There are no rules about what can and cannot be posted in Natter. But Natter has, by dint of its very success, become a difficult place to have deep involved discussions in, because of the speed of the conversation. While people will discuss the war (if we have one) in Natter, it will perforce be interspersed with conversations about which hand you cut your meat with and free-form jazz and the X-Men trailer and the best way to roll out pie crust.

That said, I'm still against creating a new thread, for the reasons I stated upthread. A mailing list would encourage more meaty discussion and would keep down the trollishness.

Maybe we could adopt safe word when a discussion in Natter goes into the Red Zone?

I suggest "bumbershoot." 'Cause it's hard to be serious when thinking of that word.

Ok. We all know I'll talk politics at the drop of a hat. Indeed, I'm willing to discuss the political ramifications OF dropping the hat.

But a war and/or politics thread is just a bad idea. Don't mind a bit of political natter around the board, but I just don't want to concentrate it.

I'm Victor.

I'm looking for as the sense of talking things over with my tribe, where they actually listen instead of shouting past each other. (Though the fact that here I tend to the majority view doesn't hurt.)

Oh, I'm Susan too.

I can't see keeping any subject of our daily news and/or daily lives out of Natter. I can't imagine not discussing a subject that is weighing on the hearts and minds of us all. The reasons for not having a separate political thread seem persuasive to me at this point.

I found the Buffista threads on WX a week or so after 9/11 when I couldn't bear to sit zombee-like in front of the television anymore. I first found the Bitches thread which was a calm port for me. This remains my safe place and I want it to stay that way.

Good idea Fred!

Laura, I feel much the same way. I'd lurked for some time at Salon, and finally started posting regularly on 9/11. This board has helped keep me sane during a very difficult time (and I hope I've been able to return the favor to others). A safe word will help keep Natter both free-form and polite.

And now I'm confused on where Cindy stands, so I'm not sure if we agree or not.

We don't, but that's okay. I would have liked to have the thread. I disagree with not allowing it because we're afraid of trolls. That seems a bit of "the terrorists have won" to me. t sarcasm level="playful" Maybe we shouldn't have a message board, because there's no bigger draw to internet trolls than a message board. t /sarcasm

I just can't add a list to my life. I also find it frustrating when people who say they don't want to post in it anyhow, seem to be able to kill the idea of a thread. I don't post in more threads than I do. I'm not trying to close down all the threads that are not a good fit for me.

I don't think of this so much as not allowing the topic in Natter. I feel like when we start talking that way, we're chasing a smelly old red herring and missing the meat of this discussion. The issue is that Natter isn't suited to an in-depth discussion of the topic - not that we need to ban the subject in Natter. Sometimes Natter isn't well-suited because it's too busy. Sometimes it isn't well-suited because a sizable number of Natterers don't want to talk about the subject. It seems to me that people (most commonly) use natter to vent and escape.

An alternate proposal has been floated (the list). I seem to be one of the few that that won't work for - so really, I'm shutting up now.

eta... I am the companion of all companions. Bow down before me, lower beings.

I would too, but it seems headed in the other direction - especially when I see people try to introduce more sensitive topics.

Well everytime we create a new thread, I think we are doing just that. The discussion of music & literature has all but disappeared from Natter, literature in particular. With the new Movies thread, the same will happen there. It's one of the main reasons I'm so against thread proliferation.

Plus I dislike the idea that war talk is verbotten in Natter. Why can't the war-sensitive skip it the same way I'm forced to skip 50 posts all saying "Timelies!" when I first check in?

You know, it seems to me that perhaps this discussion should just be tabled until some time passes. A war has not even begun yet. While one seems highly likely, what type of war it will be seems very up in the air. I still think a variety of events could lead to it being anything from very short to many years in duration.

I don't hang in Natter, so I'm not sure if it's a problem for people in there right now. But perhaps until a war does break out and discussion about it monopolizes natter, or makes it an uncombfortable place to be for some people, maybe you don't need to make a decision for a while. Maybe for quite a while. And maybe, if we are really lucky, never.

Just a well intended suggestion (and, thus, helping to pave the road to Hell) from a disinterested observer.

I also find it frustrating when people who say they don't want to post in it anyhow, seem to be able to kill the idea of a thread.

I don't think that is what folks are saying. That's not what I am saying at any rate. I am saying that I want the discussion to take place Natter, whereas you would rather not see it there. In other words, the disagreement is on where the discussion should take place rather than on who gets to create a new thread and who doesn't.

I also find it frustrating when people who say they don't want to post in it anyhow, seem to be able to kill the idea of a thread.

It's frustrating if you want a thread, I agree. But not posting in a thread does not mean there's no vested interest in opposing a thread. Thread proliferation, as Burrell just noted, 1. eliminates the discussion from natter and AFAIC 2. dilutes existing threads and 3. increases poster capacity, which is a problem for someone who doesn't want exponential expansion.