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.

Wolfram, I think you're on to something there. A screening process might help.

Though I'd suggest we postpone discussion of the specifics (or discuss in Bureaucracy) to keep the pros and cons of a gaming thread from getting tangled up in more general criteria for thread creation.

A proposer need not defend a thread in here. They can, sure, but they don't need to. Nor do they need to take any of the discussion into consideration. I've never understood someone wanting a thread enough to propose it, but not take it to vote. If their is opposition being voiced it may not reflect what will happen ina vote.

Wolfram, I think you're on to something there. A screening process might help.

Yeah, exactly. Screening process. My "elements" are only off the top of my head and I think the board can do better.

You're also right about this being a Bureaucracy discussion, and I'm all for postponing it since I'm going dark for Passover in a couple of hours and not arising until next week.

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.

Really baffled now.

I'm confused as to how I am using heated rhetoric that other people are not.

Could you point it out to me Drew, because I'm sitting here calmly at my computer. I read my posts, and I see calm discussion.

I am getting accused by everybody of being overly emotional and heated and I don't see it. I'm not swearing, I'm not attacking anybody personally, I am addressing specific arguments and the problems I have with them.

I'm deeply, deeply confused as to how I am being overly heated or dramatic.

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.

No, that's not quite what I was saying, but I don't know how to put it better.

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).

Thank you Fred. Do you see me as having been unreasonable or hysteric in this discussion? I feel like a LOT of people, even people on my side, are seeing me as being ranty and hysterical, and I don't see it. It's a little annoying to be constantly told to calm down, when I don't see myself as being uncalm.