I would find a Politics thread interesting, as I find much intelligent, well-written discussion in the other threads, and I'm sure this would be no exception. Some of the posts in the Minearverse thread on Heinlein's/Rand's politics have convinced me of this. (I am so far behind in the thread, though, that I haven't come across the negative posts that seem to be referenced in the discussion here.
However, I do feel that the acrimony could effect the board in general. Also, no matter how well we disguise the thread, I'm sure some troll would end up finding it and start causing problems. Even though we have policies in place for dealing with trolls, implementing them is never an easy thing, for the stompy feet or the board in general. The times we had to do this in the past were not fun for the board. Increasing the likelihood of these incidents may not be the wisest policy.
Since we are still concerned about the technical issues of board health, adding a thread with the resultant increase in posting volume is a further argument against the thread.
The probationary period proposal (say that three times fast) is an interesting compromise. It would allow us to participate in a sociological experiment (is it possible to have a productive politcis thread and not have a negative effect on the board?). (Does anybody want to lock them in separate rooms and do experiments on them? Just me, then)
I guess the main issue boils down to whether the addition of varied and intelligent political debate (and its concomittant disappearance from the other threads) worth the risks to board health and general disposition of our community.
Is that wishy-washy enough?
If it poisons the entire board, shut it down.
The problem is that the entire board is already poisoned by that point.
Yeah, I'm afraid. Big time.
increased thread count, while good for sheets, is bad for community, leading as it appears to to clusterings of sub-communities with little bleedover
Although, conversely, a board on which all of the threads move so quickly that no one can keep up with any of it is also bad for community.
Just devil's-advocatin', here.
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.
I'm 100% behind this. And I'd take it a step further and suggest that "untoward number of trolls" be the minimum amount needed to prove the thread has become a troll magnet. I'd suggest 3 trolls within 3 months.
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?
If you do this, it's totally Beep Me. IJS.
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?
If you do this, it's totally Beep Me. IJS.
What. flea. said.
On the subject of the thread - I think I would read and post in it, if it were to come to pass, for all the PRO reasons everyone has stated. but my inclination right now is to vote against it, for all the CON reasons everybody has stated.
It's better to try it and then say, "OK, that was very educational, let's never speak of it again", than to say, "Nope, wouldn't be prudent at this juncture."
I admire the sentiment, but can someone name the day that Buffistas managed to never speak of anything?
We're not so good at the shutting up.
Of course if it were just two posters, and Gar & I were in there agreeing with each other, it might be pretty dull for the rest of you. Heh.
Just a quick question, but what days are we going to be voting on this?
