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.

So I'm asking those of you who can be objective on this - does it make sense for an extremely relevant topic to be tabled indefinitely the way the war thread has without any recourse to the active posting community at large?

Yes. Especially because of the "extremely relevant" part. We've got no idea if the thread will even be needed a week from now. (Well, we have some ideas, but can't know for sure.) And it's not being tabled indefinitely, it's being table for a set period of time. And the "active posting community at large" is perfectly able to come in here and post. Anybody who doesn't has chosen not to.

I have had it with the references to the "Active Posting Group" and the "Cool Kids" and the "Insiders".

You can have it one of two ways.

1. I, Betsy Hanes Perry, am a Cool Kid. In that case, you have to admit that a Cool Kid can make a proposal and have it shouted down. Because I proposed the War Thread, most of those present (by more than 2/3rds) said NO, and it didn't get created.

2. I, Betsy Hanes Perry, am not a Cool Kid. In that case, you get to quit complaining that the Cool Kids are dominating this discussion.

Pick one.

What do I think? I think I have friends. I think I have enemies. I think that sometimes I say something smart and people say "Atta girl". I think that sometimes I say something wrong (because I am never, ever not-smart) and everybody argues with me until I shut up.

And I think I stopped keeping track of Cool Kids when I (thank GOD) left high school.

If we don't agree that previously-arrived-at decisions are closed, that way lies madness.

Doesn't everyone agree that's so?

Yes. Let me just preach again the value of Precedent for the sake of continuity and preventing destabilizing disruption.

OK-- I am reasonable.

I think that the two proposals that came up in the interim need to be decided BEFORE we can decide on the war thread. To be fair and reasonable.

I think that it was never, ever an issue that more than one thing would be discussed in the voting thread. Related questions, yes. The WHOLE POINT of the VOTING and the DISCUSSION THREAD is that we deal with things in a logical one thing at a time matter.