I think it will probably lead to more ill will rather than less.

Me too. But if it's ill will among those that wanted it ... that's not my bed, although I'm sure the aftershock will be wider than just the one thread.

I see no honest upside, except for people that wanting it, getting it.

I get the sense that maybe what happened with Jen K was the exception there?

I don't know. I am still, even now, too close to this issue to be an accurate judge. It didn't feel like a political debate to me.

I'm inclined to vote for it, and if I see baggage from heated discourse there clearly affecting the tone negatively in unrelated threads, calling the involved parties on it in those threads. I hope that ALL of us will still be open to a "dude, chill" comment if we forget ourselves and let things get out of hand?

I would hope so, Matt.

While things around here do get tense, I'm rather relying on Buffistas staying, inherently, Buffista, even when discussing politics. Yes, politics can get loud and messy and divisive, but, foolish me, I keep thinking it doesn't have to. I'd rather not avoid doing something because, ooh, bad things might happen. Something good might happen, too.

And, yes, I've been on other boards, even stuck my nose into the infamous TT Politics boards. Giving ourselves a place to discuss important things is not necessarily putting out the welcome mat to Freepers and wild-eyed fringers off all sorts.

Right now, I'm leaning against a Politics thread, but I'm persuadable. Except for one thing -- there's gotta be camouflage. I don't care what it is (though Las Vegas has a certain appeal). I don't want people seeking us out just to talk politics -- for my reasons, well, what Tina said.

It's another issue, but I doubt that I'd post, or even subscribe. But conflict avoidance is one of my faults.

I'm against it for the reasons stated by most everyone: anti-proliferation, spillover effect.

Also, I think it feels weird to me to build a thread where we can ghettoize a topic that makes people uncomfortable or unhappy. My discomfort comes because it seems like a group way of saying, "Keep away from us with your nasty talk we don't like." Or as Sean succinctly put it, "Get offa my lawn."

Quick suggestionfor the initial proposal before I get on big silver plane and go where it's cold.

How about we open the politics thread for a trial period, say 3 months. See how it goes, what the interest level is, etc. At that point, a discussion could be had as to whether or not it's of interest to keep around, or if it was not a popular as once thought, it gets closed.

oh damn. I meant to get all my thoughts out. The current acrimony isn't a result of politics talk, in my opinion. It's most likely a cause of people not really liking each other as much as before.

Also, I know that some people say Jen K left because of X or Y, but in the absence of her coming in to explain, can we not continually bring up the reasons she left? I'm sure Allyson being kinda a bitch was part of it. But I sense, and from David's comment I infer, that it was one of a few reasons. So I am weirded out that we are attributing motives to her without her presence especially since there is no way to confirm the reality of our assumptions about those motives.

How about we open the politics thread for a trial period, say 3 months. See how it goes, what the interest level is, etc. At that point, a discussion could be had as to whether or not it's of interest to keep around, or if it was not a popular as once thought, it gets closed.

Not bad idea, Aimee. In the end, it being your proposal, you'll be the one to ultimately write the actual verbage of the ballot item.

Also, though it's tangential to the current item up for discussion...

The current acrimony isn't a result of politics talk, in my opinion.

I agree.

Also, I know that some people say Jen K left because of X or Y, but in the absence of her coming in to explain, can we not continually bring up the reasons she left?

I also very strongly agree with this. Bringing up Jen K, and bringing up other nameless people and how they may or may not feel, really is not a terrihbly effective way to discuss things. Invariably, any interpretation of the viewpoints involved is hopelessly polluted by the interpreter.