An example of what is claimed to have a chilling effect on potential supporters is:

“The camp position, 'Immigration should be tightly monitored' might draw considerably more support if a particular author's reasoning "... because wet backs are a nuisance" is left out of the camp position and presented as a supporting argument.”

However, this is exactly the case that is designed to be handled by sub camps.  If a person wants to support a camp, if it weren’t for a particular doctrine(wet back are a nuisance), the best method to solve this is for the new person to ask that that particular doctrine be pushed down to a supporting sub camp so the new person (and all future people that agree with him) can say exactly only what they want to say, while all the people that support the "wetback" doctrine can still also say what they want, in the sub camp.

There is also the known “Flaw evidenced by this issue” camp which has no support.  Many possible solutions to this known flaw have been considered for many years.  Having a “minimum viable product” is our top goal and a solution to this problem is not yet required for this.

One possible solution is to have a “con” type of sub camp flag, with which when supported, the support does not carry up to the parent camp and graphically shown in some way.  Another way to handle this, with the current system, is to create another topic, with a “camp about” value linking that topic or camp to the camp for which to pros and cons can be canonized.  This is a way people can, today, “separate statements and arguments”.  There are also other potential solutions to this problem.

If you have any better solutions to this known issue, we’d love to hear it.