All I meant was, at three months, we'll see how the moratorium feels, talk about it and vote whether we think it's too long, too short, or just right. If "just right" gets a majority, I would imagine things would continue on course. If a majority of us feel it's either too long, or too short, I think we'd have to decide then, how we wanted to handle it, and whether we wanted to do so only going forward or not. This really just gives us an escape clause, if six wins, and if we underestimated how long six months will feel.

Without knowing how we'll feel, it's hard to imagine the hypotheticals, and to me, it's not worth arguing the hypotheticals, either.

Thanks Cindy. I am going to link to this post in Press.

In that case, doesn't that make the effective validity of any further decisions we make by vote 3 months, instead of 6? I mean, if 3 months from now we decide that "6 months" is a too long period, is that decision retroactive?

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. ;)

Still working on that list of old decisions, BTW.

Will come back when pronouns return.

Stompie needed in COMM stat. (whitefont emergency)

You know, I was thinking that I liked the idea of a yes no ballot with a survey attached to help gauge how most people are feeling.

For example, if the current ballot passes, the next one (betsy's proposal)might be ( in very simple words)

Should the 6th month moratorium apply to decisions made prior to the official start of voting?

Yes No No pref

SURVEY

If no do you feel that there should be

No Moratorium
A shorter moratorium
A longer moratorium
A forever moratorium

I'll come back and threadsuck and read any replies later, 'cause I have to work now, but I am still bothered by the issue of a vote of 3, 4, or 6, in the span of 15 or 16 hours, turning into a vote on the "one true number of 6," and the numbers 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 - which not one person wanted - being thrown into a survey.

Am I the only one who's bothered by this?

No. It bothered me too.

But I felt the group Doblerization was way more important, and whether it was her timing or her persuasive style, Cindy pulled it off. So kudos to her.

And in truth, her proposal as a whole, written against her interests of 3 as the OTN, was pretty much fair. So even though I get your point, I'd advise not focusing on it too much. The greater good was served.

Honestly, everyone's bothered by something at this point.

Well, Sophia proposed it, so she wrote the ballot. There were a couple of ideas floating around Light Bulb before the vote, several of them viable, but we finally decided that consensing was not the way to go and that the proposer should write a ballot and Sophia chose one.

The concept we're voting on is the same; it's just phrased differently from how it was originally intended. And to a certain extent, I suspect that phraasing is a reflection, in the people reading Light Bulb, of the fact that 6 months seemed to be a front-runner.

I can sort of see how such a system could be abused, by writing ballots that are unintelligible or severely biased. But if that ever really turned into a problem, we all could give the ballot a vote of no confidence, by refusing to vote and not making the minimum turnout.