Absolutely and completely, I agree. Either that, or the entire world has PMS. Occam's Razor suggests it's the war...

If the board decides that old issues may be revisited under the new rules, and not subject to the new moratorium, then the war thread issue is next for the discussion since it’s gotten four “seconds”. If the board votes that old issues are subject to the moratorium, then the war thread issue is moot and dead until the moratorium is over. Does everybody agree with that?

A hearty yes.

Wolfram--great post. You have my friendship and my respect, FWIW.

Finally, I’m really not privy to much in the way of back channel and I don’t know if I’ve made any enemies over this.

I knew I should've e-mailed you! I'll just say front-channel that I'm not reading you shaking my fist at the screen. More like wanting to send hugs and featherbed armor, because arguing is strainful even when you stay courteous and respectful.

hah! more strainful I think.

You did okay Wolfram. It's good to know you're not tearing out your hair in distress.

I've adopted the motto Doblerize! for myself. I had no idea it was so effective.

I’m really not privy to much in the way of back channel and I don’t know if I’ve made any enemies over this. I doubt I’ve made any friends

I think you've conducted yourself courteously throughout. Not that I've been Little Miss Actively Involved, like, but I've been following the debate, albeit erratically. There have been differences of opinion and misunderstandings all round, and nerves have been frayed. But I never doubted your sincerity, nor have you seemed, to me, to be intentionally inflammatory. (Although my first reading of the 2nd 'banning' remark was initially that it had that intention - but I think you explained & contextualised it thoroughly.)

(fwiw, I'm not big with the backchannel either)

I knew I should've e-mailed you! I'll just say front-channel that I'm not reading you shaking my fist at the screen. More like wanting to send hugs and featherbed armor, because arguing is strainful even when you stay courteous and respectful.

Wolfram, I feel the same way Nou does. And fwiw - there was no back channel here. I understood your devotion to the principle, I just also understood the other devotion to the other principle. There were no shaky fists here. Thank you for what you just did. Very much.

Coffee and donuts are on me, Buffistas.

1) Cindy, why on earth are you awake so early?

2) Do you deliver aforementioned coffee and donuts?

They were only metaphorical coffee and donuts, Nutty - so yes, I suppose they were delivered already, right in that post. Am I correct in thinking you need the more anvil-y type of coffee and donuts? (me, too)

I was awake because I died on my couch last night at about 10:15. I'd had a big glass of water. I've had 3 kids. A 36 year old bladder is sensitive, like a finely tuned violin or summat.

Also, when I wake up that early - it's sooooo quiet here, that it's hard to resist.

eta - that's all natter - sorry folks. Didn't remember where I was.

For your consideration, an idea which may reduce the number of votes, over time.

Is it possible to put up a policy that one (1) new thread may instituted, to live for one month? Call it a 'trial' thread. No other trial thread could be created until the current trial thread is retired. OK, now for the weird bit. When a trial thread expires and a new trial is instituted, it is just a change of title and use for a single thread.

I'm thinking that the desire to isolate conversations on a particular topic away from the existing fora is something that arises surrounding some transient topic (war, events of an actor/writer's life, new-series speculation, and so on). It should be evident from the content of the trial thread what the new title should be. These transients seem to have a brief life.

Just a notion. Thanks for your attention.