To this point, I'm only seeing Schmoker and Wolfram's support for an extra condensed discussion thread.

Actually, I suggested a similar type of debate upthread. But not another thread for it.

I am utterly against the idea of a having only one post to express my opinions. Whether or not it is intended, it will squash discussion. We do a lot of blah blah blah. No surprise to anyone who spends time here.

Just one more time because I think what I suggested has been twisted to be about suppressing discussion.

I did NOT suggest we only allow people to make one post. I suggested that we discuss things until we are blue in the face here in Bureau, but that we also have a seperate thread where people are only allowed to post their opinion once, unless they then later change their minds.

It seems that few people online at the moment are in favor of that, and that's totally cool. Majority rules. I agree. But I did want to make sure that no one here thinks I am even remotely suggesting that discussion be abridged or restricted.

but one position at a time would make things clearer.

I reserve the right to change my mind often as I read persuasive posts.

Apologies, schmoker, I misunderstood or misread. I am still against it. The thought of having to participate in a discussion and then write a position paper on it for another thread is no more appealling than the idea of quelling discussion at all.

It's cool, Kat. That I can understand. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't being turned into a book burner. :)

It seems that few people online at the moment are in favor of that, and that's totally cool. Majority rules. I agree. But I did want to make sure that no one here thinks I am even remotely suggesting that discussion be abridged or restricted.

No, I get what you're saying now. But I still think it's redundant and likely to become frustrating.

Hopefully, the fact that there's a consequent voting process will mean that there won't be a lot of duplicative posts. There doesn't need to be "wrod"s or "I agree" or needless arguing with one person because we're not looking for consensus; it should really just be about persuasion and amplification.

it should really just be about persuasion and amplification.

If this is the case, then is a full week necessary? Or, put differently, what time limit should there be on discussion?

I agree the full week is too much. I understand it's for people who might miss those days, but that only works if that person or more would change the outcome of the vote. It's not like among us we don't usually cover all the bases, so...

THREE DAYS! THREE DAYS! THREE DAYS!

(That's a cheer, not yelling at you nice people.)

And I wouldn't say three business days, either -- three calendar days should do it, if at least one of those days is a week day and one of those days is a weekend day.