A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
The same way it was known the old way. Either, as some suggested, the loudest and longest decided it; or, because people's minds were changed and/or more people agreed with the final decision that was implemented. They're the same thing from two different perspectives.
If voting hadn't been implemented, the war thread would have been considered dead until someone else brought it up. Voting has been implemented, but that doesn't negate the effect of the earlier decision just because this is the first thing that's come up that someone wants to overturn.
So I'm asking those of you who can be objective on this
Care to define that list?
What i meant was that a consensus is technically every single person agreeing. If someone wants to sit here and srgue that we never made a consensus because there were always dissenters, we are going to be here until the next millenium. If has been discussed previoudly and either action or no action was taken-- it has reached Buffista consensus.
Wolfram, cool it, you're getting to be really, really insulting here.
As other people mentioned, theoretically, revisiting this conversation means we can undo things as well. It could all turn into one big mess and we need to consider that before we open ourselves up to it.
This.
(You know I am so chuffed to be in agreement with bitterchick, but that's like the fifth time in two days.)
If we can't agree on what makes a consensus. how do we know what we decided by the old method?
Madness! Madness I say! Uh, so...this is why we went to voting. And yet, things which were
generally agreed upon
back before voting (by whatever amorphous methods we used) were still considered done deals. And there seems to be (by that similar eyeballing guesstimate method) some feeling that the most fair and least disruptive thing to do would be to apply the waiting period currently under discussion to issues recently decided under the old consensus method.
The logic being not dissimilar to giving weight to the rule of precedent so that there is continuity and not constant disruption. This is a very worthy value.
Care to define that list?
Oh, I know I'm at the top of it.
If we don't agree that previously-arrived-at decisions are closed, that way lies madness.
Doesn't everyone agree that's so?
All the time you've been here discussing this, Wolfram, you could have been discussing the war. In Natter.
If something was proposed and discussed for some length of time, then either action was taken on it or a decision was made not to take action.
What length of time?
How do we differentiate between "no action was taken" and "a decision was made to not to take action"?
There may have been many things mentioned, dicussed even, where no action was taken. How many of these things are a "decision" which can't be discussed again for months?
Care to define that list?
I only know I'm not on it. :)
The active posting group (APG)
Let's not do this anymore, okay? Can we not try to label people as Go14 or APG or some such? I know we get frustrated and sometimes people feel cornered or not heard, but I really dislike this.
