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?

I was trying to explain my perspective, not argue for the thread's creation.

Like you just said....

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.

I was trying to make it more comprehensible to you. I guess I didn't do a very good job.

But that being said, if you're not interested in the thread at all, what is then your stake against it? I don't understand. I know you don't mean it as such, but that is the part that comes across as "I don't care what you want, I am against you for the sake of..." I don't know? What? Spite? I don't understand.

I feels like spite, but surely it's not. You protest it is not. It must not be spite. But I don't understand.

And now we're back to:

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.

I understand if you have no use for a gaming thread, or any other thread.

But if it is of no use or interest to you, why be against it? Why the opposition?

but that is the part that comes across as "I don't care what you want, I am against you for the sake of..." I don't know? What? Spite?

Spite? Really? Come on, Sean, is that necessary? Can't you think of a single reason why someone might not want a gaming thread that is not a personal affront to you?

Of course I care what you want. That doesn't mean I will vote the way you want me to vote. I don't vote for proposals because people want them. I vote for them because I think they're good ideas that will work. Things that I don't think are good ideas, or that I don't think will work, I don't vote for. I'm often on the opposite side from people I like and wish well. If we all voted the same way for the sake of not-disagreeing, I would not be a member of this community, because this community would be a cult.

I don't like the idea of a new thread being created where acute need has not already been demonstrated (i.e., via overflow within existing threads). I don't like the idea of fragmented subcommunities. I don't like the idea of all the other narrow-topic threads that could follow, like Politics and Baseball and who knows what. I've already expressed these opinions, and they have nothing at all to do with my opinion of or regard for Sean K or anybody else.

It is possible to hold a contrary opinion for better reasons than pure contrariness. If this were not so, the Buffistas would not exist.

Okay, I'm really not trying to be inflammatory, Nutty.

I'm trying to bridge a gap and FAILING MISERABLY.

Same here.

But did my most recent post make sense?

I don't like the idea of a new thread being created where acute need has not already been demonstrated (i.e., via overflow within existing threads).

I don't understand why this is the only valid method of thread creation, especially when that doesn't actually seem to be true in practice.

I don't like the idea of fragmented subcommunities.

They already exist. New threads will not prevent them. A halt to new threads will not unfracture them.

I don't like the idea of all the other narrow-topic threads that could follow, like Politics and Baseball and who knows what.

But if this is not all about me, which I don't believe it is, Nutty, then it's not all about you, either. And forcing everyone else to use only general, non-narrow topic threads is just as fragmenting and unhealthy to the community.