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?

---

Is an affirmative action, once taken, permanent?

I don't think so - I think once the "we're not going to talk about it for this length of time" period has passed, one could bring it up again.

---

Yeah. For example, I think voting to close the LotR thread would be legitimate to bring up, since we now have the movies thread.

Edit: NOT that I'm trying to start a conversation around that, just that it could happen.

---

But there are things that aren't fair game, right?

Right. Not part of this vote. This is a when question, not a what question.

Would all decisions be up for revisitation or only those that were decided in the negative?

This doesn't seem to me to be a part of what's being proposed right now. I mean, we should probably talk about it, but I don't think Betsy is required to address it in her proposal.

I am thinking yes, only things that were not changed, with a few exceptions. I.e., we are talking (though not yet proposing) the combination of redundant threads, but those redundancies exist because of how WX was structured; and we are in no wise discussing just deleting a thread, only combining them; and circumstances like the ending or cancellation of a show may call for a change in the threads.

The reason I am thinking yes is the scary possibility that every decision made is made only for 6 months, when it may be unmade all over again. There would be a lot of (a) clogging up our lives with "unmake the Cheese Butt thread!" proposals, and (b) the keeping of grudges, knowing a decision can be unmade easily, rather than learning to live with what's been done, and (c) nobody would know where we stand on any given issue, because our stand would be subject to change very easily. All of which make me want to say that a change (positive decision), once made, should be very hard to unmake, unless the circumstances really demand it.

---

All of which make me want to say that a change (positive decision), once made, should be very hard to unmake, unless the circumstances really demand it.

I very much agree with this. Unmaking a thread is worse than never having the thread at all, and the feelings of the posters who post in that thread need to be paramount. I think the people who post within the proposed thread to be unmade or merged, need to pretty much overwhelmingly consense that it's time to unmake or merge that thread. Which could happen. For example I think most people who have posted in the Buffy spoiler threads would agree that after Buffy's had it's final airing for the Unamericans, that the thread is unnecessary. Unless a subcommunity was dwelling in one of those threads, which would be a whole other factor.

Of course this proposal has nothing to do with all that. :)

---

Thanks Katie, Jesse, and Nutty. I went back and read Betsy's most version of the proposal, and it does say "all decisions". I should know now to trust the Buffistas to say exactly what they mean and that "all" really does mean "all".

---