I can honestly say I did not know my post was going to be used as an unofficial ballot that would close discussion on the war thread issue for a period of 3 or 6 months.

Here's the scoop. We didn't do things by ballots back then. We did them by loose consensus.

I grew up attending Quaker meetings. In practice, "consensus" didn't actually mean "everybody agreed". What happened was that people discussed, and then rediscussed, and discussed some more, and EVENTUALLY the clerk of the meeting said "It seems to me that the sense of the meeting is X." At that point, attenders had two choices: shutting up and allowing the sense of the meeting to go forward, and standing up and saying "I do not agree."

Everybody had a nuclear deathbomb for consensus. It was established (if unspoken) that a polite person didn't use the nuclear deathbomb very often, and never did so lightly. A lot of the time you fell silent simply so that the meeting could go forward. Consensus did not mean "Everybody present agreed." It meant "Everybody present was willing to allow the decision to go forward."

So, the way this decision was made was the way that the Buffistas have made negative decisions before. Somebody raised it. We talked about it. It became clear that far more people opposed it than approved of it. Everybody fell silent and moved on to something else.

The war thread is time-sensitive, but it is also, in my mind, a decision we have made. If I am right, and we did make that decision, then reconsidering the decision simply because it is time-sensitive means that our discussion moratorium never holds. I voted in a discussion moratorium because I was tired of having to rediscuss issues, and because historically if you rediscussed an issue enough you got your way.

umm ... what Betsy said.

So, the way this decision was made was the way that the Buffistas have made negative decisions before. Somebody raised it. We talked about it. It became clear that far more people opposed it than approved of it. Everybody fell silent and moved on to something else.

Without being patronizing, I want to say that this sums up your position very nicely. You've convinced me, and I'm dropping my objection to no consensus being reached. I'm not agreeing it was a fair method, or a fully representative method, but I am agreeing that a decision was reached on the issue.

If I am right, and we did make that decision, then reconsidering the decision simply because it is time-sensitive means that our discussion moratorium never holds.

Here I'm not on board. A moratorium can hold quite well on issues that are not urgent or time-sensitive. And no matter what moratorium we vote in, there needs to be a way to break it should such an urgent or time-sensitive issue arise. We can't build an ironclad moratorium, or we will be shooting ourselves in the foot.

I'm not agreeing it was a fair method, or a fully representative method, but I am agreeing that a decision was reached on the issue.

Well, exactly. That's precisely why the whole voting thing was proposed and is currently being discussed.

I didn't vote on the War Thread before, I'm not sure why now, either I had zero interest or by the time I was ready to throw in my vote the decision had been made.

However, either way, I knew that the decision that was going to be made was pretty much going to be final. I'm pretty sure the topic had been brought up before, but I think that was the first time it had come to what was at the time our formal decision making process.

Wolfram, frankly I'm getting annoyed because it seems that you don't actually care about the ramifications of what revisiting old decisions would mean or that you don't care about any decision except the War Thread issue.

From my point of view it looks like you want a War thread and you are going to do anything you can to get your way no matter what and you don't have the community's interests but solely your own interests.

A moratorium can hold quite well on issues that are not urgent or time-sensitive. And no matter what moratorium we vote in, there needs to be a way to break it should such an urgent or time-sensitive issue arise.

I can see some merit in this. For example, when I read the Natter archive for 9/11/01 and following, it was amazing to see how many people in NYC, DC, etc. were able to get through to people on the internet in cases when telephoning out wasn't working. People posted that so-and-so was okay, CaBil was keeping people updated on the news, and so on and so forth. If--Heaven forfend--something of that nature were to happen again, an emergency information thread would be of incredible value.

Not to sound callous, but I don't think that events are at a point where I would feel that a war thread was necessary. It's something I'd reconsider if it became apparent that this was something that was going to go on for several months or longer.

Wolfram, frankly I'm getting annoyed because it seems that you don't actually care about the ramifications of what revisiting old decisions would mean or that you don't care about any decision except the War Thread issue.

Askye, I do care about the ramifications, and I tried to distinguish the thread from the other old decisions that I don't feel merit revisiting in my previous post.

From my point of view it looks like you want a War thread and you are going to do anything you can to get your way no matter what and you don't have the community's interests but solely your own interests.

Like I previously said, I don't even know that I want a war thread. I want a war thread vote. And I'm not going to do anything to get my way. I'm also not going to back down just because people are annoyed with me. If I had my own interests at the forefront I'd shut up and stop making myself a target. I have the community's interests at heart, which is why I don't think the appropriate thing is to stop responding when other people also feel a war thread vote should be had. My posts have all been civil, and respectful in tone, and I have tremendous respect for anyone who disagrees with me and says so. But my intentions are not selfish and I'm sorry if I've caused you to see it that way.

Not to sound callous, but I don't think that events are at a point where I would feel that a war thread was necessary. It's something I'd reconsider if it became apparent that this was something that was going to go on for several months or longer.

It's an excellent point, Anne, and I'm not sure that a war thread is necessary. But I do think that the question of whether it's necessary or not is an urgent and time-sensitive one.

The proposed war thread is an urgent topic that will suffer tremendously if it’s put on hold for six months.

I think this is a needlessly melodramatic statement.

What, in your opinion, is the worst case scenario that could come from not having a war thread?

But I do think that the question of whether it's necessary or not is an urgent and time-sensitive one.

A few years ago, when we (at my old job) were looking at things that needed to be accomplished had a meeting about priorities. Someone said in setting priorities it was fundamental to differentiate between urgent and important. Some things will be one or the other, but the priorities need to be things which are both.

Just because something is time sensitive doesn't necessarily make it important. Especially if the costs are too great.

You may not want to open questions about other things which have been decided, Wolfram. But if we do allow a rehash, then I think in the name of equity, we should be prepared for other rehashing.