That really changes the meaning of the post, doesn't it?

I just figured you were about to propose we change the name of this thread to Thunderdome.

Thanks, Perkins. I'm sure I make enough of a fool of myself without typos helping the process along.

I just figured you were about to propose we change the name of this thread to Thunderdome.

Two Buffistas enter. One Buffista leaves.

No thanks. I'd probably be the first one dumped into the cage. Probably along with a couple of bears, a lion, and a cobra or ten for good measure.

I'd just toss you in there with a Monkey, who has a gun.

I'm voting [....] I would however like to note my support for discussing it.

I'm... I stepped away from the argument when I felt attacked a couple of days ago, and I tried not to think about it, and came back to it today to see if anything new had been said, and...

You know, I feel like the whole conversation is going in circles (okay that's normal), but I also feel like we've lost sight of the fact that discussion is normal and required for thread-creation. We designed the process to have this many days, and its own discussy thread, for a reason: to suss out what the consequences of any voted action will be, to clarify what's being voted on, to persuade one another to different positions. We did that on purpose. Discussion is not an accidental side effect.

And votes have gone through without hurting people's feelings, too. Movies and Music were both voted in without heartbreak. The vote that got us a Veronica Mars thread was relatively painless, and the vote that closed the same thread was even easier. I don't think there is anything broken with the process.

If there is anything wrong with how we vote, it is that our discussion is not comprehensible one party to the next, or not kind, or not able to be receptive to kindness. It spurs my anxiety, as an anti-proliferationist already, to see this verbal fracture. It speaks to divisions and grudges -- which, frankly, everybody has -- that we're not willing to set aside, that we're not willing to forgive or accept or understand in one another. It spurs my anxiety about where this board is going, when I don't feel my position is considered reasonable, or when I can't comprehend the reasoning of my opponent. It makes me feel a little less welcome, and less welcoming.

And I hate that shit and would like everybody to become a fluffy puppy forthwith.

Wow, I guess I don't see THAT much drama. Some want a new thread. Some think that their friends might go play elsewhere if there is a new thread. What am I missing?

If there is anything wrong with how we vote, it is that our discussion is not comprehensible one party to the next, or not kind, or not able to be receptive to kindness. It spurs my anxiety, as an anti-proliferationist already, to see this verbal fracture. It speaks to divisions and grudges -- which, frankly, everybody has -- that we're not willing to set aside, that we're not willing to forgive or accept or understand in one another. It spurs my anxiety about where this board is going, when I don't feel my position is considered reasonable, or when I can't comprehend the reasoning of my opponent. It makes me feel a little less welcome, and less welcoming.

Yes. Yes to all of this. Want to fix. Don't know how.

And I hate that shit and would like everybody to become a fluffy puppy forthwith.

Seriously loving Nutty just now.

You know, I feel like the whole conversation is going in circles (okay that's normal), but I also feel like we've lost sight of the fact that discussion is normal and required for thread-creation. We designed the process to have this many days, and its own discussy thread, for a reason: to suss out what the consequences of any voted action will be, to clarify what's being voted on, to persuade one another to different positions. We did that on purpose. Discussion is not an accidental side effect.

I'm an Australian hopped up on caffeine, and I approve this post. Now watch this drive.

There's people who have spoken out against this thread that it bums me out to see their names on that post. They're people I would love to see pop by a gaming thread, to talk gaming with me.

I can't keep up with the general threads any more. I'm too busy. So I'm not going to ever talk gaming, except sporadically, which really means never.

Plei, Jess, Cass, Nutty.... LOTS of people who have spoken out against this thread! If you were ever at all interested to talk gaming with me, I WANT TO! But *I* need a cordoned off space on the board to do it.

From where I'm sitting, this thread would not create further division by my design. My deliberate intent would be to try and foster community with precisely the people who are afeared of community fracture.

This is why my bafflement at the resistance. Does that make sense?

My deliberate intent would be to try and foster community with precisely the people who are afeared of community fracture.

This is why my bafflement at the resistance. Does that make sense?

This... doesn't really make sense to me. It kind of feels like saying that you'll foster community by getting your way. Which I don't think is what you mean, but that's how it comes across.

Gaming isn't historically of interest to me, and I don't know anything about it. Giving it its own thread is basically a guarantee I won't learn anything about it. The gaming talk will happen in its own context, with its own specialist lingo, without recourse to changing the topic to spoons or muffallettas. If a thread were 10% gaming, 90% something else, I might pick up some gaming lingo, and someday become interested. If a thread is 100% gaming, or even 90% or 80%, I will not be in the thread at all, and will be much less likely to become interested in gaming.

Saying that a new, focussed thread will foster community presupposes that other members of the community have any intention of subscribing to the thread. If that's not so -- for me it is not -- how does a new, focussed thread do what you propose it does?