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?
Kat, that's one of those details I'm more than happy to tinker with.
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.
Not my proposal, but MM's.
I am not entirely opposed to this idea, but it's not my first choice. I'd be willing to go along with it, provided more people than just billytea and myself are okay with it. Really that's up to MM, as he was the proposer.
But I would like to take this opportunity to point out that the anti-proliferationistas are just as vehement in their stance, yet it is the new thread proposers who are asked to not be so vehement in their desire for a new thread. There's an imbalance there I am not comfortable with, and it makes me not really want to back down, any more than anti-proliferationistas want to back down. It seems like a double standard to me.
But I would like to take this opportunity to point out that the anti-proliferationistas are just as vehement in their stance, yet it is the new thread proposers who are asked to not be so vehement in their desire for a new thread.
I don't get where anyone is saying that. This is what the four days' discussion period is for. A few people have mentioned ways for you to help prove your point that a gaming thread would really succeed. I don't see anyone asking you to stop talking, or to stop being "vehement" about it.
the anti-proliferationistas are just as vehement in their stance, yet it is the new thread proposers who are asked to not be so vehement in their desire for a new thread
Are you asking the anti-proliferationists to be less vehement in their stance? Because I'm getting that from what you're saying, but I want to be sure before I proceed.
MM is currently at, I shit you not, Chuck E. Cheese for lunch with his office, but will, I'm sure, chime back in when he gets back from having his ass handed to him in skeeball.
