What if we get billytea to promise to stop by Bitches once a day?
It's just a what-if in an example sort of way.
You're sweet, Trudy. Thanks. (::kermit waves back ::) I'm repeating myself, but having a Music thread doesn't keep me out of Natter; the sheer volume of posts keeps me out.
Well, yes and no... if there were no music thread you might well suck/search Natter and do music that way. Again, these are "ifs"
Billytea, Jon B are just people who came to the top of my head. There wasn't a whole lot of analysis, they're just examples and there are surely other people I've lost track of similarly.
I'd just like to say that I do think "I think XX would be really fun and make for some great conversations" should have some legitimacy as a rationale for thread creation, even though I do think the high hurdles are both necessary and good.
I think XX may have a legitimacy of its own too. I've just not seen it so far in this instance.
I'd love to get away from the "you only get a thread if you prove disruptive" idea - I think in the long run that may be as damaging as anything else.
I don't think of it as "disruptive" so much as a tipping-point with an interest level. "Gee, we basically have two threads going on here now, lets talk about splitting them". (This conversation, of course, can be good or very very very very veeeeeeeeeeeeeeery bad)
I had to make a choice way back when... Bitches or Natter? i chose Natter simply because it seemed to be the slower mover of the two.
Really? I always thought Natter was the faster one, which is why I've usually kept out of it, but I'm trying to get back into it since that's where all the action seems to be.
oh and i'm someone who lurked a bunch during the Firefly days, but didn't register until Wonderfalls. sometimes when the influx thing is brought up i feel a bit unwanted.
Thritto. Also, I didn't realize you first started posting because of
Wonderfalls
too.
Also, I didn't realize you first started posting because of Wonderfalls too.
yeah. up until that point i had the bronze/beta to discuss Joss and all those related's stuff, but around '04 is when the beta really started to die(for me!). most of the people i enjoyed talking with had stopped posting and were either mostly at lj or had simply fallen off the internet world.
I had an evil thought about proposing a thread to discuss thread-creation issues.
You're already soaking in it!
You're already soaking in it!
But just think...to get the thread created, first we'd have to discuss thread creation ABOUT a thread discussing thread creation...
Oops. I think that other part of my brain I mentioned earlier isiasnd;nqlekn;3gi;qwerkn++++++klr=da9aidn;f
The Press announcement is up:
Voting Has Begun!
And with that, I close this thread.
This thread is now open to discuss the following proposal from Jesse:
Going back to an earlier part of the conversation, I'd like to formally propose eliminating "no preference" as a voting option and also revisit the minimum number of votes needed for a vote to count. I'm not going to propose a specific number at this point, because I could be persuaded that just getting rid of no preference serves the purpose, and I'm not sure what the right number would be anyway.
Reposted from Bureaublahblah:
I don't have the stats in front of me, but I have looked at them in the past. As I recall, there have always been enough Yes and No votes alone (i.e. 42 of 'em) to pass or fail every primary item on every ballot. The only time(s) there haven't been enough Yes and No votes (I forget if it's been more than once), it's been the secondary items like spoiler policy for the proposed thread.
So, I have (off the top of my head) two issues with eliminating NP as an option. 1) Like voter ID laws, it seems like a solution looking for a problem and 2) What do we do if enough people vote to create a thread, but not enough vote on things like its spoiler policy?
Am I correct in that the point of the proposal is to make it more difficult for new threads to be created?
