I don't have as much of a problem with the process as I do with why asking for new threads is unreasonable.

The process works (sort of), it's the reticence I understand very poorly.

---

What is so different about the board now than compared to the golden age you all are talking about?

For me? The Golden Age was when it was on Table Talk and there were a lot fewer posts so that I actually had time to read all the posts in all the threads. As posting volume has increased, that's become impossible. It makes me sad, but I suppose it was inevitable and I deal with it.

---

I don't have as much of a problem with the process as I do with why asking for new threads is unreasonable.

The process works (sort of), it's the reticence I understand very poorly.

That is the process, to me. Not that I would describe it as reticence but that is why we discuss proposals. The entire point is to talk about it, bring up questions, present answers, and then we vote.

I don't, honestly, see the need for a gaming thread so far. It seems like splintering the board in the hopes that it will lead to a dialog, instead of giving a conversation that exists a place of its own.

This splintering is not part of *my* ideal b.org. So, yeah, I am against this one. But, even though I will identify as antiproliferation, I have not voted against every thread proposed. There have been several times when the proposal made sense to me and I have voted in favor.

This is not one of those times for me.

Without people giving their views and asking questions, how is there any discussion in the process at all?

---

why asking for new threads is unreasonable

I think this is a needlessly inflammatory exaggeration.

That some people will question or disagree with the need for New Thread X hardly implies that the asking is considered "unreasonable."

In general, I think new threads, especially narrow topical ones, hurt the community - as Plei said earlier, each new topical thread is one more step towards becoming Table Talk (a platform for communities rather than A community), which I don't want us to be. And so I believe in carefully examining each new proposed thread on a case by case basis to determine what effect it will have on existing conversations. If I thought asking for new threads was unreasonable full stop, I wouldn't ever bother trying to have that conversation.

---

Jess, it was very much not my intent to exaggerate or be inflammatory. I'm very sorry that's how it came across.

But I have no other words to describe it. If you have a better way to put it, let me know.

---

I'm really just trying to help.

---

Jess this is where it gets tough. For you the splintering ruins community. For me the lack of being able to choose particular areas to go and talk easily depending on my available time and current obession ruins community. Our two ideals for community seem to be in direct opposition to each other.

---

I don't think asking for a new thread is unreasonable. I also don't think having a discussion about how various board members feel about the upcoming vote is unreasonable.

I do think that just asking for a thread or a change doesn't automatically mean you get it without group discussion and it is unreasonable, knowing this group of people, to think that's going to happen.

We have a lot of different opinions and tend to express them. This makes me want to tear my hair out at times, of course, but it's also why I love us too.

---

The concern about the board becoming a platform for subcommunities seems strange to me.

In general, that has already happened, and I don't think it is the fault of new threads.

In the specific case of this gaming thread, I don't think any of the people who have expressed interest in it would become a subcommunity (any more thank we already are).

---

Sean, I'm not sure if you're (just) frustrated because you want the thread currently under discussion, or if you honestly believe (any) thread creation should be little more than a notice in Press and a new header on the board.

If the first, then we have to discuss it. The idea has to prove merit to be considered, and to do that it has to be examined by all who perceive interest in its creation, or in the denial of its creation. The idea has to be defended in what must be a hostile atmosphere, interest and support proven, and that interest and support must be further shown by voting.

If the second, then I have to ask do you really believe that the board as it is currently maintained can support hundreds of threads, each of narrow focus and interest, and each with a select membership that posts only in that thread, and possibly a few others? B.org could have a "membership" of tens of thousands of people, most of whom "know" each other only through their narrow interests. Posters who come and go and never have an inkling who else posts in whatever other threads. What relation does a board like that have with what we have now?

I know you get upset with me presenting this as either/or, but that's exactly how I see it. If we make it easy to create new threads, then more people than just gamers are going to want to create new threads. What criteria do we have then, for thread creation? How do you see the process functioning, and how is it better than the creaky, frustrating and roadblocky way it functions now? What would your compromise look like? Because I honestly can't conceive of anything in the middle. If you can, I'd like to share it, please.

---