Whether this proposal passes or not it does not in any way affect what pre-voting decisions are "voteable" and what are not. The only thing this proposal determines is when pre-voting decisions that are "voteable" may be proposed again.

Right. That's the part that I want to emphasize. We're not talking about changing what may be voted on; that's all secure as-is. We're talking about what, among the things that may be voted on, may be voted on now, and what must wait its turn till X months from now.

---

Here is the revised proposal. Does anybody want to suggest further revisions before I make it official?

All decisions made before March 20, 2003 are subject to a waiting period before being reopened for discussion and voting. This waiting period shall be 6 months, and shall begin from March 20, 2003.

If this proposal passes, ... (see below)

If this proposal fails, all decisions made before the institution of voting may be reopened for discussion and voting immediately.

On the "see below", I need a definition of what decisions have been made. Is Anne doing this? Otherwise, I think the rule should be something like

when a new proposal is made, Buffistas have the option of challenging. To challenge, a Buffista must link to the original discussion of the idea. If ten Buffistas second the challenge, the proposal falls under the moratorium.

---

when a new proposal is made, Buffistas have the option of challenging. To challenge, a Buffista must link to the original discussion of the idea. If ten Buffistas second the challenge, the proposal falls under the moratorium.

Actually, I don't think the seconds are necessary, are they? If you can link to where the original decision was made, that should be it, shouldn't it?

I'm comfortable determining these things on a case by case basis, mostly because I don't think there'll be many cases.

The only hinky part I can see is determining what constituted a decision. Given everything, I'd say if an idea was floated and discussed, it counts. How much discussion? Maybe we can use our "four seconds" as a guide - if there were at least five posts on an issue, and either some action ensued or the idea was dropped, it counts as a decision.

---

If you can link to where the original decision was made, that should be it, shouldn't it?

Not really. It has proven in the past (War thread) to be ambiguous whether a decision was made. Especially since negative decisions are generally marked by the discussion trailing off.

Maybe we can use our "four seconds" as a guide - if there were at least five posts on an issue, and either some action ensued or the idea was dropped, it counts as a decision.

This has possibilities. The problem is that time of day factors in. If four people discuss something in the middle of the night, do they make any sound?

---

as if they were decided using the rules

I become angry when you suggest that everything that happened before voting was instituted was somehow illegitimate. This may be my cross to bear.

Betsy, let the cross go. I'm not suggesting that. Obviously, I meant "as if they were decided using the voting rules".

Not that it needs my stamp of approval, but for the record the method of decision used before the voting rules was perfectly legitimate. The only reasons we have this proposal was because that method did not include a moratorium. This gives the Buffistas a chance to apply the moratorium to that method. Nobody said the previous method was illegitimate.

All decisions made before March 20, 2003 are subject to a waiting period before being reopened for discussion and voting. This waiting period shall be 6 months, and shall begin from March 20, 2003.

Why March 20, 2003? Why not from February 22, 2003 when the voting rules were instituted? There were no decisions made between those two dates, and in all fairness we should try to get as close to those decisions temporally as we can.

---

Not really. It has proven in the past (War thread) to be ambiguous whether a decision was made. Especially since negative decisions are generally marked by the discussion trailing off.

Well, I'd say that if the question is "should we create this topic?" and the topic didn't get created, that was a decision.

---

Brenda's suggestion sounds fair. ANd really, from my reading of the last 6 months, I can think of only 4-5 thread ideas that got discussed but not implemented, and most of the policy/rules changes got implemented, or something similar that would render a reproposal moot got implemented.

Fear not: if a suggestion came out of anywhere but left field, we all weighed in on it. I would suggest using a different word from "challenge", just because we're talking about a specific kind of challenging that isn't debatable. So,

All decisions made before March 20, 2003 are subject to a waiting 
period (moratorium) before being reopened for discussion and voting.
This waiting period shall be 6 months, and shall begin from March 20, 
2003.


When a new proposal is made, Buffistas have the option of 
challenging interdicting. To challenge
interdict, a Buffista must link to the original discussion of the idea. Any
discussion in which more than five people posted in the discussion of 
that idea, and the idea was not thereupon implemented, constitutes 
sufficiency for an interdict until the moratorium expires.


On September 20, 2003, all pre-voting decision moratoria (but not the
moratoria for things we voted on!) will expire, and any reproposal of a 
pre-voting idea is no longer subject to interdict. So after Sept. 20, 
2003, it's fair game unless it was voted on, in which case its moratorium
is 6 months from the date it was voted on.

Is that too legalistic? Unclear? Anyway, I think it wise to add the part about this challenging/interdicting being a temporary thing.

---

So after Sept. 20,

2003, it's fair game unless it was voted on, in which case its moratorium is 6 months from the date it was voted on.

But there are things that aren't fair game, right? Like closing Atlantic Canadians or changing the name of Buffistas>

---

But there are things that aren't fair game, right? Like closing Atlantic Canadians or changing the name of Buffistas>

I think that's a separate issue from the grandpappy question since, for one thing, neither of those things came up in the time we're talking about. Or at all, really.

---

I am unclear on one point:

Would all decisions be up for revisitation or only those that were decided in the negative? As an example, the creation of the Movie thread was discussed, and was decided in the affirmative. The creation of a War thread was discussed and decided in the negative.

I know there were some people (no, I can't remember who) who were opposed to the idea of the Movie thread and felt that its creation was unfair. Could they revisit this decision and get the thread deleted? Is an affirmative action, once taken, permanent?

---