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.

And it is the case that this isn't anywhere else. Also, the stance that "We could talk about this easier anywhere else" isn't very conducive to selling the thread.

I'm just looking to help you build a case. Which you have absolutely no need to do, but it's what the four days discussion time is there for, should you avail yourself.

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

By justification do you mean proposal? Because this seems to be part and parcel of every vote, and I don't see the value to a system where you don't have to justify any change you want to affect the board. Next thing we'll have lambs and lions laying down together.

Sean didn't propose. MM did, I think. So Sean can't withdraw a proposal anyway.

community relevance

But in this case, outside of a small group of people, I don't think this thread is relevant to the community. To a subgroup of the community, sure it's relevant. But to the rest, not so much.

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.

Can you point to where that demonstration is?