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.

I think Betsy's right. See previous vote on moratorium here.

The moratorium proposal specifically states, "Note that the result of this vote will apply to ALL decisions, affirmative and negative."

Brenda, I asked the question because I wasn't sure if any distinction would be made. Betsy said "all" means "all". I was just wondering, since I don't recall (though I skipped and skimmed a whole lot through previous pre-vote discussions), if a distinction was made between those decisions which were made to take a positive action (e.g. create a thread) and those which were to take no action (e.g. not create a thread).

As I currently understand it, there is no real difference except with regard to the time frame. All previous decisions can either be addressed now or after September 20, 2003.

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

That's what we have now - the current proposal is looking at stuff that might be in a grey area because they were decided prior to our instituting the voting system.

Note that the decision we're making is whether these issues are off limits for the next six months (or six months from the date of the original proposal I guess) or whether they're fair game right now. This proposal will push them aside for a while - it's not opening anything up for debate that's not already there.

I see. Betsy, if I understand you correctly, you're not expressing an opinion about the "all decisions" aspect, but only using the language we've been using all along.

IOW, we're all going to have to sit down and propose something, eventually, if we want to make it harder to unmake decision. I would like to discuss this idea further, because I see merit in making it harder to unmake decisions, but I understand it's not germane to the proposal currently in light bulb. But, you know, eventually.

Yes, I'm like a Rogerian therapist this way. I understand things best by restating them.