But did my most recent post make sense?

It made sense to me. Do I count?

---

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.

It is indeed true that having a gaming thread will make it less likely that you'll be talking games with the gamer bods. But not by that much, since we'd probably already need a lowish-volume, specialised thread to sustain gamer talk. So I think the choice is between gamer talk away from you, or being limited to sporadic, erratic gamer talk at all.

I think a gamer thread makes it more likely that we'll be talking games with each other at all. (I sure hope so, because otherwise, how perverse are we?) That makes the community a little happier for me, and means I'll probably spend more time here as part of the community. It'll also foster community links between the gamer thread participants, some of whom I haven't met or necessarily talk with that much. In short, it would make me feel more connected to this board (I'm only talking for myself here). For that to translate to me spending time with the broader community, well, I will, because I likes the community and I feel part of it. But that is something the community fosters by its appeal to me, not by nudging me away from smaller conversations I'd like to have with smaller subsets.

To look at it another way, it seems to me that having a gamers thread may disadvantage non-gamers in being part of it. Conversely, not having a gamers thread may disadvantage gamers in trying to create and sustain such confab in the first place. On this issue, I'm going with the interests of the prospective participants over the stealthy spectators.

---

What billytea said.

---

It made sense to me. Do I count?

Some people have said so, but I reckon you're just highly attuned to your owner and use his subtle body language cues to know when to stop tapping your hoof.

Quick! Someone Turing Test that Indian!

---

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'm not sure it's the only valid method, but it's the one I trust most.

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

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't agree with you.

But if this is not all about me, which I don't believe it is, Nutty, then it's not all about you, either.

How I vote is not about you. It is very much about me, though, right? I mean, the community, but me within the community, right? I have a right to vote my own conscience. Even if my own conscience leads me someplace different from the pro-gaming stance.

And forcing everyone else to use only general, non-narrow topic threads is just as fragmenting and unhealthy to the community.

I'm sorry you feel this way, too. I don't agree with you on this one, either.

My point is, you have a legitimate perspective, in wanting a gaming thread. I don't deny that your desire is real, and I don't deny your arguments make sense (except I still don't understand how a gaming thread would foster community, although Billytea's addition helps on that front). All I ask is that my perspective be considered legitimate too, that my desires be valued, that my arguments be evaluated on their merits.

It is totally possible for two completely reasonable people to come to opposite conclusions about the same set of facts. Sean, when you've been arguing with me, especially when you use words like "spite", I don't feel like you are allowing the possibility that I might be a reasonable person, just like you, who just happens to disagree with you completely. I like to think I've honored your perspective this evening (although see above re the part I don't understand); but I don't feel like my perspective has been honored in return.

It made sense to me. Do I count?

Of course you count, P-C. You and Billytea are the only other people awake on the whole board.

---

All I ask is that my perspective be considered legitimate too, that my desires be valued, that my arguments be evaluated on their merits.

I'm really not sure how to do that when your only response to my arguments is to condescend to me and dismiss me out of hand.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't agree with you.

I mean, you haven't really presented a counter argument there, Nutty. It would be a lot easier to engage you as someone who "just completely disagrees with me" if you offered more than "I just completely disagree with you" to work with.

---

Actually, truth be told, I feel like you, Nutty, have been repeatedly condescending to me, so when you protest that you have engaged me fairly, I'm not really sure what to make of that.

---

So, you feel you've been condescended to -- although, I hope you understand that's not what I'm trying to do -- and I feel I've been insulted and my integrity impugned -- though I think that's not what you're trying to do. And we're back at square one.

Since it is four in the morning my time, I am going to bed.

---

Okay, fair enough.

Sweet dreams, Nutty. And peace.

---

You and Billytea are the only other people awake on the whole board.

I'm awake, but nothing really to add on this argument. Seems folks have got hot under the collar debating.. well, not sure, debating debating. And have strayed from the conversation a bit. I forget who said it up thread, but maybe a list of criteria to fulfill in order to propose creating a thread.

---