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 What I really think is that this should be withdrawn and we should just say, "Tough shit, we decided on that before we started voting.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."

I think Betsy has to put it in Press, right? I think this is another time where I am happy to have the NP choice.

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

I don't know if this would help at all, but I've started humming "Yes, we have no discussion, We have no discussion today". Which does at least get things in the right order, and has a bit of a beat behind it.

Actually, Laura's just changed my mind. I won't vote "no". I just won't vote. That's what I did on DX's proposal as well.

Clarification please...

If there are insufficient voters for this proposal to be resolved (ie, less than 42 votes cast) is it subject to the moratorium?

I'm voting no on principle.

If I vote, I'm voting no. Because without a list of what was, and what wasn't, "decided", I see too much scope for interpretation. And with interpretation comes discussion and disagreement. And that means that the process certainly doesn't do what it was intended to do, which is, shut the issue(s) down for a period of time.

I also think that when it comes to rules, less is more. (And this is me. The girl who couldn't be more about the borders and endzones if her surname was Harris.)