But obviously someone who favors 6 wrote this paragraph! In this situation, I'm nearly totally certain that 6 will win.

How will 6 certainly win? If

What the 3-or-4 people like *first* is the idea of a smaller time period than half a year, and then *secondly* they differentiate between the slightly-smaller one and the slightly-larger one

is true, then 3-or-4 people will vote for one of those as their first choice, then the other as their second choice. If there are more 3-or-4 people than 6 people, then whichever of 3 or 4 has more votes as a first choice will win.

t edit: and your ballot totally cuts out people who think 4 is fine, but 3 is too short, and would therefore vote for 4 first, but for 6 in a 3 vs 6 runoff.

I thought I was going to vote for 3 months because if I wanted an issue and it was voted down then I would want a chance to reopen voting as soon as possible. But, if I won on an issue then I would want it to be up for reopening quickly which would push me towards 6 months.

Whoa. Askye brings something up for me which I hadn't thought about before. Does the moratorium only hold for things which didn't pass? Or are all decisions (both for or against) open to revisiting in 3, 4 or 6 months?

Askye used the words win to describe her not voting for something. But what if something does pass, can I bring it back open to discuss X months from now?

For example, a spoiler policy?

That's how it seemed to be leaning, to me, when it was discussed in bureacracy, Kat.

Huh. That's interesting. So people who propose something which is voted against get to bring it up ad infinitum as long as they follow the moratorium.

People who advocate against something and lose don't get the same priviledge?

I think moratorium means moratorium. Six months before we bring the whole painful topic up again, win or lose.

If six months should win.

As is only right.

That can't be the case for thread creation, surely -- are you saying that every six months I can say "I still think a Movies thread is wrong, and we should shut it down"?

Not that I would...

That can't be the case for thread creation, surely -- are you saying that every six months I can say "I still think a Movies thread is wrong, and we should shut it down"?

Oh, I think so. And really, I think it should be that way -- but then, I'm an anti-proliferationist. But think about it -- if we only ever open threads and never close them, we'd have a zillion threads eventually, right?

That reminds me, people seem to think, correct me if I'm wrong, that having more threads is inherently a Bad Thing in terms of bandwidth and board stability.

It's not, I believe, and people are mistaken about this just because of what they believe caused the recent outage/database problems.

It's not, correct me if I'm wrong, ita, that creating more threads causes database problems, but simply that experience shows that having more threads means there's more traffic.

The outage wasn't caused by having too many threads, in other words, though it's logical to assume that our increases in traffic are due in part to having more threads.

My understanding is that the Recent Outage wasn't because of bandwidth at all, but I do believe bandwidth could become a problem at some future point, and I also believe that having more threads means we use more bandwidth -- see that Natter hasn't slowed down, even with new threads around.

None of which has anything to do with the matter at hand.

Go 6!