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.

Betsy-- I agree with you. I am not sure if that is clear from above. That was just my personal reason for stopping my thought that we SHOULD consider the war thread discussion.

Is the "do We consider re-voting on past decisions adopted under old Buffista System" discussion/vote next after the current "how long until a proposal can be brought up again"?

Yes, candy.