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 What I really think is that this should be withdrawn and we should just say, "Tough shit, we decided on that before we started voting.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

Right. Yes = Yes, you must wait till September on these certain items. No = no, don't bother waiting.

I'm of two minds. (Or mings, as I originally typed.) Yes means less arguing now about things we've already argued about. Then again, we haven't argued about them recently, have we? I would sort of have preferred to let sleeping dogs lie, but now that we're voting I'm pretty much in the yes camp.

Can the proposal at hand be misinterpreted? Only by people who aren't reading it or the discussion, and who aren't asking questions if they're confused. I don't want to vote against a proposal just because it shouts in the direction of something else entirely that happens to be scary -- that's letting fear and/or exhaustion run the discussion.

I'm not voting on this one. I've participated in every voting discussion and voted on every issue to come up so far, but:

• I feel that this proposal was a response to a specific point (the war thread) that is now moot, and it never needed to become a general priniciple thing;
• I feel Buffistas are sensible enough to recognize those issues that do urgently need to be revisited before whatever arbitrary time period is elapsed and to say, "tough shit" to others;
• I very strongly agree with the feeling that we're over-legislating. Nailing down every possible contingency does not remove the bureaucracy fatigue: It is the very essence of the bureaucracy fatigue.

The last point is why I'm abstaining rather than voting "no". If I'm right in my instinct that over-legislation has become a serious problem for a significant percentage of the board, I'd actually like to see it fail to get MVT. I'll take the risk that the motion will pass, especially as I actually think it will do very little either way, because I don't think it's something we need to be voting on at all.