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".

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.

Um, if it's not addressed, then we just open ourselves to more discussions after the current one because we won't know what the moratorium applies to (assuming it passes). Personally, I'd say that everything, positive or negative, should be included.

Um, if it's not addressed, then we just open ourselves to more discussions after the current one because we won't know what the moratorium applies to (assuming it passes). Personally, I'd say that everything, positive or negative, should be included.

That's not so. We know the moratorium would apply to the same types of pre-vote decisions as post-vote decisions. In other words, whatever types of decisions the moratorium currently affects, it would affect pre-vote too.

I'm not belittling the distinction between positive and negative decisions, it's just not a discussion that needs to be decided for the current proposal.

ETA: On reread that came off a bit too know-it-allish. This is only my opinion. :)

I guess I'm not clear on how and why the distinction between postive and negative decisions arose. Can someone explain why positive decisions wouldn't be included?

I said "all decisions", and I meant it.

So Betsy, you're thinking that every decision we make should be open to revisitation every 6 months?

I'm generally against that, for the reasons I've stated; would you mind elaborating why you're for it?

Okay, I'm confused again. A Yes vote would mean that decisions made before the voting stuff happened would be untouchable?

I like untouchable. Thre's something so solid and reliable about untouchable.

A Yes vote means that decisions made before the date are untouchable *for six months*, exactly like other decisions.

So Betsy, you're thinking that every decision we make should be open to revisitation every 6 months?

I don't think that's the way it should be, but that's how I interpret the existing rules. As far as I know, I can suggest in six months that we obliterate the banning process, and if I get seconds it comes up for a vote.

Thanks for the clarification, Betsy.