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.
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...
Oh man, was that the time with the horde of orcs?
To my eyes this reads as intentionally condescending and somewhat insulting. Sorry, but that's how it reads to me.
Huh. Okay.
I guess I don't see that, but if others do, I'll take that into account.
I really think there's a lot of condescension and insult on all sides of the argument, so I'm not sure why I'm being singled out. I especially think that the preservationist (thank you Wolfram) argument is at least as dismissive of our side, but yes, adding dismissiveness doesn't help.
Still, thank you. I will try to tone it down even more.
I really think there's a lot of condescension and insult on all sides of the argument, so I'm not sure why I'm being singled out.
I guess it is your turn. We've all been singled out in the past. I know you, and you're a close friend, and I know you don't intend to be fanning the flames. That's why I felt the need to call you on it.
I also firmly believe that even if I perceive that my opposition is using tactics that I consider inappropriate, that mean I should use those tactics.
