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.

When I've had coffee (or, rather, coffee and sleep, so sometime this weekend), I think I have a whole lot of reasons why I think that increased thread count, while good for sheets, is bad for community, leading as it appears to to clusterings of sub-communities with little bleedover.

Plus, the server problems.

I'm against, at the moment.

Probably hopelessly x-posty because it took a while to write this the way I wanted it. But here goes --

I like LJ's first two comments. I'm not so sure about the last, for several reasons.

First, I'm worried about excessive nannyism. Part of the charm of this board is the potential for thread drift (in most threads). I'm not sure I want to see any topic being segregated to one and only one thread. We don't do it for movies or music, and I can't see a reason to single out politics for such treatment.

Second, there isn't any clear bright line separating politics from (for want of a better word) non-politics. For example, the legal status of some Buffistas' relationships is a very visible political issue right now. If Hubs and I move to Massachusetts and get married next month (not likely, but less likely things have happened), should I announce it in Natter or Politics? There's an argument that it would belong in Politics, while I have no doubt that heterosexual marriage announcements would never be sent to Politics. Maybe I'm overreacting, but I don't see any way of guaranteeing that it won't happen. On a less personal level, would discussion of a new book by, say, Al Franken belong in Literary or Politics?

Third, there's a potential chilling effect. If I don't know whether I can say something in Thread A, I'm more likely to not say it than to take it to Thread B. I can accept that in Beep Me and Press because those threads are very narrow in scope. But I'm not sure I'd like to see the idea applied to as broad a field as politics (and by implication, possibly current events generally).