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.

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.

Does it help if it is restated as, "Thread proliferation has the potential to change the culture and nature of the community to the point that, while it may still be a healthy community, it is not the community I joined, nor the community in which I feel comfortable and neighborly and chatty."

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.

"Every new thread threatens to destroy the community" seems to me to be an unnecessarily emotional argument, on the verge of accusing new- thread-proposers of kicking puppies.

I think this is what Drew means when he says the positions are so far apart from each other as to make compromise almost impossible.

Does it help if it is restated as, "Thread proliferation has the potential to change the culture and nature of the community to the point that, while it may still be a healthy community, it is not the community I joined, nor the community in which I feel comfortable and neighborly and chatty."

I think that's a clearer, more understandable way of putting it.

I still don't agree with it, but I understand it better.

See? Calm.

- I feel like I'm about to be accused of kicking someone's puppy.

The only question would be- who would get swept up for defending? The poor mistreated puppy, or the poor misunderstood kicker?

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.

I see where the disconnect came in there. Yes, I was speaking more generally.

But I think there are examples here, like movies, music, etc, but it's clear that others think that those threads *have* in fact fractured the community.

I still maintain that the fracturing already happened. There are already groups within groups here, and some of those groups never ever speak to each other. That has nothing at all to do with thread creation.

Sean, I'm glad you're actually calm. For my part, I think the reason you sound emotional and dramatic is that you're being very defensive. Because, well, you're on the defense. You're defending your right to a new thread. But it ends up looking like you're backed into a corner by anti-proliferationistas and lashing out to get free.

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.

Thank you, honey. I would like to report that I did not, in point of fact, get my ass handed to me in skeeball.

Unfortunately, I am not able to report that.

As the WHOAOMGWTFPANDA amount of posts about this:

I am not contemplating withdrawing the proposal. I think it has merit and intend to carry it to a vote.

It'd be awesome if everyone here would take a nap already what with the "You're being vehement!" "No, *you're* being vehement!" "Nuh-uh!" "Yuh-huh!" "Yo' mama!" flying around here.

I do not like the proposed "Try it in OM first" idea because I have addressed a certain weird tendency towards reticence in the gamers around here (and, probably, around the world) when it comes to discussing their hobbies in a place not designated for it. I don't know why it happens, I would love to present the empirical evidence that people seem to be asking for, but I can't. I can only shrug my shoulders and go "Yeah, gamers are weird. WTF, you know?"

I feel like the asshole that dumped an M-80 into an anthill, but then I'm sure everybody who has ever proposed a thread and watched the resulting fireworks probably feels the same way. I wish it weren't so, but what can you do?

Mine dos pence for now.

Sorry about the truncated post earlier; hit Tab and Enter by accident et voila! Nonsense happened.