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.)

Okay, sorry for the delay. I didn't find it. That could mean that it wasn't victor (searched on his name) or that running back and forth between two screaming babies kind of screwed up my vision. I know it's in there and if someone wants me to find it, I will, but it will take some time.

The discussion about voting begins at Sophia's Post 5016. I think it's somewhere after that one, though, Sophia could also be right that it's on WX and I may be only thinking I saw it here.

FWIW, yes, the War Thread proposal waas proposed, then the Grandafather Clause proposal was proposed, then the GC proposal achieved formal seconds, then the WT proposal achieved formal seconds.

I think it's only fair that the one that made it to the next part of the obstacle course first should be allowed to go forward first.

That's above and beyond the fact that the GC proposal is a procedural question, and could possibly make the WT proposal moot, and that even without the GC many people here interpret the existing rules as disallowing a WT proposal for some time. All of these may or may not be considerations, depending on your opinion; and it may be that the GC may come off as sour grapes, similarly depending; but the fact is, GC tagged home base first, so it's first in line for the ice cream cones.

Fair?

Nutty, your arguments are good and persuasive. I'm not going to argue the other side, although I believe there are meritorious reasons to put the WT thread first, aside from me just wanting it that way. I concede the order. (See my previous post#8663.)

Searching this thread with the keywords: decided, further, reopen, already, previously, revisit, and one more that I've forgotten, this is the only mention I can find of whether or not previously decided issues can be revisited.

brenda m, 6213:

I'd respectfully suggest that MARCIE has been decided on already. I don't think we want to start opening up settled questions just because we have this new process and certain things already decided just haven't been implemented yet.

And the only response to it was:

PMM, 6214:

MARCIE is on the feature to-do list. Features, IMO, aren't voting matters. They're coding matters.

I don't find any further discussion of this matter. If no one else can find any, then I have to say that I think wolfram's proposal should be taken seriously. I'm also very uncomfortable with the idea of grandfathering it should that proposal pass before the war thread comes up - since it was on the table already, I think it should be exempted.