I think it was over on WX. I can go try and look.

But the proposal on whether the time limit applies to previous decisions got seconded first, and it logically should be decided first.

Look the second proposal was moved in response to my proposal. And moots the first proposal. (x-post with DavidS) So if the consensus is to let it move ahead I'm not going to fight it. But I do want to point out there are meritorious arguments why the first proposal should be before the second proposal. I'm just not going to make them in an effort to decrease the fighting. (Feel free to email me if you're really dying to hear them.)

you do that Sophia, I'll do this... I think it was here, too.

I can't even remember what the first and second proposals were at this point, it would help to use specifics.

I have to come off of lunch and don't have any more time to look at WX-- But I can't find it.

Deena - you don't have to do it. I just thought maybe you knew where it was. Sadly, your memory sounds like mine.

And the old system wasn't subject to the moratorium

The old system wasn't subject to an official moratorium. There usually was a sense that we ought to let sleeping dogs lie, at least for a bit. Usually, if someone closed a poll or discussion and said "Denzel" won, we didn't come back the next morning to find 100 more votes for "monkey", and when we did? We let monkey go in, because we didn't want to argue. We valued our community enough to let someone else win, even if it's just because someone else was louder, not righter.

Things were looser, so "a while" wasn't defined. And one of the things that itched people about the old system was that sometimes something would get talked down, and then brought up again and again 'til everyone gave in. That's why we're defining "a while" now. But if you'll notice, the "a while" was honored after that last post (I think by brenda) - until you brought this subject up last night. It was honored because we value each other more than we value the idea of adding a thread.

We've always felt constant rehash was bad for the community. It's something we tried to discourage and were talking about quasi-officially discouraging, prior to ever even approving the voting process, because it breeds dissent. The voting process was developed to ease the feelings of dissent, not to be used to create more.

I can't even remember what the first and second proposals were at this point, it would help to use specifics.

Sorry. First proposal - a war thread. Second proposal - whether old issues are subject to the moratorium.

There was actually another second proposal - the length of the moratorium - which is currently under discussion. Not to be confused with the above.

It was honored because we value each other more than we value the idea of adding a thread.

Believe it or not, so do I. I hate that people are annoyed with me over this. I just see it from the opposite side, that if 5 members have proposed a thread it should be discussed board wide, because I value those members too. That's also the purpose of the voting system. And the board will vote it down or up as the membership sees fit.

The voting process was developed to ease the feelings of dissent, not to be used to create more.

I really think we're getting there.

if 5 members have proposed a thread it should be discussed board wide

But 23 members or whatever bitterchick's tally was, previously opposed the thread. What about their wishes?

But 23 members or whatever bitterchick's tally was, previously opposed the thread. What about their wishes?

I value them and their opinions too. (And not just because I was one of those 23.)