'Serenity'
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!
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.
But since Sean asked, when was the last time we actually denied a new thread?
The TV Drama thread was denied last fall.
As for Amy's quotes of my post, I stand by them. Others will disagree with what I said, some will be upset. I know I should regret causing upheaval, but an honest thrashing out of an issue does not come about when everyone is being carefully polite with each other. When people fundamentally disagree on a situation, upset will occur. How we cope with that upset is what defines us as a community.