A trial run would be a new twist on the idea Burrell.
How about instead of a general politics thread we test this as an Election Year thread. It closes after the election. It would also narrow the focus which might be a good test.
Stop means no. And no means no. So . . . stop.
Xander ,'Conversations with Dead People'
Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!
We open it up, we talks the talk, we votes, we shuts it down. This thread is to free up Bureaucracy for daily details as we hammer out the Big Issues towards a vote. Open only when a proposal has been made and seconded according to Buffista policy (Which we voted on!). If this thread is closed, hie thee to Bureaucracy instead!
NoiseDesign - Apr 01, 2004 7:34:32 pm PST #3573 of 10289
Our wings are not tired
Sean K - Apr 01, 2004 7:40:02 pm PST #3574 of 10289
You can't leave me to my own devices; my devices are Nap and Eat. -Zenkitty
Actually, that may be the best plan, if it passes.
My general sense is that, whatever else happens, this thread is facing an uphill battle. But it always has.
NoiseDesign - Apr 01, 2004 7:49:52 pm PST #3575 of 10289
Our wings are not tired
I think a narrow focus of of the election year stuff would allow us to see if the dynamics of a political discussion as the sole purpose of a thread gets too acidic, while also serving to not totally pull politics out of the other threads. There would be a finite life to the thread with the opportunity to discuss the option of a broader purpose politics thread once the election is over.
billytea - Apr 01, 2004 7:59:00 pm PST #3576 of 10289
You were a wrong baby who grew up wrong. The wrong kind of wrong. It's better you hear it from a friend.
I do remember from the TT that politics was the most flame-baity acrimonious, troll-filled section of the board.
That was the case on Time Online as well. (IMO, it was worse than on TT, but that's neither here nor there.)
At this moment, I would vote no. My reasons: I do think that having a dedicated politics thread, without any diluting factors, raises the risk of arguments turning ugly. Not that I expect meltdown, but I do think there could be a fair amount of acrimony (even within accepted standards of behaviour here). And while I don't think debates themselves would necessarily spill over to other boards, I think there's a risk of bad feeling doing so.
This is largely speculation. It's based primarily on my observation that in other fora with a Politics thread/board, it's always the most heated. While I think the Phoenix board is more civil than the others I've attended, I still think a Poilitcs board would raise the relative level of heat here too. Not to the same lofty reaches, but more than we have now.
There's a lot of uncertainty in the above prediction, but it remains my best guess. Still, I'm open to a compelling argument in favour. If we do wind up voting in favour, I would like the proposal to include a probation period, as has been suggested, requiring another positive vote in 3 months or so. Not to see if it has enough steam, but to see if the fears of spillover etc come to pass.
Noumenon - Apr 01, 2004 8:20:23 pm PST #3577 of 10289
No other candidate is asking the hard questions, like "Did geophysicists assassinate Jim Henson?" or "Why is there hydrogen in America's water supply?" --defective yeti
You know what would immeasurably increase the odds for the thread to work? A MARCIE FILTER. You can cool off any time if you don't have to keep reading the person who provokes you. We have so much money, we could take up a collection and hire somebody to code it. It's valuable.
From my new lurker's perspective, a politics thread would make a great subscription -- links, perspectives, it's like a blog with good commenters. I don't even know what the Buffistas think about Kerry anymore.
§ ita § - Apr 01, 2004 8:33:31 pm PST #3578 of 10289
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
We have so much money, we could take up a collection and hire somebody to code it. It's valuable.
We do? Really?
Matt the Bruins fan - Apr 01, 2004 8:37:52 pm PST #3579 of 10289
"I remember when they eventually introduced that drug kingpin who murdered people and smuggled drugs inside snakes and I was like 'Finally. A normal person.'” —RahvinDragand
If we need it, I'm of a mind to give it after the events of this week. How much do you think it would cost, ita?
§ ita § - Apr 01, 2004 8:40:23 pm PST #3580 of 10289
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I have absolutely no idea, and am wary of the effort it would take on our (read my, probably) part to have the code commented and specced out for an outsider.
I wish my system hadn't crashed with PaulJ's code, or that he'd replied to my anguished appeal for a resend.
Ah, well.
Matt the Bruins fan - Apr 01, 2004 8:46:12 pm PST #3581 of 10289
"I remember when they eventually introduced that drug kingpin who murdered people and smuggled drugs inside snakes and I was like 'Finally. A normal person.'” —RahvinDragand
Oops. Well, if logistics problems and making extra work for you are involved, that's another matter entirely. But if we should reach a point where the major stumbling block is in an area that I can contribute to (being about a 1.5 on the 1 to 10 computer savvyness scale), please let me know.
Frankenbuddha - Apr 01, 2004 8:48:48 pm PST #3582 of 10289
"We are the Goon Squad and we're coming to town...Beep! Beep!" - David Bowie, "Fashion"
Having lurked the TT politics threads the way some people lurk the Rules girls (i.e. in horrified fascination), all I can say is YEEEEEAGGGGHHHH!!!! If you ever want to disabuse yourself of the notion that liberals (or, somehow worse, MOR Dems) are as capable of being intolerant asshats as conservatives and reactionaries (and I do make a BIG distinction there), I can suggest at least a dozen threads to look at.
That said, given the enforcements we have in place against obvious trollery, I don't know how I'd vote. But a politics thread is definitely not the place to bring out the best in a person, IMO.