Replies

Perhaps all should be caucus, and thus eliminating the arguments?

I've never been a fan of making too many threads caucus threads. Sometimes I've had something constructive to add to a thread in which I shouldn't have been posting according to the strict definition of a "caucus thread." Because of the label, I never posted what I would've posted otherwise.

Are you thinking of the "ecumenical" setting?

Ecumenical threads are closed to antagonism.
To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.
Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenical” thread may discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.
--SNIP--
Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities.
[more follows]

I've favored making the default setting "ecumenical" and forcing "open" threads to be labeled as such. This way, the burden of a special effort lies on those who wish to make antagonistic threads. I'm not thinking of an onerous physical burden: adding "open thread" to the label should be easy enough for anyone who can already type a post. I'm thinking about the mental shift, however slight, that such a label just might produce.

The only problem that I'd have is practical: such a significant change in existing policy would require a bit of notification. I'd expect not a few people to forget about the new rule, and I'd even expect a few people to "forget" about the new rule intentionally. But maybe we've reached a point where such a proposal should be made more seriously. (I am not doing so right now, or else I'd be explicit about making the proposal.)