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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Why does conversation have to be broken out of existing conversation?

Huh? You're saying that you need a thread because of X--I'm saying I don't see X, please show it to me. That's all.

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

Voted down != fallen on deaf ears. That's why we have a process, isn't it? Actually, was a BSG thread proposed and voted down? I know the sort of format ND prefers, but I'm not sure what action was taken in order to try and achieve it.