Okay. You tell me there's a reason you want a dedicated thread. I'm asking you to show me the reason. That's fair, no?

Saying you want a thread just because you want a thread is a different position from wanting a thread because you've tried to have the discussions you wanted and failed. I'm saying, give it a shot, this time with everyone actually knowing what's going on. You might find that conversation sustains itself quite well without a dedicated thread.

I am on record already in this discussion as being okay with that if the vote fails. I do think that's reasonable. However, I (and others) want it enough that we're going to try for a new thread. I (and others) don't think that's unreasonable either.

I am really not trying to be flippant here, but the fact is that some of us don't agree with your stance. Because we disagree, how can we put the argument in ways you agree with?

Yes, that does come across as a tautology, when I put it that way.

Let's put it this way. Scrappy's position that she wants to hear about gaming, even though she doesn't game makes sense to me.

The argument that new threads fragment the community holds no water at all. The fragmentation already happened, and frankly was always there.

The argument that fragmentation will destroy our community because it has destroyed so many other communities also holds no water at all, because it is highly selective, and completely ignores the other posting boards that allow individual user thread creation and are doing just fine, thank you.

I don't agree with those positions because these problems with the positions that I have pointed out are not being addressed. You say I'm just being obstinate and not agree with you. I am pointing out again that there are (from where I'm sitting) some seriously holes in your argument that you are not addressing. I might still disagree with you when all is said and done, but at least some attempt to address these problems would help to get me to at least understand your position, if not agree with it.

I am on record already in this discussion as being okay with that if the vote fails.

But here's the thing--if you try it first and it doesn't work, your vote is more likely to pass. What do you have to lose? It's extra ammo for your position.

The argument that new threads fragment the community holds no water at all. The fragmentation already happened, and frankly was always there.

Maybe. There are matters of degree, though, and I'm not down with the position that nothing we do changes that degree, or that it's not something we should consider. And I don't think either side tossing out things like "at will thread creation" is either helpful or reflective of what anyone, for good or bad, is looking for.

I really wish people were more open to the Other Media idea. I don't think it's entirely fair to ask the gaming discussers to go into Natter and try to take over just to prove they can't. But OM seems like fairly close to a natural fit. And as Laga said, that thread is hella whitefonty.

But here's the thing--if you try it first and it doesn't work, your vote is more likely to pass. What do you have to lose? It's extra ammo for your position.

I guess my problem is this: If this were anywhere else, we wouldn't have to ask permission to create the thread, we'd just do it.

I'd like to see a little compromise. And the compromise I'm asking for isn't to do away with voting and let us create threads willy nilly. Just not not have to justify our request to people who do not believe there is any justification for new threads.

I really wish people were more open to the Other Media idea.

I was and am still open to this idea.

But now that the process has started, I'd rather see it voted on. And if it fails, fine.

What's rankling me is not the voting process. It is the justification process.

I guess my problem is this: If this were anywhere else, we wouldn't have to ask permission to create the thread, we'd just do it.

Sean, you keep saying this, but it's hardly the case that there are no other moderated boards on the internet.

What's rankling me is not the voting process. It is the justification process.

But ... it will be voted on, yes? Just not today. No one has to discuss it any further if they don't want to.

Just to toss out an idea:

Before we voted on the TV threads last year, we established several threads on an experimental basis. Might something similar work for the gamers?

Perhaps Sean could agree to withdraw his proposal for 30 days. During that time, we could consense that a thread be designated as Gamer Friendly -- that gaming of all kinds is expressly considered on-topic in that thread. At the end of 30 days, the proposal goes back on the table if Sean wishes.

I'm more than happy to tinker with the details. But it would give some info on how much traffic gaming posts would generate and whether that traffic can fit within an existing thread. With a specific end point so the matter can be resolved fairly soon.

Sean, you keep saying this, but it's hardly the case that there are no other moderated boards on the internet.

Even moderated boards I've seen have a less arduous process for thread creation than this. It just has to be approved by a moderator who is typically only checking for inappropriate content and community relevance. Barring that -- thread approved.

Anti-proliferationistas keep making the argument that new threads irrevocably fracture the community (with an implied *always* in there), and that is demonstrably untrue, yet the argument still gets tossed around as if it is unassailable.