t hits Jon over the head with a pumpkin

My question is-- is anyone so married to the idea of 4 or 9 that they can deal with talking about how to vote. Because I am not.

Also, do we want to add the think about limitng seconds to this ballot. I am thinking not at this point.

Likewise, I have a similar reaction to someone saying that the board is squelching their free speech. This is a private board with an international membership. We are not constitutionally bound to uphold the 4th Amendment.

pssst, 1st Amendment

For self-serving reasons I want to say 3 months, if old issues end up with the same moratorium. But I'm more inclined to 6 months because there's no reason to see the same issues debated 4 times a year. That being said, there needs to be a system in place to make exceptions to the 6 month rule, and I think we need to discuss that at the same time. I suggest a significant change in circumstance exception, and what constitutes a "change in circumstance" to warrant breaking the moratorium gets a shorter discussion and vote period (say 1 day for each) because if the change is significant it should be easy to gauge the feeling of the board in 2 days.

Edited to fix the spelling of gauge. It was driving me batty.

We can't decide what constitutes a 'change in circumstance' unless we want to get bogged down in very minute details. we cannot anticipate everything.

I think a change in circumstance has to be decided by "old style" consensus.

We can't decide what constitutes a 'change in circumstance' unless we want to get bogged down in very minute details. we cannot anticipate everything.

I think a change in circumstance has to be decided by "old style" consensus.

Sophia, these two sentences are mutually exclusive. (Not that I don't post contradictory stuff myself.)

I think a method to break the moratorium should be part of this ballot because it directly affects how long people will want a moratorium for. Some people wouldn't want to see Nutty's Butt become a thread and don't want to see the issue raised more than twice a year. But they're afraid that if M.E. makes a show about Nutty's Butt they'd be locked into not having a thread about it for the 6 month period so they vote 3 month when they really want 6. So we need a method to break the moratorium in case Joss finds a way to make Nutty's Butt the lead in the next spinoff. (And I don't know Nutty's Butt, but I do believe Joss is capable of anything.)

I'm with Sophia. The method for breaking a moratorium should be old-style consensus.

TBut they're afraid that if M.E. makes a show about Nutty's Butt they'd be locked into not having a thread about it for the 6 month period so they vote 3 month when they really want 6.

It seems to me that these two premises are incompatible. Either you think that six months is the proper period to delay reconsideration, or you think three months is. If you are worried that there might be a good reason to reconsider before six months elapses, you should be voting for three months.

Those 2 sentances are not mutually exclusive if I elaborate a bit.

I don't think we can talk about putting a list of "WHAT CONSTITUTES A CHANGE OF STATUS" on a ballot. We can never come up with all of the possible situations.

We will have to take it on a case by case basis, and we cannot vote on whether or not to allow a vote-- becuase I saythat is ridiculous. Therefore, the only way to decide an emergancy circumstance (Mutant Enemy starts producing a show about Nutty's Cheese Butt) is to form a consensus when that in fact happens.

I feel that Nutty's Butt is getting overexposed in this thread.

Nutty, pull your pants up!

Nutty, pull your pants up!

I vote in the contrary!

(I just feel the need to mention that silly hypotheticals are one of my very favorite Buffista things. But that I would vote NO to the Nutty's Butt thread no matter how many times it comes up.)