I already know that you're opposed to a block user feature

Noumenon, what? I have never been opposed to the feature. And it's underway. Please don't mischaracterise me with such aplomb. Although I won't get to use it (stompy and all), lots of people seem to need it, and lower blood pressure is a good thing.

My sole point was -- we can't bargain on money to pay for it. Internal resources, like we've always used, that we can bargain on, but not schedule to the minute.

I have seen "discussions" get more angry, rude and "violent" (lack of a better word, I'm working on 5 hours of sleep) over certain episodes of the show that brought us all together into this big happy family in the first place.

Maybe, but at some point, people have stepped back and been able to cool off because it's just a frickin' TV show. We're smart like that.

Politics is different. It affects our lives in very real ways. As such, it's going to be harder for folks to brush the dust off and move on.

I think that there needs to be a discussion on how to define the trollish behavior that would be considered too much.

Rather than trying to define things, one solution would be a simple up/down vote after three months.

I'm still opposed to it because, as David said upthread, the cultural damage we're afraid of may take longer than 3 months to manifest, and it could be irreversible.

Rather than trying to define things, one solution would be a simple up/down vote after three months.

I agree--less turmoil for the community.

I'm with Victor. I don't care much if it happens or not. I don't think it will be as bad as a lot of people think. I do agree with everyone who has mentioned our focus is pop culture, and if/when we grow, it would be more normal to grow in that direction.

Sophia's opinion:

I don't see a lot of people advocating for the thread because they would talk in it or they really want it (perhaps 5 -7). I would be interested in a count of the people.

I am not sure we want to talk about it here, but I really agree with David about the "pop-culture"-ness of the board, and do think we need to take a look at where we want to go in a post-buffy world. I think it is great that Wonderfalls is really taking off, and that is really in line with what I think we are about as a board, in addition to the Natter, bitches, etc.

I was a little (and I think this is my issue) sad that this was proposed, because I was hoping to at some point advocate for some more TV threads, for example, if it looks like The OC will take off with us still next season, as I think this fits in with our mission. Or a general TV thread. Of course, this is only our mission as I see it. Anyway, I do think that every time we discuss adding threads it makes the anti-proliferationistas less likely to be amenable to it.

I probably won't be around much else today, so if anyone comments on my points, please don't feel ignored if I don't reply.

I think it's germane to What Should B.Org Be, particularly in light of a fall with no ME shows. It has been posited during this discussion that Politics is outside our scope, and that we should maintain a pop cultural focus. I concur and would use that as an argument against a politics thread, and promote discussion about long-term notions of how we should be organized.

I agree with this; also with Sophia, that we need to discuss the future direction of the board.

However, given that I'm a very orderly, anal, organize-y person, I think we ought to discuss/vote on the Politics thread, and then discuss the broader topic of What's Next.

Politics is different. It affects our lives in very real ways. As such, it's going to be harder for folks to brush the dust off and move on.

This. This. This. Someone way, way upthread asked if it would be possible to keep the arguments that started in Politics from spilling over into other threads; Aimee said yes, absolutely. I think this is true in the absolutely literal sense--it's easy enough to keep Discussion A in Thread A, and for folks in Thread B to call each other on it if sniping from A starts spilling over.

But one thing that won't be able to be contained will be people's reactions to one another based on what's going on in Politics. Jon is approximately seventy jillion percent right--politics is just fundamentally different from any other topic of discussion. It's not abstract and artificial like grammar, it's not loose and fun and ultimately frivolous like pop culture (and don't get me wrong, the frivolity of pop culture is one of its glories). I've seen political arguments get ugly and hurtful in a way even religious arguments haven't; at some level, religion and spiritual life are so personal, so interior, so unknowable to anyone but the person experiencing them, that it's sometimes easier to shrug and agree to disagree.

Politics is not just interiorly personal (and for many of us, intensely so; I know I'm not the only Buffista for whom political beliefs are deeply tied to everything from personal ethics to spiritual convictions to my sense of the very core of my identity), it's public and externally personal, as it were: the political beliefs and choices of real people in Washington, London, Paris, Beijing, even San Francisco and Sacramento, are affecting every other person on the planet right now, our freedom to live safely and love whom we choose and earn a living and so on and so on ad infinitum. In a way that almost no other topic is, politics is frighteningly relevant and urgent, and it's damnably hard, no matter how good one's intentions, to keep a political discussion purely intellectual and impersonal.

And of course it isn't just the choices of the people in Washington, London and elsewhere; we're all making choices that blur the line between political and personal every day. One single example, already brought up earlier in this discussion: Abortion. If this place is statistically typical, around a quarter of the Buffista women have had abortions; even if it's less, I'd say it's a virtual certainty that nearly all of us know at least one woman who's had one, with close to the same number for the men. Even for the women who know they made the right decision, who feel no regret at all, it's still a fraught subject loaded with landmines. I hate to get all mememe about it, but I think this is a valid example: During one discussion about abortion in Bitches a couple of years ago, one poster said something that rattled me so badly that I withdrew completely from the board for several days. The poster was pro-choice, but not with any personal experience of facing the choice, and her phrasing was so innocently arrogant it devastated me. It was days before I was able to come back, and weeks before I was able to interact with her normally again.

(Cont'd because I'm afraid this is already too long)

What DavidJacqueline said. And not just 'cause she said I'm approximately seventy jillion percent right (only approximately?)

The worst part about it was that this was a poster whom I truly loved, whose opinion on a host of subjects I valued deeply, and I knew that she hadn't said what she'd said with any intent to offend, that she in fact said it within a supportive and Go Team Feminists! framework. And still it took me several days of cooling down and backchanneling with another Buffista, and several weeks of conscious effort, before I could get totally past that. And yeah, I'm sensitive, but I don't think I'm abnormally so; it's just that a lot of political subjects cut terribly close to the bone for a lot of us, and often in unexpected ways.

We've all experienced the political crank relative, the person we love and respect for a host of reasons, with whom we can't discuss politics because it'll not only get us all het up, it'll also ultimately taint our view of that person. How can someone I love believe something so reactionary/selfish/racist/cruel/mealy-mouthed/delusive? How can I continue to respect this person, knowing that this is one of his/her core beliefs, one of the things that makes this person who s/he is?

That's the kind of thing that I fear won't be able to be contained to the Politics thread; even if we put the words of the argument aside, at least some of those of us who participate may be genuinely bewildered by how others can defend what they're defending, may start to feel doubtful and shaky about not just that belief but that Buffista. Politics within the framework of other, wide-ranging discussions is fine; concentrated politics carries the risk of quietly poisoning us to one another.

Not that I think political discussions are totally evil. IMO, politics as it's been discussed already is working fine. It's one topic among dozens; it comes up in the course of free-wheeling, wide-ranging discussions on threads broad-based enough that everyone feels socially compelled to be polite (IIRC, Nutty already pointed this out). When people get upset, they scroll past; when they get badly upset, they ask for clarification or apologies, and I can't remember a single time in a political discussion that a Buffista has refused either clarification or apology (except for the entire Caroma mess, which at any rate is long over and done with). It works right now; it's not broken; adding a dedicated Politics thread won't fix anything, and will open the door to our being badly broken in ways we can hardly imagine right now.

Plus, what everyone else said about thread proliferation, troll potential, and especially our pop culture roots and our future identity as a community.

I'm just so very opposed, in every possible way. Will vote against, won't post in, will avoid like the plague.

Sorry for being so insanely wordy. This has gone through a hell of a lot of drafts-in-my-brain over the last few days.

Very well said, JZ. And I agree.