askye, may I take a stab at an explanation? if I come off as know-it-all or condescending, smack me smartly and I'll stop.

"Grandfathering" something in generally means that you instituted a new rule, but a whole bunch of items pre-exist that rule, and you don't want to have to write the rule specifically to deal with the older things, so you "grandfather" them into the rule -- give them an exemption based on tradition (basically on the understanding that they're so old they'll eventually die off and you won't have to deal with them). Yes, "grandfathering" is really applied to grandfather-type people, or anyway their rent control and pensions and things.

So, we have a new "moratorium" rule: if you propose X, and X does not pass, X may not be proposed again for 6 months. We instituted this rule in March.

It turns out, we have Y and Z that we talked about but didn't do anything about before we invented the moratorium rule.

The question being voted on is, do Y and Z obey the moratorium rule, and wait 6 months before we propose them again?

YES means: you want to "grandfather" Y and Z into the moratorium, even though they're older than the moratorium, and make people wait 6 months (till September) before proposing a General TV Thread, Politics Thread, etc.

NO means: you want to be able to propose a General TV Thread as soon as this vote is done.

Really, this is a one-time deal. Y and Z from before-voting are the only items that we're talking about here. X proposal, that we did vote on and voted down, has its own 6-month moratorium automatically. Only Y and Z are under debate right now.

You're right flea. I set up the ballot but wasn't sure if ita pointed the voting email address to Laura, and then no one posted an announcement in Press.

Theoretically, that's Betsy's job. And we have today as a supposed-to-be-discussion, or-it-could-be-voting day. If she posts the Press announcement some time today, I'll be happy.

I've been thinking about this (maybe too much), and I've distilled the proposal into the pros and cons as *I* see them and as they help *my* decision-making process . YProcessesMV. I still haven't completely decided how I will vote however.

GIVEN: All issues may (but not necessarily will) come up for discussion again eventually, regardless of any previous decisions made.

Proposal "Yes" Vote (no discussion of pre-voting issues until Sept. 20)
PROS:

• May cause some issues to fade away
• May reduce some bad feelings leftover from previous discussions

CONS:

• May only be delaying the inevitable

Proposal "No" vote (discussion of pre-voting issues could start immediately after voting on this proposal ends and "NO" wins)
PROS:

• No wait necessary to discuss issues
• Issues brought up will then be dead until mid-November at the earliest

CONS:

• Some more recent discussions may still have bad feelings lingering about
• Some issues may be lingering about that might have died had we waited until Spetember

I'm voting no on principle.

I agree with the spirit of Betsy's proposal. In other words, thread (etc.) decisions we made before we started voting are just as valid as ones made through voting. Yes.

But I'm voting no, because I think we're legislating ourselves to death, and are in danger of scaring the crap out of people.

Every 25 posts or so in both this thread and burueacracy, someone comes in who hasn't been able to follow the entire conversation (because the someone has good sense and possibly a real life) and is afraid this means that suddenly after 6 months, we'll chuck all our old stuff out the window.

I'm voting "no" because I think this should be withdrawn, and just used as a big stick, if and only if someone tries to start changing everything we decided under the old method.

As it is though, I think it's contributing to the bureaublahblah/voting malaise that seems to be infecting us as of late. I don't blame Betsy for that in the slightest. I blame Buffistas (myself included) as a whole. I'm not going to fight it. If it passes anyhow, I'm cool with it. But I'm not voting for it.

But I'm voting no, because I think we're legislating ourselves to death, and are in danger of scaring the crap out of people.

I'm voting yes, because I fear that a no vote will encourage more legislation, not less. By voting yes, we're saying "You can't talk about that until September." Isn't the constant revisiting of old issues what got people all worked up in the first place?

I'm voting yes, because I fear that a no vote will encourage more legislation, not less. By voting yes, we're saying "You can't talk about that until September." Isn't the constant revisiting of old issues what got people all worked up in the first place?

Yes it is. And that's the spirit with which I agree. But right now, we have people (who don't want things revisited) scared to death that this is going to be a permission slip to revisit everything in 6 months. That's all fine and good. They can scroll and figure out what it really is and stop getting scared, or they can stay scared. That doesn't bother me. But what happens if we end up with someone who does want to change everything, and in six months, sees this ballot just the way the poor, scared, Buffistas do?

If someone comes in tomorrow and wants a war thread, I have no problem saying, "No. That decision was made using the process that was valid at the time. That it didn't get voted in, doesn't make it less valid."

What I'm confused about this is--if I do not want stuff to be up for vote immediately then I vote yes. So that means I agree with the grandfathering?

It's the whole yes=no discussion and no=discussion that's confusing me.

If someone comes in tomorrow and wants a war thread, I have no problem saying, "No. That decision was made using the process that was valid at the time. That it didn't get voted in, doesn't make it less valid."

And you don't think that there will be hundreds of posts in Bureaucracy debating your interpretation? I'd rather have it be cut and dried.

askye - Voting "yes" means that you agree with grandfathering.

Yes = put pre-voting decisions a six month discussion moratorium.

No = don't put them under the moratorium.