Steph, it is, in fact, #2.

Dang! Again.

I swear to you, from my reading of this thread over the past few days (and I've read every post [except for the ones where you, ND, and billytea tangented off into gaming]), I don't think that anyone is doing that. I really don't.

I swear to you, from my reading of this thread over the past few days (and I've read every post [except for the ones where you, ND, and billytea tangented off into gaming]), I don't think that anyone is doing that. I really don't.

Me neither, FWIW. Except I did read the gaming posts.

I support the gaming thread because, while there are about a billion places on the internets where I could go to talk gaming, this is the only place to talk gaming with Buffistas.

That brings me closer to the community here (chicken), because I already like the community here (egg).

But I get that that is just me. I wasn't happy to see the creation of Minearverse, because I wasn't in a place where I could watch his shows real time (if not for years). So I couldn't go in there (spoilers), but several people I like reading spent more and more time in there, and less in threads where I was.

No real point, just giving a specific selfish example. Everybody has their own situation, that's what makes us a community, not brain-sharing clones.

b.org, not Borg.

I wasn't happy to see the creation of Minearverse, because I wasn't in a place where I could watch his shows real time (if not for years). So I couldn't go in there (spoilers), but several people I like reading spent more and more time in there, and less in threads where I was.

This happened with me and the Music thread, and also with Comedy and Procedurals. The conversations I was having in Natter and the people I was having them with are now simply missing from my board experience.

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

Jumping in to say that I thought spoilers only came up in the discussion in response to the idea of putting gaming talk in Other Media.

As to the other question, I think part of the problem with these votes (from what I've seen, and from a vantage point close to Anne's as regards adding threads) is that the discussion never seems to be simply 1) "I want a new thread; 2) "I don't want to add threads".

It often reads to me as 1) "I want a new thread, why do we have to have this drawn out process to create something I really want?"; 2) "I don't want to add any threads, why do we have to keep talking about this?" Maybe that's not how people really feel but that's how it comes across to me. If either or both sides do feel this way, it would seem we should revisit the process (as some have proposed) rather than continuing to criticize it.

The thing is, say Wonderfalls and such conversation had been moved to Natter - you'd then get spoiled reading Natter.

The only reason I support a gaming topic here is because I didn't know we had Buffistas gamers. I'd like to talk to them about gaming - Buffistas are shiny. I could just go and join a gaming forum elsewhere, but, well... Don't wanna. They'll write in caps and say LOLOMGWTFBBQ.

This happened with me and the Music thread

And yet, if there were no music thread and that conversation were happening in Natter, I'd be unable to participate. There are many different, equally valid ways of experiencing this community. And so we have our procedures and go with what the majority decide. It's not a perfect system, but it's the best we could come up with.

There are many different, equally valid ways of experiencing this community. And so we have our procedures and go with what the majority decide. It's not a perfect system, but it's the best we could come up with.

Yep, this.

I don't think that anyone is doing that. I really don't.

I guess I feel like the merits of this thread were not engaged fairly by the against side.

You're all my friends, and I adore you! I don't actually think any of you are engaging the discussion in bad faith or out of spite.

But there have been many arguments put forth as to how there way in which this specific thread idea is different from others. In response, it feels like all that has come back is "I disagree." But without any supportive arguments, how is that in good faith.

I liked Scrappy's post because it was an argument I could engage, and be swayed by.

I liked Plei's post from her phone just now, because it was an argument that I could engage, and be swayed by (and have been in the past).

Being told by the against side that they "just plain disagree" with the arguments presented is not being engaged in good faith. It gives nothing to work with.

Not giving actual responses to arguments put forth as to why a gaming thread is different from other threads (say, a dedicated BSG space) is not being engaged in good faith. If you don't respond to an argument with anything other than "I just plain disagree," how is that arguing in good faith?

And again, for the record, I love you all, and I'm sorry that my part in this discussion makes any of you unhappy with me.

I had an evil thought about proposing a thread to discuss thread-creation issues.

Then the meta of it tangled itself up in my head and another part of my brain threatened to stroke out if I didn't stop it already.

But I did come up with a possible name for such an evil thread:

Threads: Like the Nuclear-Apocalypse Movie But With More Pain and Fear.