Burrell, no - we're not reconsidering everything. We can't reconsider anything until that time has passed.
The purpose of the moratorium is to provide quiet time. It works thusly: We have our discussion; we make our decision (vote); then the moratorium makes those who were unhappy with the results hold their peace (is that piece?) for 6 months. Hopefully, there's not going to be too much. A general TV thread or a war thread are the only real clinkers I can think of.
I understand thinking that going from decision date is clunky, but it's only clunky if someone wants to actually re-open things. Voting and explanation-wise for grandfathering, it's actually simpler. All the proposal has to state is that issues decided before we started voting are grandfathered in under the 6 month moratorium rule, meaning they are closed for a minimum of 6 months after a decision has been made.
If someone wants to re-open an issue that we closed before we voted, the onus is on that someone to prove it's been six months since it got shot down the first time (i.e. nilly the original decision).
This is one of those things that scares me-- Bear with mre for a moment, as this is only tangentially related:
My friend Nancy and I were doing a show with a lot of High School Students. In the past, we had had a lot of trouble with people being late and/or skipping rehearsals altogether. We decided on a procedure and told them up front-- three Strikes and you are out. we really thought this would solve it, because before we felt we had no teeth.
Throughout the show, people would use up their two strikes. Deliberately. Probably people who wouldn't have skipped rehearsal in the first place. We learned that not having it laid out clearly was actually better.
This reminds me of that. It means we only have a 6th month moratorium on being called Buffistas or something. Some decisions should never be revisited.
(it really, really, really scares you, Sophia? ;)
That was bad-- My computer just scared me by doing it on my own!
I would hope that those things wot should never be revisited wouldn't get the five initial votes (proposal + 4 secondses) necessary to get revisited.
That is my thought too Jon. I don't really feel a need for a vote on the grandpappy thing, but I am good with whatever is decided.
This reminds me of that. It means we only have a 6th month moratorium on being called Buffistas or something. Some decisions should never be revisited.
I think this fear is overrated. Like Nutty said, anyone who brings up changing the buffistas name is going to get creamed. Not everything is up for proposal and voting, and it's up to the buffistas to figure out what to allow and what not to allow.
That being said, if voting on the grandfather clause scares that many people, then I'll go on record as having no objection to its permanent withdrawal.
