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.

I'd be willing to go along with it, provided more people than just billytea and myself are okay with it.

Call me strongly pro-A Place for the gamers, leaning toward (but not committed to) new thread, anti-vehemence unless it's a reflection of very strong feelings (which is not to say I'm finding anyone unacceptably vehement), pro-defusing tension (which I do see here).

Oh, and the 30 day limit is a critical part of the idea. I'm not dead set on 30 days, but I want it to be a short time so the question isn't dragged out.

I just asked why 2 people I care about are putting themselves in a situation that's rife with obvious frustration for them, when it's possible for them to avoid the frustration by avoiding this discussion.

In my case I believe that silence can be read as tacit agreement, hence, I do not remain silent.

As for what is transpiring here. Sean, I love you man, I agree with your position, but you really need to take the rhetoric down a notch. Channel a touch more of your inner Vulcan.

The reality is we have a number very divergent ideas of what helps and hurts the board. People get passionate, in their own way, defending these positions. I think the positions are far enough apart that there's not a lot of compromise possible and as such it leads to the high drama we get in lightbulbs. It's unfortunate, but there it is.

Chuck E. Cheese for lunch with his office

his office is catering to their inner 5 year old? I'm sure he is having so. much. fun.