I think actual voting people do soon, but for people to mosey on over to somewhere to second something? might take longer (though I suppose the suggestor could go to some other thread and say "yo, I know you you and you are in favor of this, come second me!").

I definitely agree a year is too long. I vote 5, just to be contrary.

(And Sean's earlier statement is tripping my "say something lascivious" button, but I'm trying not to).

(really trying hard)

My two cents - go with the 3 months and 6 months as the choices (1 year is wayyy too long in internet time).

I see good points for either selection. I tend to like new threads (even if I don't post in them), so I feel new thread votes could be brought back up every three months without much friction. Other issues, though, require more "space". In my final analysis, I think the benefit of that outweighs the need for gratification of new threads, so I believe 6 months would be the best period of time.

because imagine if someone really really wanted a Nutty's Cottage Cheese Butt Thread

You have got to quit running down your ass. It's a perfectly nice behind.

So, 6 months is best. "Except under obvious emergency".

Since we've got several days (and most folks seem to be favoring the right, i.e., 6 months, answer) I'd suggest that a time-sensitive issue could bump a less pressing issue. So if, for example, banning were an issue decided by vote and that issue came up while there was a thread-adding discussion in Lightbulb, it could be moved to bump the thread issue for the nonce, deal with the banning, then return and discuss the thread again afterwards.

By what mechanism? I don't know. Probably seconding. But I'd stress that folks not abuse this process because if disruptions become the norm then there will be resistance about letting something like seconding (a fairly light and easy trigger to effect) drive it.

I disagree, based solely on server load. We can't handle too many more threads, so proposals should be kept to a minimum.

Three months seems reasonable to me.

Six months is the entire history of the board so far, am I right?

The current situation with a war starting, and people wanting a thread right away, is unlikely to happen regularly, surely? I mean, not with wars, I mean with anything.

If a new show comes on, we know it months in advance.

3 and 6 are the numbers. but I was thinking 3 months , cause things in the real world can change that fast.

but I was thinking 3 months , cause things in the real world can change that fast.

I agree with this, but I think 6 for the anti-friction factor. Because among other things you could raise an issue every three months if you felt very strongly about it. Four times a year. And that would feel irritating. But if it came up every six months, that'd be a lot easier to deal with.

With fear and loathing, I place my tippy toe into the murky waters of politics. I come down on the side of three (3). If someone feels so strongly about a thing that they continually raise it, there is something that needs to be dealt with.

..or some five people with a wicked big axe to grind. It takes five people to make a formal proposal, that's all, as we voted.

And if those five, or a rotating five out of twelve, keep bringing up the Nutty Cheese Butt thread, and it keeps getting voted down 78 to 12, whose needs are being served?

I second the Nutty Cheese Butt thread.

Good point, though. How about some kind of control on repeat proposals beyond just once? Two rally attempts, then it is dead, dead, dead.