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.

Important to add! ---

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

And clearly, the against side feels *I* have not engaged this discussion in good faith either.

Obviously I feel I have, or have tried. I *know* you all feel you have engaged in good faith. We can't both be right, so we're probably both wrong, but there's probably *some* bad faith engagement from both sides, then.

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

I posted here with specific concerns about the sustainability of a gaming thread and recieved exactly ONE response, from Nutty, saying "Oh, interesting."

So again, right back atcha.

In conclusion, fuck this, let's vote.

[eta:

I *know* you all feel you have engaged in good faith.

But thank you for acknowledging this, at least.]

You know, I'm starting to think that at this point in our history, it might work better to focus discussion on just the specific proposal. It's when every single proposal turns into a broader referendum that people's feelings get hurt, IMO.

And I know that for some people, the reason they think Thread X is a bad idea is that they think new threads in general are a bad idea, but maybe we'd have more productive discussions if they focused on specific reasons against Thread X.

I posted here with specific concerns about the sustainability of a gaming thread and recieved exactly ONE response, from Nutty, saying "Oh, interesting."

And I don't have time to hunt down the specific posts and link to them, as I have to leave for work, but I know that I responded to your skepticism, Miracleman responded to it, Raq responded to it, and billytea responded to it.

At a minimum.

So right back at you too, Jess.