even assuming the APG allows this issue to move to discussion, since the issue hasn't gotten a fourth second

This is spurious logic. Now, as of a couple weeks ago, no Active Posting Group moves a proposal to discussion. The fifthing of a proposal causes this automatically. If you cannot get another person to support your proposal, then you do not have enough like-minded people to make it worth a formal Light Bulb debate. That's all. If no more than four people will second a formal proposal, then no more than four would vote for it, and it would lose anyway, right?

So the relevancy of the thread I'm even proposing may be stale and moot by that point.

Part of the idea of having a process is that we not do anything hastily, anything that won't last. If you really think the need for a War Talk Thread will be gone in 3 weeks, then it wasn't something worth creating in the first place. Threads are built for endurance.

This means that the discussion on it should go to the Lightbulb, if a slot ever opens up. No more discussion on the ramifications of it should happen here, it seems.

No, it doesn't. We still haven't decided whether or not it should be allowed to be re-proposed yet. That needs to happen first. If we decide that, yes, previously made decisions under the old system are subject to consideration under the new system, THEN his proposal for a War Thread can be moved to Lightbulb.

I said:

I do feel frustrated on your behalf that you expressed an interest in opening a thread quickly and you've suffered, basically, an end run with two other proposals being seconded.

Kat said:

A thread, I'd mention, that those people who were involved in the discussion overwhelming didn't want.

I'm sorry if I hit a hot button, Kat. I am opposed to a War Thread too. I can, however, see that if someone thinks they're making an innocuous suggestion and receive such hearty disagreement as has here occurred, and two other suggestions are accepted much more quickly, that would be frustrating. That's all I was trying to say.

I think the harm comes in opening up the possibility of re-examining old decisions. Where do we draw the line? I remember there were quite a few people who were for a general TV thread. Eventually it didn't happen. That decision would seem, to me, to be tabled for whatever the period is that we decide in this next vote. But if we let the War thread come up for discussion/voting, then those folks would have a legitimate beef in saying "Well what about the General TV thread?" We want a vote now, too. War got one?" And movies and music threads both had significant oppostion that got overridden by the consensus model we had before. Could they now come back and say, "We want to revisit the decision to have a movies/music thread. It was part of the reason for the crash. There are a lot of anti-thread proliferation people and we didn't get a fair hearing. We want to vote now."? I mean, where does it stop?

Jengod, if you can come up with better short slugs for the right-hand column threads, I think that would be fab.

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.

By putting quotes around the word "decision", I mean in no way to belittle all the hard work that went into making this board and the charity and other fund raising efforts. I've even participated in some of the fund raising (not as much as I should, probably.) If my posts were taken that way, I apologize for giving that impression.

My only question was: when does a few people agreeing on something become a consensus, and when does that become a decision. That hasn't been answered to my satisfaction, but since everyone else seems to know the answer, I'll shut up about it. At least for tonight.

Ita, you are a goddess. Please don't get the idea that I don't appreciate everything you and the other techs have done with this place.

Part of the idea of having a process is that we not do anything hastily, anything that won't last. If you really think the need for a War Talk Thread will be gone in 3 weeks, then it wasn't something worth creating in the first place. Threads are built for endurance.

Nutty! Kisses to you on this.

God. I'm so angered by this that I cannot believe it. In fact, I am aware that we've lost a poster over this who had her registration deleted because she just can't handle this level of bickering.

I also do feel like reassessing this decision sets, as Hec said, a precedent for reassessing every decision previously made. I could make an argument that since there wasn't an "offical" votey consensus on whether or not to make this a public board before we moved here that we could discuss and debate and remove people beneath a certain number because it was never formally approved.

I'm not saying that I believe that, but if we can second guess what happened with the war thread, we can second guess most things.

It literally pisses me off so much that it makes me want to punch things.

"We want to revisit the decision to have a movies/music thread. It was part of the reason for the crash. There are a lot of anti-thread proliferation people and we didn't get a fair hearing. We want to vote now."?

Jesus kat! You're brilliant. Seriously that's wonderful. I'm proposing this.

Bicyclops said:

when does a few people agreeing on something become a consensus, and when does that become a decision.

I answered that to the best of my ability in post 8519:

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.

Those who didn't like the old version of consensus can, from this point forward, change things that have not been decided. Consensus was that nothing previous to the implementation of the voting method would be changed.

The War Thread shouldn't go up for a vote until the end of the tabling period.

I know I have a list of "shit I didn't win on", and why not attack that once we've voted on whether or not to keep Music or Movies?

I know that proponents feel more intensely about the war than I do about movies, but that's no reason to change our decision to not change our decisions.