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.
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.
I'm not Sean, but as I've posted more than once, my personal experience has been that the general threads have been a very fragmenting experience for me. The threads that I have the most consistent participation in are the slower moving narrowly focused threads. Technology is one of those threads for me, I never miss a post in there, and I actually catch people in there on a regular basis that I wouldn't bump into otherwise. For the past, well, at least 3 or 4 years, I've been very sporadic in Natter and Bitches. I just can't keep up, and as a result I have a hard time following conversations.
Here's one of my big reasons for a more dedicated thread for gaming. I know that some of the most likely people to post in there, myself, Sean, MM, CaBil, BillyTea, Raq, just a new a few, are scattered in multiple timezones. In a slow moving and focused thread a conversation can happen with hours between the posts. It's easy to come in, and read the half dozen posts from earlier in the day and pick up the line and continue. When those posts are within a faster moving stream, there's a very good chance that one of the participants won't even read them. Six lines of conversation with 30 unrelated posts splitting them up makes things very hard to follow. Quite often the only time I know that I've been asked for or mentioned in a conversation in a faster moving thread is because someone will catch me in IM and send me a link so that I go and look. Other times I'll cath it a week later if I happen to do a threadsuck and search for "ND" or "Drew" otherwise it's lost. This is fragmenting for me. I don't feel like I can ever really be part of the conversation. Occasionally I can come in and be part of it for a few minutes, but then I get pulled away and it's gone. I long for a few threads where I can keep up. Where I can come in at the end of a long day and read 20 messages and be caught up and actually be part of the conversation and the community. That doesn't happen for me on the board very often. I've felt disconnected for years now. This board has been the source of some of my very close friendships, and it's where I found the love of my life. It saddens me that I now feel distant from it.
And forcing everyone else to use only general, non-narrow topic threads is just as fragmenting and unhealthy to the community.
as making creation of threads somewhat tiresome and difficult is fragmenting and unhealthy, you mean? Again, no provocation intended. I'm honestly trying to understand your position.
Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt above, by the way. I asked clumsily, but my question was sincere. I'll try to restate it. As I understand you, you believe thread creation (in general. I expect you recognize the application of what you're asking *for the gaming thread* would be made to all threads proposed in the future) should be a simpler process. You disagreed when I guessed you were suggesting that any member should be able to create a thread on any topic at any time, whether there was other interest or traffic in that topic or not. But you haven't outlined what you do believe would be a fair and simple process, one that would work for this board and its members.
Would you have any controls on what threads are created? If so, who could create threads, and on what topics? Would every board member be given a number of thread creation opportunities, possibly in exchange for paying annual dues to keep the board running, or would there be no such limit? Would we want anyone to oversee the creation process, if we don't allow at-will creation? By oversee I mean deny creation of a thread for which a similar one already exists, suggest in what folder a thread should go so it can more easily be found, and monitor threads that have had no activity for a certain period and might be ready for closure. Would we expect volunteers to staff that position, or would we want to hire someone in that capacity, given that the thread load will increase by a lot?
What would happen if obstructionists like me back off and simply stop arguing and objecting? What sort of narrow-focus threads do you expect to be created, and how many of them? Are you saying this is what you'd like to see? And do you believe this system would be more pleasant and better than what we have now? Honest questions, I'm not arguing, I want to understand your position, to think it through and decide where it has merit and how we might implement it, if enough people agree that the process needs to change.
From my perspective, I do expect discussion and justification for thread creation, even if I don't *enjoy* the discussion. I believe the process should take effort and commitment, and creation of a new thread should be won. It has more value, I think, if it's won. But I could be wrong. I'm often wrong. This wouldn't be the first time.
I really hope I've asked my questions in a non-provocative, non-inflammatory way. I sincerely want to hear what you envision as the right way for the board to create, maintain, and run threads. I want to study your ideas and see if there are some points of compromise, where we can both have a board that works for us. I think we may need a compromise.
From my perspective, I do expect discussion and justification for thread creation, even if I don't *enjoy* the discussion. I believe the process should take effort and commitment, and creation of a new thread should be won. It has more value, I think, if it's won. But I could be wrong. I'm often wrong. This wouldn't be the first time.
I think making changes should be doable and difficult. It's a good way to govern.
It's a pain in the ass that its hard, but its a
good
pain.
points up at ND's post and nods. Yup. That's me. Well, except the finding the love of my life. Still searching for that. If she's a Buffista, sweet!
It's a pain in the ass that its hard, but its a good pain.
Oh lord, did you really just say that?
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.
And, if I am ever going to be involved in the conversation, it can't be in a separate space. It's not that I won't want to be there, I just don't have the time. I skip in most of the threads that I actually consider myself active in already.
We have the Suck feature and I use it. I grab the thread, vanity search to look for anything brought to my attention (thus enabling conversations in a fast-moving thread) or addressed to me, read the last however many posts I have time for and then jump into the talk or wait until the waters suit me better.
Splitting the gaming (because this is the topic currently) conversation off from some of the main threads means that I will never see it. And currently? Yes, I might miss it. But I might catch it and get caught up in a fascinating conversation I hadn't planned or expected.
It's not ideal, no. But I don't prefer the alternative. And I am just one vote.
We have the Suck feature and I use it.
Oh lord, did you really just say that?
Oh lord, did you really just say that?
Are you suggesting different phrasing? Perhapse we should try it the other way?