"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.

Oh! and if are truly able to revisit decisions not previously voted on but decided by consensus, can we also vote on whether or not we should even have allowed a discussion of voting in the first place, thereby nullifying the vote to allow us to vote?

It would be like getting bureaucracy to eat its own tail.

I think it's been presented very clearly why voting on the War Thread RIGHT NOW is problematic and sets a very bad precedent. The very ferocity of the debate, it seems to me, indicates that this is a sore point for a lot of people. And the sore point isn't the War Thread per se, it is the idea that, if someone doesn't like the way consensus/the vote turned out, he/she should raise it again a little bit later.

"From beneath you, it devours." It really is all connected.

can we also vote on whether or not we should even have allowed a discussion of voting in the first place.

Oh I think we're getting to a place where you'd have no trouble finding seconds for that.

Oh I think we're getting to a place where you'd have no trouble finding seconds for that.

No! You can't do that.

Not before you find a good Zaphod Beeblebrox.

Oh I think we're getting to a place where you'd have no trouble finding seconds for that.

Among other things.

The Kat Collective speaks for me.

I'm going to chill and watch Twin Peaks. Whatev.

I understand why folks who weren't around for a lot of the consensus decisions might question that process or wonder why since we've instituted voting as a more fair practice we don't start voting.

I would emphasize that culturally there is a long history of dealing with issues by discussion and broad (if often undefined) agreement here. There are also strong feelings against overly regimenting this board or community. The voting is new. We're still figuring out the mechanics of voting.

I am very reluctant to undo any forward momentum we have achieved in establishing this new process to address any one particular issue.

Forward momentum has been difficult to achieve - you have to appreciate how much hard work and hurt feelings were sacrificed to get us to this point. Agreements have been delicate and based on trust.

It would be so incredibly counter-productive to sacrifice that to address one issue.