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.

I've never understood someone wanting a thread enough to propose it, but not take it to vote.

I have. It's like bringing the coolest toy to school and watching your friends beat each other up over it. You just want to take the toy home and never take it out again.

It's a little annoying to be constantly told to calm down, when I don't see myself as being uncalm.

FWIW, it reads pretty heated to me. As someone not really convinced of the necessity of a new thread, I feel like I'm about to be accused of kicking someone's puppy.

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?

That's a pretty reactionary answer to my question.

When I originally quoted this:

Anti-proliferationistas keep making the argument that new threads irrevocably fracture the community (with an implied *always* in there), and that is demonstrably untrue

I read "the community" to mean our community, not a generic and/or hypothetical community. You may have meant it in a more general sense, but since the anti-proliferationistas that live here are the only ones I know, that's where my concern lies.

I agree that thread creation or the lack thereof has the potential to make or break communities. My direct concern is its effect, or lack thereof, on *this* community. I read your statement to mean that there is concrete evidence in this community that new threads do not create fracture here, and if that is so I would like to see it.

If you were speaking in a more general sense, though referencing our specific users to do it, then the evidence in question probably doesn't exist.