This proposal really falls under, "Who are we, who do we want to be?" for me.
In the grand scheme of things, does this belong in the "who are we..." conversation? Maybe. But I think saying that makes its purpose much larger than was intended. It was (I thought) originally just to ensure were weren't tossing recent semi-decisions just because we decided them, rather than voted on them. It was a stop gap proposal when there was some insisting (which then died) that we re-discuss a war thread.
Why such stop-gaps themselves are suddenly necessary probably does fall under "who are we...". But I don't think we need to complicate Betsy's thing with it.
I am trying to suss out the operational gist of this conversation (i.e. what people want, in a way that can actually be implemented). Here is my thinking:
1. There is a certain trepidation about the idea that something that seemed resolved can be made unresolved. In some ways, this can be good (i.e. reviving a thread proposal that had not won 6 months ago); in some ways, this calls into question every decision ever made, and opens the door for catastrophic change.
Possible resolution: We make it harder to undo changes. The Buffistas cannot become The Mighty Ducks without some more elaborate and mind-bogglingly irritating procedure that nobody wants to actually do. (Or just require a supermajority on undo it decisions, same diff and less aggravation.) This serves to preserve most of the decisions that we have made, but leaves open the option that something that
really
doesn't work can be undone.
2. I think I see some confusion relating not to the Grandfather clause itself, but to the very idea of revisiting past decisions. Having already ratified the time-based moratorium, we are not now intended to be voting on the rightness or wrongness of the moratorium. We are voting about how to implement the moratorium in regards to time (i.e. things that happened before we started voting).
Possible solution: clear wording of the final ballot that this is an adjunct to, but not a referendum on, the moratorium itself.
Other possible solution: allay the fears of (1) by stating explicitly things which may want to be under permanent moratorium. Although, good luck agreeing on what is and isn't intended to be permanent.
3. General fears about how the rules we write now may be abused in future. It is true that I expect good-faith applications of rules from the existing users. It is also true that that good faith may disappear at some time. Personally, I believe that once the good faith disappears, the community itself is ended or has broken down into smaller communities; so bad faith is a symptom of illness, rather than an infectious agent.
Possible solution: don't know. I can't foresee the coming of bad faith, based on our vast collective monkey-grooming skills. I guess this is a sort of cross-that-bridge-when-we-come-to-it question, for me.
Possible resolution: We make it harder to undo changes. The Buffistas cannot become The Mighty Ducks without some more elaborate and mind-bogglingly irritating procedure that nobody wants to actually do. (Or just require a supermajority on undo it decisions, same diff and less aggravation.) This serves to preserve most of the decisions that we have made, but leaves open the option that something that really doesn't work can be undone.
I like this, Nutty. Our constitution should stand, unless there's a goddamned good reason to change it, and that change should be so freakin' hard that it would take almost a completely new Buffista Community based on Whale Watching and the study of Aramaic texts to have evolved to affect such change.
If that made sense.
1) I think it would be best if all grandfathered things get grandfathered from the date we passed the original moratorium. No, it's not necessarily fair to the older proposals that they have to wait longer, but trying to figure out a date for everything would be unfair to our collective sanity, and as we are real people, and the proposals are not, I say screw the proposals, our collective sanity is more important.
Oh, yes. At one point, when we were first talking about this, I tried going back through the B. thread and figuring out what was proposed/determined when. Because so many discussions were going on at once, and things would drop for a week then pop up again, it was very tricky to figure out when proposals began or ended.
I also learned that reading through the
entire
Bureaucracy thread in one go is not a healthy thing to do.
Anne, I did that too, for reasons that now escape me... made me nauseous. I really don't know what to do about this proposal. On the one hand, I don't want some things to change: the way the stompies work, the name of the board, the warn, warn, ban system...the "who we are" stuff... but on the other hand, I don't really want to go figure out what was decided by consensus that's, imo, more lightweight, like the war thread. I'm wondering if this is premature to the "who we are" conversation. If we knew that, then the other stuff could be separated out from the immutable stuff.
I like this, Nutty. Our constitution should stand, unless there's a goddamned good reason to change it, and that change should be so freakin' hard that it would take almost a completely new Buffista Community based on Whale Watching and the study of Aramaic texts to have evolved to affect such change.
This is why ammendments to the Constitution (that is, the US Constitution) were made so frelling hard to pass - the writer's thought they'd done a good job and didn't wan't anybody mucking it up in the future. Bureaucracy as a weapon! Prohibition still got through somehow - go figure.
I like this, Nutty. Our constitution should stand, unless there's a goddamned good reason to change it, and that change should be so freakin' hard that it would take almost a completely new Buffista Community based on Whale Watching and the study of Aramaic texts to have evolved to affect such change.
If that made sense.
It makes sense, certainly in the abstract, and/or big picture-wise. I'm not sure I know how to define 'our constitution'. I'm also not sure how we go about doing anything about it. Ideas?
Does this part of the conversation belong in bureaucracy? If so, please tell me and I'll move it, or move it and I'll be fine with that.
Is grandpappy still on the table for voting? I'm unsure whether we're still discussing, or if Minear Thread is dead, or what's going on.
I think so, people just ran out of things to say about it. And you would have thought that was impossible.
Minear Thread is absolutely not dead!
