Sure, it would -- but one has to determine demand before going forward.

And also consider whether we intend to stay on a "limitless" account. These are expensive. I'd assumed we were here to fix code, so we could move back somewhere smaller.

Not that I've had a chance to look at code, and I apologise for that, but we should examine how much we want to spread out, because no one's going to want to amputate anything if we move somewhere more affordable.

no one's going to want to amputate anything if we move somewhere more affordable.

I agree, but the Buffy thread's been getting maybe five posts a week all year. By June, the Angel thread will drop to similar levels, and we'll be able to to get rid of Previously altogether. The quotable threads will also die down once the deathmatches end. Based on that, I see no reason why we couldn't start threads at some point in the next six months for one or two TV shows that don't currently have their own threads.

I understand that we need to determine demand, but isn't that why we have the whole voting system?

I don't know about the bandwidth/code problems, so I'll bow to your judgement on that. Certainly, we shouldn't do anything that would hurt the board.

Edit: I also know we're pretty much at opposite ends of the spectrum on proliferation, and I wonder how much that's influencing your opinions on this.

I was surprised that Elena didn't do them that way, because they seemed to go *so* much faster and so much more smoothly -- the current method seems extremely drawn out

I'd guess the death-matchers are going for ongoing fun rather than maximum efficiency.

Your fun probably varies, Trudy. Blame my Virgoness.

Well, if it's not fun don't do them.

I'm not saying it's not fun the way Elena's doing it, because it is. I was stating a preference. I apologize that it runs counter to yours.

I wonder how much that's influencing your opinions on this.

How my position on proliferation is influencing my position on proliferation?

Heavily, of course.

I don't see how one could separate them -- my reasons for proliferation are all hosting based. And that's what I'm talking about.

In an infinite world, have infinite threads.

But if Previously is gone,and Angel becomes much lower-volume, then it's not proliferation, it's replacement. I don't quite understand why that poses as large of a problem.

Again, we're talking about a step we may or may not vote on in three months. If a look at the code shows that we cannot add any new threads no matter what, that will be one thing. But it doesn't sound like we know that right now.

my reasons for proliferation are all hosting based.

I'm sorry if I've misunderstood you, then. In the past, I got the strong impression that in addition to the hosting concerns, you also liked having as few threads as possible because it fit well with your reading/thinking/posting style. (As it does with that of many people here, if not with mine.) If that's not the case, I apologize.

My reading and thinking styles are irrelevant to the things that are best for b.org.

And me expressing my opinion was in no way meant to circumvent a voting process -- just like yours.

My reading and thinking styles are irrelevant to the things that are best for b.org.

Well, yes and no. Yes, in that of course your ultimate decisions are going to be based on what is best for the board.

But if your personal preferences are anti-proliferation, then all of your reasons are *not* hosting based, which is what you said. Your reasons as a Stompy may be, and that may be what you intended to convey, but your reasons as a poster are not.

And I didn't think you were trying to circumvent a vote at all, especially since I'm not even proposing one now. Sorry if it sounded as though I did.