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.

Maybe I keep misreading what you are saying, what I hear is:

The decision made not to have a war thread wasn't valid because it was made under the old policy. The old policy was pretty much whoever showed up and decided to vote ended up making the decision. If people showed up and didn't vote (like me) then no one knew who was abstaining. So 30 some odd people decided that there wasn't going to be a war thread.

You're saying that the voting process was unfair because only the people who showed up and voted got a say in what happened.

Or do I have that wrong?

I'm trying to make sure I'm on the same wavelength as you.

I think this is a needlessly melodramatic statement.

Eh. What's a little melodrama among friends?

I have to say that not only do I think we addressed the notion of a War Thread a while back and decided against it, but that Natter has done an excellent job of handling war related discussion. Admittedly, it doesn't have the tight focus of thread solely dedicated to one subject, but there have been very serious discussions and news in Natter.

To sum up some of the reasons against the War Thread (as I recall them): Outside of the scope of this community, could attract people to the thread for the wrong reasons (i.e., people not interested in becoming Buffistas), can't afford the thread proliferation, better to have that talk in Natter (and make Natter more substantive - which has happened).

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.

In this case, this obviously matters to you enough that you shouldn't shut up.

In the general case, however, part of what makes this community work is that when people have strong disagreements, they agree to disagree. People argue; it becomes clear that no decision can be reached; the argument is dropped.

Otherwise, the tone tends to get nasty. This is a matter of manners, not of who is right.

Reading the recent posts in here, I noticed that Wolfram said:

We can't build an ironclad moratorium, or we will be shooting ourselves in the foot.

So, if we mentally step away from whether or not he's discussing War Thread, or Clem is a Hottie!! thread -- isn't he really saying we need a mechanism in place that allows us to decide what should or should not be subject to the moratorium?

I believe someone (jesse, maybe?) posted, either here or in the votes thread, that how we would decide that would happen organically (or the old way, basically), i.e., a groundswell of posting regarding an issue. Is that a good enough way to decide if something is no longer subject to moratorium?

Is that a good enough way to decide if something is no longer subject to moratorium?

Good enough for me. And I am a proponent of Good Enough. Also, an advocate for Keep It Simple (less minutia rules to guide the macro rules) and Let's Try It First And See. t /abuse of initial caps

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

and later...

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

then...

...[it is] 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. (--Kat)

Here's the thing Wolfram, and I'm repeating myself because either you missed or ingored my earlier post - this is a matter of convenience for you (and other posters interested in having a sustained discussion on the war).

However (except for the "no natter allowed" threads), we all can already talk about the war in every thread at this site. So really? Even the urgency is sort of a false sense of urgency. Some threads are going to lend themselves more to war talk (like Natter and Bitches sometimes) and they are faster moving threads. But that's it. You want a thread where it's easy to find the war topic posts.

It's not worth setting an unwise precedent merely for convenience's sake.

As a work around to the inconvenience, please consider using the control+F function on your PC to search for words like war, Iraq, Bush, Saddam, bombing, protest. You can use it to search for your name and the names of the people with whom you want to discuss the war. You can threadsuck and skim. You can mark posts to remind yourself which people you want to get back to. So even the inconvenience factor is mitigated if you use some technological features. You could even ask someone you're discussing things with to put your name in their posts, so it'll be easier for you to find, if they post while you're not here.

On the other hand, we could really end up throwing away a part of our culture that we value, and we could end up turning people off of using what was meant to be a tool to simplify decision making (namely, voting), just to put "let's see if we want to make war talk a little more convenient" to the vote. Because we have places we can discuss this here, and because the inconveniece can be eased by using certain features of your PC and the board, it's not worth it - at least not in my eyes.

This is why I changed my mind last night after I left. I would like to ask (feel free to refuse) that you let it go for the rest of today at least, and then see how you feel about pressing forward.

You're saying that the voting process was unfair because only the people who showed up and voted got a say in what happened.

Or do I have that wrong?

I'm trying to make sure I'm on the same wavelength as you.

You have that wrong, see my post here: Wolfram "Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier" Mar 21, 2003 12:56:20 pm EST

This is why I changed my mind last night after I left. I would like to ask (feel free to refuse) that you let it go for the rest of today at least, and then see how you feel about pressing forward.

Cindy, your post is about the merits or lack thereof of a war thread. I'm pushing for a vote on the thread under the new system. I don't feel that we're arguing the same thing.

I feel like a lot of people are getting ready to kill me (or themselves) over this (not you Cindy) so I'm going to propose a simple compromise. The war thread vote has got four seconds. Somebody please link me to a decision or consensus from before yesterday that all the old issues are under the moratorium. Then I'll shut up. Otherwise let's put it in the queue for discussion, and we can debate about the pros and cons of even having such a thread. I think it's a long shot to even win a vote on it but I'd like it to have that shot. Either way, we can stop the madness (and my melodrama).

Okay, so you're okay with the old system where the war thread was voted down.

But you want to bring up the war thread again as a separate thing even though it's been voted down and we've been talking about the war in Natter.