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!

I must have said that wrong. If something wins, no one agitates against it for X months. If something loses, no one agitates for it for X months. That's what I recall from bureacracy. Any decision can revisited after the moratorium.

clarifying because this is part of what made me lean toward 6.