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.

Just thought I'd post my two cents...

I disagree with the anti-proliferationists. But I think their opinion is necessary in every discussion on thread creation because it is the only thing stopping threads from getting created willy-nilly. This method would be fine except for the ridiculously unnecessary hurt feelings part which happens Every Single Time.

As I see it, the problem is that we don't have better standards as to what meets the test of Deserving a Thread, other than whether the thread proposal survives the battle in Lightbulbs. (Sometimes the thread doesn't even get voted down, the proposer can't take all the hurt feelings the proposal inadvertently generated and simply withdraws it.)

Maybe we could devise a test that is sufficiently rigorous to satisfy most of the anti-proliferationist camp, yet passable enough to allow those few (those happy few) deserving threads to be created. Say each proposed thread had to pass the following criteria (aside from our regular proposal, discussion and voting rules):

1) There is a demonstrated interest in such a thread; 2) A genuine attempt has been made to have the proposed type discussion in an existing thread, unless incontrovertible proof is offered that such attempt would be futile; 3) Thread has some relation to the overall theme or purpose of the board; and 4) Creation of the thread will not do irreparable harm to some other active thread on the board or to the board in general.

Obviously there would still be animated discussion on whether any or all the elements have been met, but at least anti-proliferationists can rest easy knowing a vigorous test is in place to prevent willy-nilly thread creation, and thread proposers would not have to keep arguing about whether proliferation or anti-proliferation is the more reasonable opinion.

By justification do you mean proposal?

No, I mean the combativeness to every new idea. Perhaps that is a mischaracterization on my part.

Can you point to where that demonstration is?

I have to produce a board that allows individual user thread creation and hasn't collapsed into a useless, unfriendly mess before you'll believe that such a thing exists?

For every board I link to that allows individual user thread creation, and does just fine as a community, someone else can point to a board that collapsed.

The point is that the collapse has nothing to do with how threads are created, and everything to do with the community. Allowing easier thread creation won't destroy the community. Shutting down all new thread creation won't save it.

But if you want even just one board that proves that individual user thread creation does not automatically destroy the community, here:

[link]

I'm sure there are plenty others, but even just the one example does, in fact, make the argument that thread proliferation will destroy our community demonstrably untrue.