anti-proliferationistas

I think we need a new word. Like preservationists.

Sean, since you asked, here's a few examples and my reactions to them:

You don't the the fragmentation has already happened? Really? You don't see how we've already fragmented into our little groups, with (in some cases) almost no contact between said groups?

You honestly believe if we only had just the one Natter thread, we'd all just talk to each other?

The fragmentation has already happened. Pretending it hasn't does nothing to prevent it.

To my eyes this reads as intentionally condescending and somewhat insulting. Sorry, but that's how it reads to me.

The argument that fragmentation will destroy our community because it has destroyed so many other communities also holds no water at all, because it is highly selective, and completely ignores the other posting boards that allow individual user thread creation and are doing just fine, thank you.

The argument may hold no water for you, but it clearly holds water for our opposition. It's very dismissive of their position. Being dismissive has a very different tone than disagreeing.

...

Those are not the total, they are examples. You aren't outright calling people asshats, but I'm reading your tone, and I may be wrong on this, as very combative and intentionally inflammatory. Typically that tone does not help a discussion.

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.

I think there's a certain amount of "fracturing" that will exist on any board that has more than one place to talk. Some people will be more attracted to certain subjects than others, and some will frequent areas that others do not. It's like a giant Venn diagram, with various states of overlap.

My opinion on the anti-proliferation stance (and I don't attempt to speak for everyone, and I personally am not die-hard for or against, I prefer to decide on a thread-by-thread basis) is that it involves questioning whether a trend toward thread creation will take the community in a direction which is not in keeping with the ideas that the folks who originally created the community had for its... vision and mission statement, if you will.

I think the reason that the thread discussion keeps coming up is that we still don't have an answer on what thread creation will do, because MM still hasn't finished that damn time machine yet.

I think that niche threads don't help that, though, as some of the groupings I see look to my eyes to come from the subcommunities formed in particular threads. It fosters insularity.

Okay, I can kind of see your point, but... then again, not really.

I don't honestly see how the subcommunities were caused by the threads.

But I know that you honestly do.

We're each seeing things the other is not seeing.

Am I insane, or are posts duplicating themselves?

Am I insane, or are posts duplicating themselves?

At least 2 have -- msbelle and someone else.

Am I insane, or are posts duplicating themselves?

They are.

Ha. Because what we need are *more* posts. (But at least I'm not insane.)

Damn, see what happens if you accidentally post before you're done typing? My bullshit gots ran over.

I had an AWESOME story in there about this one time I was GMing...