It's just thread-naming that's explicitly exempt, Deena.
Right. Sir. Honey.
Zoe ,'The Train Job'
Bureaucracy 2: Like Sartre, Only Longer
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
amych - May 09, 2003 12:19:16 pm PDT #1534 of 10005
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?
Deena - May 09, 2003 12:24:09 pm PDT #1535 of 10005
How are you me? You need to stop that. Only I can be me. ~Kara
okay... I still see a problem with it. We have an average of 100 posters voting (don't know if it's the same 100 every time or not). If we vote to close, say, Unamerican... what if 80 posters who don't post in there vote yes because they don't think it's important and only 40 who do post in there vote no? (Say the others are all without computer access or don't follow this thread or whatever.) That hardly seems fair. IMO, it's better to go with discussion here for that kind of thing.
Dana - May 09, 2003 12:31:14 pm PDT #1536 of 10005
I'm terrifically busy with my ennui.
But I think that the participants of the thread should have some degree of self-determination.
A degree, sure. But the responses seemed to indicate that only the people in the thread (and the admins) had any say in what happened, and the rest of us could go jump in a very large lake.
Anyway, I'm probably being oversensitive. It's been a really long week. Most of us, I'm sure, did not understand the extent of the community, and no one's going to take anything away.
Wolfram - May 09, 2003 12:31:58 pm PDT #1537 of 10005
Visilurking
But I think that the participants of the thread should have some degree of self-determination. What if a group of Buffistas started to press for no smut in the Fanfiction threads because it offends them, even though they don't read the thread? It's hardly fair. I would never presume to contribute to decisions in the Bitches thread, because I not in there and I don't know what the community is like, nor what their standards are.
Look, thread creation, existence, and eventual archiving affects all of us because it takes up bandwith and there's only a certain amount of threads we can comfortably hold. So for content of threads, look to the posters, but for existence it's really up to the community at large.
Allyson - May 09, 2003 12:33:58 pm PDT #1538 of 10005
Wait, is this real-world child support, where the money goes to buy food for the kids, or MRA fantasyland child support where the women just buy Ferraris and cocaine? -Jessica
there's only a certain amount of threads we can comfortably hold.
Is this true?
Lyra Jane - May 09, 2003 12:36:19 pm PDT #1539 of 10005
Up with the sun
Deena, I'm having a hard time explaining this, but I'll try.
Let's say we have 40 people who really, really want a thread on Monkeys, and 80 who don't see the point of it. Under consensus, the 40 might get it by wearing the 80 down. Under a vote -- and thread creation was a main function of voting as we visualized it -- it's proposed, seconded, goes to a vote, and fails. The 80 (who don't care) have outvoted the 40 (who do).
Now let's say we already *have* a monkey thread, and the 80 are saying "Why is there a monkey thread? I do not like it. Let us get rid of it." and the 40 are screeching "Noooooo! Do not hurt my precious monkey thread!" If it went to a vote, the 80 would squash the 40 like bugs. If it were talked out, the 40 might wear the 80 down (just as they did to get the thread in the first place, the filthy Monkey-lovers.)
Now, in an ideal world, people would abstain from votes abotu threads they don't use. I agree with that. But I think our rules for creating and deleting threads have to be consistent.
Wolfram - May 09, 2003 12:36:25 pm PDT #1540 of 10005
Visilurking
Isn't that the basis for the anti-proliferation camp?
Lyra Jane - May 09, 2003 12:38:12 pm PDT #1541 of 10005
Up with the sun
Well, more posts do fill the database faster, but there are also some community/personal comfort issues, Wolf.
Sue - May 09, 2003 12:41:28 pm PDT #1542 of 10005
hip deep in pie
Look, thread creation, existence, and eventual archiving affects all of us because it takes up bandwith and there's only a certain amount of threads we can comfortably hold. So for content of threads, look to the posters, but for existence it's really up to the community at large.
I can see this argument, Wolfram being applied to thread-sprawl, but not to the constriction of active threads. If we're using the bandwidth for good, we're part of the community, and there's a demand for it, why cancel a thread for the sake of saving some bandwidth? It's that kind of logic that gets shows like Firefly cancelled. Shouldn't the board be responsive to the needs of the community? Isn't that why we moved to a semi-dedicated server? Are our bandwidth problems really that dire?
Sophia Brooks - May 09, 2003 12:44:55 pm PDT #1543 of 10005
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here
AAAAARRRRGGHHH!
Why are we fighting about this?! We were just talking about some housekeeping issues inherant in the end of Buffy. I don't think we should get rid of any current threads that are not redunantly Buffy.
In addition there has been talk of a) perhaps combining Due South and Smallville and b) adding a new Tim's show thread and a new "graduates of ME thread."
No one is going to close the Canadians.