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 What I really think is that this should be withdrawn and we should just say, "Tough shit, we decided on that before we started voting.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

we should just say, "Tough shit, we decided on that before we started voting. It stays."

I see what you're saying but I think having a process is the lesser of two evils. Who decides whether your "tough shit" rule prevails?

debating any interpretation of either a "yes" or a "no".

We're not debating that. Betsy's process only asks to show that five people responded at the time to an old proposal. Not what their opinion on the proposal was. Either action was taken, or it wasn't. The process seems very clear to me.

I just need a white board or some kind of visual representation to help me out for most of the burecracy stuff but that can't happen online so I just try to work it on my own.

I'm with Cindy, I wish we could have said "it was voted on, deal with it."

Of course I've wanted to say that about other things but that didn't happen. I'm just tired of discussing things to death. I don't want old discussions to come up for a vote. I don't want to have to deal with old stuff and new stuff.