Wolfram, cool it, you're getting to be really, really insulting here.

Huh? Please don't take my posts as personal attacks, because I've been very careful not to do that. I just don't want the proposed thread mooted on a technicality, I want if it gets a fourth second to get it's fair hearing from the board. If it has to wait 3 or 6 months, or if it gets relegated to discussion in 2 or 3 weeks, I honestly don't think it's getting treated fairly. Your opinion MV and I respect that. And I'm sorry if I've insulted you in any of these posts Plei, or anyone else for that matter. I'll stop for the night.

All the time you've been here discussing this, Wolfram, you could have been discussing the war. In Natter.

This is very true.

No. Because we can't even decide what qualifies as a "decision". THAT way lies madness.

OK-- I have to preface this with the fact that I am in favor of opening the war discussion thread if a fourth is forthcoming. What harm will it do.

OTOH, since we didn't vote to move to buffistas.org, do we vote now? Or should we go back to WX. We didn't vote to have movies or music or firefly. Do we vote now? At one point our contingincy board was at ez boards. Do we have to vote to movethat? Obviously some decisions have to stand, They were there. They were made.

Because we can't even decide what qualifies as a "decision". THAT way lies madness.

We were in agreement about what constituted a consensus before - we just didn't codify it. I don't know why that's so difficult to get. It's like ten people standing around and enough people decide which bar to go to that night without taking a vote. And then they go. And so we went.

When people objected to this method (because they often weren't around when we decided to go drinking and were jealous of our drunken tales) we brought on the voting.

Please don't take my posts as personal attacks, because I've been very careful not to do that.

In that case, I'd like to hear precisely whom "those of you who can be objective" was aimed at. There's a clear implication that some people are biased, while others can be trusted to be fair.

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?

Can I have a cite for "indefinite tabling"? I skimmed a bit, and missed it.

Because we can't even decide what qualifies as a "decision".

These "lack of decisions" funded and coded and tested this damned board. Similar lacks of decisions have sent money to charity and cute clothes to the kids of ME writers. Flowers to Firefly cast members. Organised one and a half face to faces.

Sure, I think voting can work better, but there's no way you can convince me that nothing that preceded this decision can stand on its own.

In a corollary to Betsy's Cool-Kid/Non-Cool-Kid syllogism, either the old way was unsatisfactory and arbitrary, or it wasn't.

If it was, then good, because we replaced it. And in the negotiations, agreed that Old Way decisions weren't going to be retrospectively re-examined.

If it wasn't, if it was a good system, then you still don't get your War thread, because it was decided against the Old Way.

One final post. I'm sorry about the term APG. It was not meant in a derogatory sense, it was meant to sum up the general consensus tonight. And the "those who can be objective" line was aimed at anyone who can be objective, and I'm not on that list. Your feeling about whether you are objective or not may vary, but again nobody was singled out, and it was meant as an invitation, not an attack. And change "indefinite tabling" to "undetermined time period tabling". There will be a definite time, but it hasn't been voted on yet.

Finally, I request that those who agree with my point of view, please post, but keep the conversation as respectful as I've tried to (or more) and refrain from any personal attacks as well. Doblerizing for the night.

ETA: I'm leaving for real this time. Really. See y'all tomorrow.

And change "indefinite tabling" to "undetermined time period tabling". There will be a definite time, but it hasn't been voted on yet.

Okay. In that case I think it's perfectly fair. Or that I missed my opportunity to change the current reality.

I have to preface this with the fact that I am in favor of opening the war discussion thread if a fourth is forthcoming.

Does this mean you're forthing it?

Jesus, that's an unwieldy word.

If a consensus on the war thread was really met and was a true consensus that really reflected what everyone wanted, then a vote now will uphold that consensus. Where's the harm in letting it go up for a vote? I don't really care about it one way or the other, but not allowing it to be voted on seems unfair. I'll be Wolfram's 4th second. And after scrolling through yet another explosion in the Bureaucracy thread, I'm going to bed.