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I'm voting "no" because I think this should be withdrawn, and just used as a big stick, if and only if someone tries to start changing everything we decided under the old method.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

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.

I think if we take this to a vote at all, there are going to be hundreds of blahblahs debating any interpretation of either a "yes" or a "no".

I am against over-legislating. What I really think is that this should be withdrawn and we should just say, "Tough shit, we decided on that before we started voting. It stays."