Rob, I'm happy to work with you on developing the UI if that's a sticking point -- my email is mtepper at echonyc dot com.

Oh, and Cindy, love your tagline! Yay Meredith Brooks!

Thanks, Fred (oh, and you helped me catch a misspelling so thanks, twice). I think your suggestions for this thread, if it comes into being, are all sound and necessary.

The problem I have with a trial period is that we may revisit a contentious discussion in another three months.

That concerns me, too. Perhaps the proposal's wording could state there would be no re-opening of lightbulb. We're having the discussion now. The thread itself (I'm not convinced it will pass) will serve as proof to those who choose to vote. When the 3 months has passed, we could just have a straight up yea or nay vote. I don't know. Again, I would like to see something built into the proposal, an escape clause, so that if the thread causes some horrid problem, we can shut it down before the 3 month gut check, Aimee has proposed.

[So far, I think I've counted two who say they will post in the thread]

I think, for me, content and tone of the thread (if/when it comes into being), what's going on in the political arena, and in the press, and my own mood at the time, will have a lot to do with whether or when I post, or even lurk.

Does anyone else on the fence feel that way?

Does anyone else on the fence feel that way?

Pretty much. I don't know that I'd ever post in there very much, but there could be the occasional comment, depending on the factors you described.

Does anyone else on the fence feel that way?

My opinions are definitely evolving (or flip-flopping -- I'll own up to the possibility) since my first post last night.

There's a decent chance that I'd at least lurk, try it out. But I have a longstanding rule against discussing politics online (yes, I've broken it a number of times, and it isn't as firm as it used to be), especially during my peak posting hours. So I doubt I'd ever be a very active poster in such a thread. But if the thread tone is polite enough, I might say a few words now and then.

I'd probably post a few times.

I'm still very very on the fence, despite my rabid political feelings.

And, since I'm on the fence, I just want to thank everyone who's posted their yea/nay reasons so far, because they *are* helping me to formulate which side of the fence I want to vote on.

My general thinking is no -- and the reasons are two:

1) I've had wonderfully civil political discussions in Natter and other threads, and they only come up occasionally but are not stifled, and I do think they stay civil-er when they are in a social context.

2) I don't find politics interesting enough to have a whole thread dedicated to it. And it seems to me that not many others do either, since currently The O.C. gets more posts than political discussions do.

I will admit that on a couple of spectacular occasions, political discussions have gotten ugly (in 2002 once I posted something like "Okay, people, everybody needs to shut up and go away", and that was, how you say, atypical for me), but I don't think that a separate thread for politics would cause ugliness not to happen.

I suppose I'm persuadable, but it would take some serious persuasion. Chocolates and money to be sent to the usual address.

I'm also on the fence. As the election approaches, people will have more to say on these issues, and frankly, I want to hear what other Buffistas are thinking. So I'd likely read, and probably post.

My general preference would be to keep this stuff in Natter, though with my limited access recently, that means I just miss it all. So a dedicated thread would be helpful (to me) but whether that would outweigh the potential for strife...I don't know.

I do like the idea of a trial period with a straight up or down vote, and I'd also be in favor of some sort of immediate shut-down contingency plan, but I'm not sure how that could be crafted.

I'm leaning pro, because I like topicy threads and I'd like to have a place to channel political discussions.

I would want the following caveats, though (in addition to the three-month trial and non-trollbaity title and header):

• If it crashes the server, it goes. (This seems obvious to me, but we should be explicit about it, since that is a real concern.)

• If it turns out to be a source of great misery to all involved and leads to an untoward number of trolls or disciplinary issues, it goes. No need to wait out the full three month trial, or six months to a revote.

• We become huge thread nannies and all political discussion goes there.

I think as we get closer to the election there will certainly be more political posts, but I would still rather have them be a part of Natter--only because it is hard to separate politics from other aspects of life and they seem to flow naturally one into the other. I think making politics a separate topic encourages people to think of it as ideas only, rather than something we both think AND live, and that idea-only atmosphere is fertile ground for disciussion to get shrill.