2) Find a way to facilitate “advanced”/R&D oriented discussion for those interested in it. This could be as simple as a creating an “advanced” subforum on the AHA forum. I don’t mean a LODO subforum - I mean a discussion space where the next LODO could be postulated and developed.
I don't think this is a bad idea.
Why can't that be done in the existing structure?
Because those topics often get flooded with “i’ve brewed 4,000,000 batches of beer, it tastes great, and I’ve never done this” or “brulosphy and/or exp brewing proved that brewing with pool water is indistinguishable from RO
So, what if it does?
In an academic "argument," the point is the search for the "truth" or a better way of doing things. Bring it all on! If you don't like it, you can join the argument or not. If someone has a weak argument, they should be challenged, or we'll never get to the truth.
But, if you are going to challenge someone, you should have something to back it up. And, there are many ways to support an argument: anecdotal evidence, (I've brewed 4,000,000 batches) empirical,(Brulosophy Ex-Beeriments) and there are ways to appeal to one's opponents in the argument: Logos (backing up your argument with logic and language--most forum members) Ethos, ( using your credentials--Denny, Martin, Palmer, Kunze, Fix, etc.) and Pathos (the lowest of the three appeals--backing up your argument with emotions--using fear, desire, etc.)
Let us not appeal to the lowest from of argumentation. The point is to find the truth about brewing and a better way to achieve it. I think we all want to brew better beer. The problem becomes when we just want to be the one that is proven "right" or "smartest" or "best."