On my seventh birthday, I wanted a toy fire truck, and I didn't get it, and you were real nice about it, and then the house next door burnt down, and then real firetrucks came, and for years I thought you set the fire for me. And if you did, you can tell me!

Xander ,'Same Time, Same Place'


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!


Amy - Apr 18, 2008 6:40:46 am PDT #8437 of 10289
Because books.

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.


Sean K - Apr 18, 2008 6:41:09 am PDT #8438 of 10289
You can't leave me to my own devices; my devices are Nap and Eat. -Zenkitty

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.


Sean K - Apr 18, 2008 6:42:33 am PDT #8439 of 10289
You can't leave me to my own devices; my devices are Nap and Eat. -Zenkitty

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.


-t - Apr 18, 2008 6:51:42 am PDT #8440 of 10289
I am a woman of various inclinations and only some of the time are they to burn everything down in frustration

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.


§ ita § - Apr 18, 2008 6:57:23 am PDT #8441 of 10289
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

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.


Aims - Apr 18, 2008 6:58:17 am PDT #8442 of 10289
Shit's all sorts of different now.

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.


Sean K - Apr 18, 2008 7:04:04 am PDT #8443 of 10289
You can't leave me to my own devices; my devices are Nap and Eat. -Zenkitty

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.

This I do not understand at all. Why does conversation have to be broken out of existing conversation?

Don't understand at all.


-t - Apr 18, 2008 7:05:00 am PDT #8444 of 10289
I am a woman of various inclinations and only some of the time are they to burn everything down in frustration

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.

Yeah, I was just trying to think of where said discussion could happen since there are objections to Other Media and ended up with a completely different idea. I didn't do very well with the context placing.


Sean K - Apr 18, 2008 7:05:11 am PDT #8445 of 10289
You can't leave me to my own devices; my devices are Nap and Eat. -Zenkitty

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.

Also, the plea for people to have a place where they can talk about BSG without being spoiled for Stargate has consistently fallen on deaf ears.


Aims - Apr 18, 2008 7:07:23 am PDT #8446 of 10289
Shit's all sorts of different now.

To expound on my previous post, this past August the Network Drama thread was denied. Perkins "Sunnydale Press" Aug 17, 2007 7:01:49 pm PDT