Games have spoilers? Who knew? (so without knowledge of this world)

And I often feel left out because so many people know each other in real life, so I feel a little bit (I doubt this is true) that bitches is one group of friends that know each other, and natter is another, and I am just an interloper.

I often feel this way too, Sophia. For me, I think that's partly a function of not living in a place where there are few or no other Buffistas, and of my general feeling of outside looking in.

(backs away from can of worms, hiding opener behind my back)

I kind of love this.

I am part of the Great Firefly Explosion, but I never stayed exclusively in Firefly.

The willy-nilly approach is the main thing that kept me from participating in boards before I stumbled into this gin joint. On the boards in which anyone can start a thread, I felt like there were a million doors to open, and I never was sure what was behind him. It was like being in a Monty Python skit. (I didn't come here for an argument...)

Some of the changes in Boxed Set have come about because of the sudden proliferation of sf-ish television shows. We want to talk about them somewhere, but the only options I see for the spoiler-phobes is to open a new thread for every new genre show or have a sea of white font somewhere. A new thread for each show strikes me as unworkable, particularly considering that the discussion of some of these shows has only been the occasional "Does New Amsterdam still suck?" "Yes." I really would like to understand what the people who don't like Boxed Set in its current evolution think would be the ideal.

All of this has nothing to do with a gaming thread, however. I certainly understand the urge to be able to talk about something you love with other Buffistas, and I see your argument that it doesn't fit in well with other discussions. I am unlikely to ever enter such a thread, though, and I'd hate to think it meant I'd see less of people like Sean.

I am part of the Great Firefly Explosion

Seriously? I feel like you've been around for way longer than that!

I am unlikely to ever enter such a thread, though, and I'd hate to think it meant I'd see less of people like Sean.

On the flip side, I gotta say the possibility that we'll see more of people like Raq, CaBil, billytea around these parts is swaying me the other way a bit.

Still don't know where I fall on this. I've been nodding along all morning at almost everything.

I am part of the Great Firefly Explosion

Huh. Did not know that.

See, I don't think a gaming thread would draw Sean away from other threads. Dude's a blabber-mouth. Won't shut up ever.

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.

Beloved Bev,

Again, I do *not* want to be able to create threads willy nilly.

I want to be able to discuss gaming or BSG (without being spoiled for any other show) with Buffistas. For me, that will only ever happen in a focussed thread.

There are rational arguments against new threads in general, but when these subjects come up, there seems (to me) to be one argument in particular that is an emotional appeal disguised as a rational argument.

Many people during this discussion (and other discussions) have said they feel this thread and threads like it will destroy they board culture they love.

However, when those of us who want these threads mention that *not* having them is destructive to board culture for us, those opposed tell us we're being emotional, or that we're not engaging fairly, or that they just plain disagree with us.

That is what seems (from my side) to be very unfair, and part of what I think triggers such wildly emotional arguments.

I said it before and I'll say it again, that is frustrating, sad making..

Drew and I (among others) say that this attitude make *us* feel fragmented from the board, so I put it to Nutty that the fragmentation she seeks to oppose already exists.

Nutty's response is to say "I'm sorry you feel that way, but I disagree."

How then are we ever to convince her or you or anybody that the fragmented state already exists if our experience of the board is dismissed out of hand?

This thread is about to close, which is sad-making, because I think we're getting close to something.

And again, I don't want to change the process, I just want to be listened to in a way I don't feel I have been.

I wandered in here in late 2002. I was a little ahead of the big influx, but I got here through Firefly. It's a little fuzzy, but I think I heard of you as part of the Save Firefly campaign. I read the Bronze, but the format annoyed me.

I just want to be listened to in a way I don't feel I have been.

I wonder if we could continue this discussion in Bureaucracy, since (a) Light Bulbs is about to close, and (2) Light Bulbs is really supposed to just be discussion about the specific thread proposed (not that Buffistae have ever been good at sticking to just one topic....look! Something shiny!).

I wonder if we could continue this discussion in Bureaucracy,

I would like to. There's pain, and I want it to stop. I feel pain, caused by people I love, and it seems I have hurt people I love in return.

Not good.

However, when those of us who want these threads mention that *not* having them is destructive to board culture for us, those opposed tell us we're being emotional, or that we're not engaging fairly, or that they just plain disagree with us.

That is what seems (from my side) to be very unfair, and part of what I think triggers such wildly emotional arguments.

Sean, this is where my conflict with you lies. I posit that it is totally fair to just plain disagree with you. I do think that resorting to snide language (i.e., expressing emotion inappropriately) is unfair; and I do agree that refusing to debate honestly is unfair; but that last in your list of three is not unfair under any definition I can work out.

How then are we ever to convince her or you or anybody that the fragmented state already exists if our experience of the board is dismissed out of hand?

It's possible you'll never convince me of your position. And that's okay, isn't it? I clearly can't convince you of mine! But I respect that you have it, and would like an equal amount of respect in return. Calling me unfair or spiteful does not feel like respect.