This is kind of a drive-by, because I really should be engaged in something else. But since Sean asked, when was the last time we actually denied a new thread? So what is the fighting tooth and nail a reference to? Anti-proliferationistas always lose.

I fight because (1) lots of people vote no-preference, and I'd like them to actually vote up or down and (2) I do care, and I want people to start caring about fragmentation. In the past year TWoP has been pretty much ruined for me because of all the fragmentation of threads. I think all the fragmenting hurts natter here.

I also really don't appreciate the comments that people who don't want new threads are doing it because they don't want anyone to have any fun, they're mean, they're just like the people who shoved you in lockers in high school. Every single time I personally have explicitly stated that the reason I don't want new threads is because this board is becoming too fragmented, and I think new threads are usually don't sustain enough interest. So you know why we do this, there's no reason to make it about non-proliferationistas attacking the proposer. Everyone gets the thread they want, so the martyrdom is unnecessary.

ETA: Also, you, Sean, cannot have it both ways. You cannot argue that there's no need to worry about precedent in this case because we fight about this all the time, and then lament the fact that we have to fight about this every time. I get the feeling that you're throwing arguments out there to get the thread that you want. I know you feel hurt that people are arguing against you, but I've made my stance clear in every case, no matter who proposes. It's not personal to you, but you are making it fairly personal about people who believe the way they do about proliferation.

AND...I'm drinkin' milk.

Let Emeline's future dates beware!

So what is the fighting tooth and nail a reference to?

Because the resistance usually seems combative to me.

I think all the fragmenting hurts natter here.

I disagree. I am not alone.

I also really don't appreciate the comments that people who don't want new threads are doing it because they don't want anyone to have any fun, they're mean, they're just like the people who shoved you in lockers in high school.

Please point to me where I said anything of the sort.

Every single time I personally have explicitly stated that the reason I don't want new threads is because this board is becoming too fragmented, and I think new threads are usually don't sustain enough interest.

I don't think this is always clearly stated, and I don't agree with the position. So far, Scrappy is the only one who has put the argument in a way that I agree with.

So you know why we do this, there's no reason to make it about non-proliferationistas attacking the proposer. Everyone gets the thread they want, so the martyrdom is unnecessary.

"The board will be absolutely *ruined*" is an emotional-plea argument. You've made it and Nutty has made it, among others. So there's plenty of martyrdom to go around for everybody, apparently.

I don't go into Natter because I find it impossible to keep up there. It may be a free-flowing, high-spirited orgy of fun and community, but it's not a conversation. Just like contradiction isn't an argument (/ Monty Python)

Other Media could work, maybe, but only because the flow is lighter and it would be easier to get past the non-applicable portions.

I still believe that the community has already changed, that it's not a bad thing just different, and that trying to force everyone into tight groups is pleasing primarily to people who associate noise and crowds to happiness.

Please point to me where I said anything of the sort.

You didn't, as far as I know, although you *did* say that anti-proliferationists think those who want new threads "suck."

And connie said this (emphasis mine):

Having other people then grab the focused discussers and yank them back into the main stew of generality smacks to me of "You're having fun over there that's not including us! That's anti-social! You must mingle!"

The anti-proliferationists' successful sociability is not the responsibility of people who want to have a focused conversation on a separate topic. The argument "Having multiple threads ruins the boards" lacks the add-on of "for me." Every proliferationist squabble always strikes me as someone observing a party and seeing fun occurring somewhere else and somehow feeling threatened.

I'd meant to respond to these, too:

I fight because (1) lots of people vote no-preference, and I'd like them to actually vote up or down and

I have repeatedly argued for the elimination of the No Preference vote, so I'm with you on that.

(2) I do care, and I want people to start caring about fragmentation.

You don't the the fragmentation has already happened? Really? You don't see how we've already fragmented into our little groups, with (in some cases) almost no contact between said groups?

You honestly believe if we only had just the one Natter thread, we'd all just talk to each other?

The fragmentation has already happened. Pretending it hasn't does nothing to prevent it.

You didn't, as far as I know, although you *did* say that anti-proliferationists think those who want new threads "suck."

Fair enough.

I think there's a lot of exaggerated language from the anti-proliferationista side, yet they never get called on it.

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

Would it be crazy to, say, re-open the Book club thread for a limited and predetermined time (a month, six weeks, something like that) and use it as an experimental Gaming thread to see what kind of conversation happens? It's all very theoretical right now and it's hard to know what to think.

I would like to say that this is the first time I feel like I've really understood the heart of the anti-proliferation stance on a gut level, so revisiting and rehashing does have some value.

Would it be crazy to, say, re-open the Book club thread for a limited and predetermined time (a month, six weeks, something like that) and use it as an experimental Gaming thread to see what kind of conversation happens? It's all very theoretical right now and it's hard to know what to think.

That's precisely not my suggestion. I want to see an attempt to discuss gaming without a dedicated thread fairly tried and failed. Then I'd think there might be a reason to have one. As is, I've seen nothing to convince me.

To answer bonbon's questions here:

But since Sean asked, when was the last time we actually denied a new thread?

I don't know if it was the last time, but 4 years ago (almost to the day, in fact) the politics thread got voted down.