Skinner/Elad how about a "strategy/analysis" discussion forum with tighter rules?

I know I should do this in a PM to you guys but I wanted to present it to the larger group.

I would like to propose a "strategy/analysis" discussion forum for folks who want to discuss the issues (in the immediate future the elections) in a flame free environment. There have been many times I have wanted to raise certain issues but have not because of the flame wars that would ensue.

I would not want to see stricter rules on General Discussion: Politics, but just a new forum where participants adhere to a stricter code of conduct. There have been so many times I have just wanted to have an honest discussion with other DUers about candidates, strategy and controversial subjects but knew in the current environment it would just lead to a flame fest.

Am I alone in this?

This drive-by paintballing is infuriating whenever a serious topic is brought up or discussed.

But frankly, I do not know how it could be enforced.

Be our own mods. It can be done...but we would have to lay out out groundrules that everyone agreed upon.

I can think of a few hypotheticals that would be interesting to discuss but not worth the flames.

It's fun to get emotionally invested in a campaign but there is a time to view it as an intellectual exercise and it would be nice to have a place for that discussion.

. . .but it concerned another candidate. I was afraid it would immediately become a flame fest.

I would camp out on a board like that every day.

We're having a good time in the JE Group :D

focues on process and strategy rather than advocacy.

. . .and I want to talk to those supporters who can take and make constructive criticism of all candidates without being defensive or divisive.

or with three of them?
If I want to discuss scenarios of what a candidate possible strategy might be going forward but don't want to be viewed as rah-rah-rah with that group or a flamefest with the other groups, then what?

For example, there's a thread about whether Edwards should drop out after 2 losses. Discounting the merits of the question, you can at least see there's going to be little substantive in GD:politics with partitians on both sides gaming for the best angle for their horse in race- and trying to ask a question like that in the candidate forums would be pretty predictable.

So how about a 'agnostic'-candidate strategy forum.

Discussion about the next tilt, polls, prognostications, stump speec element. who a candidate is appealing to, how media is covering running mates, what the GOP is doing, etc can all be done without being flamebait.

It has been suggested that we get this tread moved to the congress forum.


That would be up to WC.

I am tired of coming here and reading and defending against Drudge-style led narrative.

Good post. Recommended.

i think it needs some clear guidelines for what is NOT allowed.

. . .I think the rules in the forum I proposed should be a lot stricter and the mods have the ability to ban someone from the forum w/o tombstoning them from DU.

I'll stay here.

there is such a thing as flame free debate on this forum. It's just my opinion.

People are too emotionally charged about their beliefs and passions to not cross the line from time to time.

If GD-P is the mosh pit then this would be the ivory tower. I am not suggesting that GD-P is a bad forum. It is what it is..both for advocacy and derision. There is a need for some space to discuss things in a way that does not lead down the same path as the majority of the thraads on GD-P

bait and then not get flamed?

. . .flame bait because there might be legitimate points raised. I have seen OPs that turned into flame wars that could have been led to quality debates if those posting in the threads didn't exhibit knee jerk reactions.