It's possible that he's in the land of perpetual Wednesday, or the crazy melty land, or you know, the world without shrimp.

Anya ,'Showtime'


Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!  

We open it up, we talks the talk, we votes, we shuts it down. This thread is to free up Bureaucracy for daily details as we hammer out the Big Issues towards a vote. Open only when a proposal has been made and seconded according to Buffista policy (Which we voted on!). If this thread is closed, hie thee to Bureaucracy instead!


Cass - Apr 17, 2008 8:45:24 pm PDT #8407 of 10289
Bob's learned to live with tragedy, but he knows that this tragedy is one that won't ever leave him or get better.

It's the fact that DW and TW are in there that might lead me to dip my toe back in. Which is kinda beside the point, except for where it's why I am antiproliferation.

I honestly only started watching those shows and a lot of others due to discussions other people were having about them. I'm not saying that gaming discussion either in a larger thread or a dedicated thread would make me a gamer, but I like the cross-pollination.


NoiseDesign - Apr 17, 2008 9:14:17 pm PDT #8408 of 10289
Our wings are not tired

And we are back to cross pollination vs. spoilerphobic.

Sigh.


Beverly - Apr 17, 2008 9:53:43 pm PDT #8409 of 10289
Days shrink and grow cold, sunlight through leaves is my song. Winter is long.

I am so weary of this discussion.

Somebody appoint me queen, and I will make an edict that anyone who wants to discuss any topic can create a thread to do that. B.org will be an old fashioned Post Office wall full of cubicles with neat little labels for carefully pared subjects and everyone will get to interact with the dozen or however many posters share their interest.

Was it ita? who likened it to a TableTalk platform for dozens of folders containing dozens of individual threads.

If we do that, we'll never have to have this discussion again. And it will make everybody happy to be able to create threads at will. Obviously being prevented from creating threads at will is making most people unhappy now.

Pay for it? I don't know. You guys are smart, come up with something. Code it? We'll probably have to hire people because it sounds like more of a job than can be done by a handful of volunteers in spare time. B.org? In name only. But all things pass.

This is an observation and an expression of my personal opinion, not an argument or a solicitation of an argument. It's only one opinion, but as much as I dread confrontation I felt I'd be cowardly not to express it.


§ ita § - Apr 17, 2008 10:35:42 pm PDT #8410 of 10289
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

it will make everybody happy to be able to create threads at will

Except for the anti-proliferationistas.

being prevented from creating threads at will is making most people unhappy now.

Except for the anti-proliferationistas.

Me? I'd like to see a good-faith attempt at some serious gaming talk. If that fails, but in a way that indicates its own haven is warranted, then let's discuss thread. This all seems very previous to me.

It may have been noted in passing that conversation didn't get rolling, but how about now, when you know people want to talk about it--can it take root somewhere without freaking out the denizens (and in fact, perhaps enriching them)? Why not see that first? What could it hurt?


billytea - Apr 17, 2008 11:55:10 pm PDT #8411 of 10289
You were a wrong baby who grew up wrong. The wrong kind of wrong. It's better you hear it from a friend.

It may have been noted in passing that conversation didn't get rolling, but how about now, when you know people want to talk about it--can it take root somewhere without freaking out the denizens (and in fact, perhaps enriching them)? Why not see that first? What could it hurt?

I'd be willing to give it a shot. I'm pretty sure the kind of conversation we're thinking of wouldn't work in a general thread like Natter or Bitches (especially Bitches), but in a low-volume more focused thread, sure, let's see what happens. (Other Media's been proposed most often. I think it's an odd fish there, games aren't communication media, but I'm not much concerned for category precision anyway.)

Having said that, repurposing another thread to include discussion of matters gamey will obviously also have an impact on the people already using that thread. So I guess we should get reactions from the Other Media bods?


Miracleman - Apr 18, 2008 4:07:40 am PDT #8412 of 10289
No, I don't think I will - me, quoting Captain Steve Rogers, to all of 2020

Having said that, of course, I don't do much in the way of board games, or pen and paper RPGs or game systems, and I don't have much time on the board anymore, so I doubt I'd be very active in the thread anyway (though I might finally convince my husband to join the board).

I would like to make it clear that, though MY personal conversation preference would probably be about tabletop pen-and-paper RPGs I intended the thread for ALL gaming topics...board games, video games, MMORPGs, LARP...what have you.

(MM, insent to your profile addy.)

(backflung)


Steph L. - Apr 18, 2008 4:51:13 am PDT #8413 of 10289
I look more rad than Lutheranism

And we are back to cross pollination vs. spoilerphobic.

Sigh.

I am so weary of this discussion.

ND and Bev, forgive me if this comes across as snarky, because I don't mean it that way: if this discussion, and the same old the arguments coming up, makes you weary and makes you sigh, then why are participating? You don't have to participate in something that clearly makes you unhappy.


Fred Pete - Apr 18, 2008 4:52:20 am PDT #8414 of 10289
Ann, that's a ferret.

A question for ita and/or anyone else involved with the tech side of the board: What are the tech consequences of thread proliferation? I intend that as a serious question because I don't know enough tech to have a clue. (And I suspect this has been explained before, and likely even because I asked -- apologies for poor memory.)

(Also, Sean and anyone else whose temperature got raised yesterday -- If I said anything yesterday that contributed to the problem, my apologies. My sole intention was to figure out the nature of the issue and possible resolutions that could satisfy everyone.)


P.M. Marc - Apr 18, 2008 4:57:50 am PDT #8415 of 10289
So come, my friends, be not afraid/We are so lightly here/It is in love that we are made; In love we disappear

I'm pretty sure the kind of conversation we're thinking of wouldn't work in a general thread like Natter or Bitches (especially Bitches)

Eh, people talk about that damn baseball crap anywhere. Including Bitches.

And baseball conversation? Pretty similar to gaming talk, only less interesting to me personally, on account of me having a fondness for gaming and an utter lack of one for baseball.


billytea - Apr 18, 2008 5:14:44 am PDT #8416 of 10289
You were a wrong baby who grew up wrong. The wrong kind of wrong. It's better you hear it from a friend.

Oh, that's right, the spoiler thing is an issue too. I guess my position here would be that unlike the various media we follow here, games don't actually generate spoilers themselves, so I don't think it'd be appropriate for a games thread to open any potentially spoilerphobic users to the risk of spoilage in other stuff. Which doesn't negate my comfort with ita's suggestion, but may suggest against certain threads as being suitable places for experimentation.

Eh, people talk about that damn baseball crap anywhere. Including Bitches.

It doesn't feel the same to me, largely because (pro) baseball is something we watch, or at least Hec watches, and gaming is something we do and to some extent create. Closer, possibly, to Hec posting about Emmett's baseball than to posting about the A's, or whomever they are. Though I think the board as a whole is more interested in Emmett's baseballing than they are in my gaming, and would feel a lot more out of place to continue a discussion of, say, an RPG setting someone's working on after someone else has posted about (e.g.) a serious medical or workplace situation.

Of course, I could be wrong. But I do think ita's suggestion would need to be implemented in a low-volume thread to work out.