

when Boxed Set got overwhelmed with Supernatural talk, and the latter was split off. And while I won't deny there were some hurt feelings in the middle there,it all worked out and I think everyone's happy now

Please don't go there. I miss the Supernatural talk and the Supernatural talkers. How would you know if I did or not? Is there a poll I missed?

And as for the why it has to be so hard, because on both sides, people care passionately about the health of the community. So, yeah, if one, as I do, sees proliferation as generally harmful to the community, one will tend to argue against it.

Not because I hate gaming, or don't want people to talk about it, or whatever, but because I think that, ultimately, new threads, especially those that don't grow organically out of existing conversations, do more harm than good. It's not just that they suck potential conversations out of threads, it's that they seem to, and again, this is just my position/opinion encourage by their very nature small, insular groups who talk amongst themselves wherever they are.

I'm not wording this well. I'm tired. Only a three-cup day in coffee land, and nearing the end of it. But ultimately, it's that the more threads, the closer we get to Table Talk, where we're a platform for communities, rather than a community of our own. And who knows, maybe I'm locking the barn gate long, long after the horse is gone here.

you upped the temperature of this thread in a way that was totally unnecessary, and actively deleterious to reasonable discussion.

Basically, my experience of thread creation has been that a thread created in advance of discussion has been wheel-spinny and nattery. Witness the entire first (WX) thread of Firefly, which was created at a time when any specific talk about Firefly was a spoiler. We sure didn't talk about Firefly! For 3000 posts! It was wasteful and pointless and led to some vaguely idiotic infighting. (emphasis mine)

I was not the one who unnecessarily raised the temperature of the thread.