I think a lot of the times, the reasons things start to feel nuts in this thread, is because someone posts in a way that seems to be "accusing" someone of something - whether it's railroading or (in essence) *making* someone leave, or *making* someone sick to their stomach, or frustrating someone. A lot of times, there are conversations that are just sort of detailed. Then someone comes in and characterizes the conversation as an argument, or at least implies it.

And you'd characterize the discussion prior to my post as having been a detailed and rational discussion? Because I wouldn't. Nor would the person who stomped off with an e-mail saying "Don't agree with the new guvmint."

So in the service of not starting an argument, we shouldn't name it an argument? An argument by any other name is just as arguey.

Then lo and behond an argument does break out. It feels like an unfair appeal to emotion.

So we should leave how we feel out of how we post?

Actually I don't have a problem with emotion in my discussions because... well I just don't. I've seen some of the best debates and speeches made about things that people feel about. So I think appealling to the emotional is not an unfair thing to do because the emotional side of who we are is part of who we are.

Additionally, most discussions are appeals to the emotional. If you say to me, "Stop discusssing X because it's the Yoko Effect all over" are you not appealling to my emotional attachment to the board and the community to get me to comply? Don't you want to use the guilt I might feel to get me to do what you've suggested?

I'm sorry that my mentioning the way I've felt about this discussion has pinged you. But I do think it's significant that people who read and post are leaving. I may not be in agreement with the stompy, huffy slamming of the door as they go (and at least the poster in question didn't make a Big Thing about taking a break or whatever), but I do think it's significant. As signficant when Hec asks people to slow down and think about the effect of their words on people who get frustrated with this discussion.

Edited to add:

I'm also not really expecting a response to my emotion. I'm pissed. Well okay. That's where I am. I don't expect or anticipate that people will stop talking. I just want to be clear about where I am and the effect that it has on me. Cause that's all I can speak to at the moment - not the fun theoretical, but the actual for me.

Sliding into silence now because late for school and to regain Laura-posting equilibrium.

I felt like the nos got overwhelming, so the yesses shut up,

Well, I was one of the people listed as a "Yes" in the original discussion, and I shut up because while I had started out tentatively supporting it, I ended up being quite strongly opposed. So I shut up because I was happy with the consensus I thought we'd reached.

Kat - sorry, I rethought what I wrote over breakfast and decided to delete it. I deleted, came back, and you'd responded.

You're right. I have now restored the post, but only so you wouldn't look nuts. I put emotion into my posts too. Sorry. I think I shouldn't post anymore until after I eat.

I think with or without having discussed the voting procedure we still would have had a long, heated discussion regarding a war thread. The people that wanted it this time around I don't think would have stopped discussing until they GOT a war thread or left. That's how the discussion for the movie thread happened. And the music one.

That is what I hoped would stop when we went to this (really simple-- we seem to be making it too hard) procedure.

Also, thank you Anne for the Nillying.

I think with or without having discussed the voting procedure we still would have had a long, heated discussion regarding a war thread.

I agree with this too. The voting procedure has nothing to do with this, except that it might be able to provide a platform from which to say "We already decided no."

Except I have little faith in that, because it seems we did already decide no, and we did already decide not to revisit previous decisions, but that doesn't seem to count. No one's explained clearly to me why they think it doesn't count, but I'm sure that's coming.

No one's explained clearly to me why they think it doesn't count, but I'm sure that's coming.

Not from me. I don't want to argue anymore.

Anyone who is in the minority tends to feel that the other side is a GangOf14/ActivePosters/SinisterCabal/FakeConsensus.

Uh, no.

I am at some pains to think "Damn, I lost" rather than "They're all bad." (I don't always manage this, but I do try.) In fact, one of the reasons I have become angry at this discussion is the tendency to refer to "unfairness" and "railroading" and "active posters".

Decent, reasonable people can disagree, vehemently. Courteous people can disagree vehemently without casting aspersions on their opponents' reasoning power.

I THINK people think it doesn't count becuase it wasn't actually voted on, just sort of taken as a given.

I think that when changing over we shouldn't have to vote on minutea (sp). Did we vote on whether to use Mr. Poll or In-House? No- we made a logical decision and I think we stilll can.

The only reason I favored opening a war thread discussion was to avoid the last 200 posts. Everyone could have just voted no. Once Betsy made her proposal about the closing of past discussions and Anne planned on Nillying them, I think we should just stop discussing the war thread, see what happens with the LAST TWO Procedural Proposals. regardless of anything else, logic dictates waiting because we really should have the last 2 nails in the procedure before moving on to a vote.

And I am sorry if I come off all procedure loving-- I do think procedure has it's place. I was tired of trying to figure out whether or not the consensus we had was consensused enough to do something.

If we're going to adhere to procedure, then a point of order (whether or not reconsidering a decision is appropriate) should actually be considered before the question it applies to (do we need a war thread)?

The reason "Do we reconsider?" is ahead of "War thread?" in the queue is that it got four seconds more quickly than War Thread. I do believe that it is appropriate to handle the procedural question first in any case, but that's not why it got precedence.

Decent, reasonable people can disagree, vehemently. Courteous people can disagree vehemently without casting aspersions on their opponents' reasoning power.

With very few exceptions, I've found Buffistas on the whole to be wonderful examples of this.