That's a good question. Passover begins Monday evening. Aimee is out of town, at least through the weekend, I think.

The four days of discussion started yesterday afternoon, so voting would start sometime Monday (Monday night midnight at the latest) and end 72 hours later -- Thursday midnight at the latest.

The three month probation period on the thread doesn't ease my concerns. It's a nice gesture, and I admire the innovation, but everybody can be on their best behavior for three months. I don't think the thread will open and there will be an atomic meltdown destroying all the threads minutes after. I think the damage it might inflict would be of steady pressure building that puts stress on variouis fault lines which already exists.

It's really not a good idea. And I'd rather discuss politics in Natter, as we always have. Because as someone noted (Nutty?), I think the social context of Natter helps shape the political debate. Here's the nub of it for me: politics always starts off as a fun brain game of abstractions, and invariably turns into something deeply personal.

In a politics thread there would be the illusion that people were only arguing the issues. In Natter, it would always be clear that politics are personal, and that when you're arguing an anti-abortion position directly with somebody who has had an abortion, you must take that person's experience into account as you discuss it.

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?

One thing I'd like to add is that I think most political talk would gravitate towards a dedicated thread if we were to establish one, but I for one would be strongly opposed to any sort of rule that it had to go there. If a big discussion were to get going in Natter or somewhere and seemed to be going on for a long time, I'd never object to someone not interested suggesting that it might be better placed. But sometimes things just grow out of (and then back in to) unrelated subjects, and I wouldn't want to feel like we had to thread jump all the time.

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.

This is going to be a much bigger problem than I realized at first. It's not just about inviting people who will only be here to stir up trouble-- it's that stirring up trouble just sometimes happens with new people, no matter how nice they would be if they'd been here longer. (And, with all due respect, I think Wolfram is a good example.) Much of our discretion simply comes from respect for the board and for the feelings of our friends, and we can't really expect that of new people. If I had come here for WF, a week later found the politics thread, I'd be flaming before the month is up. Because I wouldn't have any good reason not to let my emotions drive my posting.

In other words, I am strongly against ghettoizing discussion that we dislike having on other threads.

One thing that really makes me hesitate about opening a Politics thread is the whole Caroma debacle. It could easily happen again. (Not necessarily with her, specifically, though IIRC she wasn't banned and could therefore return.)

Yes, it could happen again in any thread; I realize that. But a Politics thread, regardless of if it's named Vegas or if it's named Vargas, just seems like it would be inviting agita.

t edit Hmmm. Or, basically, What. Shawn. Said.

Also, I will volunteer as a vote counter.

As for the timeline - we opened the thread yesterday, today is one day... the end of the four day discussion period will be mid-day Monday, then it's three days of voting.

Also seconding what Shawn and Steph just said.

Plus? It's one thing to have Torll removal procedures in place, but politics is one of the topics that seems to attract the really nasty trolls. And really nasty trolls? Not so easy to remove by just banning them, or locking out their ID.

If we start attracting trolls because of our politics thread, it may take a frightening amount of effort and nastiness to dislodge them.

My main reason for wanting a separate politics thread is that back when politics was last discussed frequently in Natter (around the time the war started?), it seemed like every time the conversation got enjoyable and interesting, someone who didn't want political discussion would complain, and the topic would get dropped. That hasn't happened lately, but I don't know if that's because the topic hasn't come up as much or because the people who hate political discussions have made the same decisions to scroll past as I have WRT interminable discussions of TV shows I don't watch and have no interest in watching. (Note that I'm not saying those discussions are bad, just that we all have the topics that annoy us, and that those are mine.)

If it's the latter, I wouldn't mind keeping politics in Natter, because then as the campaign picks up, I'll be able to talk about it freely in that thread. OTOH, if people are going to start complaining and trying to restrict political discussion in Natter around the conventions and as November approaches, I'd rather have a thread where those of us who so desire could talk about it freely.

So basically this would be an additional place to discuss politics, with Natter continuing to have almost as much politics as before; I'd be cool with that, but I'm not sure how happy the people who are proposing it would be. Aimee is gone until Monday, but I get the feeling that is the exact opposite of what she was hoping for in proposing it.

That is one point that should be clear; is this meant as way to let people who want to have political converesations finish them, as oppose to having them die out in Natter before they are through? Or an attemp to drain politics out of the natter threads? Cause I think it would be a bad thing to have it passed with two completely opposite hopes and expectations as to what it would accomplish.

I mean if it passes with an a clear intent, I think that even people who don't support it will still do their best to make it work. But if it passes with support from people with diametrically opposed sets of expectations then you have a major new source of acrimony.