Four Days does sound like a long time, but not everyone is on at the same time or even checks the board once a day. Plus four days could give us some cooling off time (maybe).

I like the idea of 3 months, 6 just seems too long. I agree that we need some kind of limit on how many times an issue can be raised.

I'm leaning towards 6 months, but that only because I can imagine wanting to poke my own eyeballs out if something kept being raised again and again.

I feel new thread votes could be brought back up every three months without much friction.

Bah! ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hooo! t wipes tears from eyes A ha ha ha ha ha ha hee hee ho hoo hoo!

I like four months better than three months or six months.

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

See, but that requires another vote/decision. If we go with six months we've got a ready brake on that. I cannot emphasize enough that this issue is in place primarily to reduce friction. As somebody who has been very active in discussions about board protocols since back at WX, we're trying to self-medicate here. We know we talk a lot. We know we analyze and dissect. But unchecked we swallow our own asses whole and everybody gets really really grumpy.

We are looking at how to preserve open discussion and democratic decisions without eating our own asses. So we have open talks, but we put a stop on it at some point. Six months is better than three months. For me at least, it is much more important to have the friction removal / brake aspect in place than it is to have quick-acting responsive board changes. Slow changes are better in most cases.

It's been very very difficult to move to a voting process. These wheels should turn slowly.

Hec has convinced me. I like 6. Six months is a ready brake.

And frankly, to paraphrase Nutty from bureaucracy, if a non-show thread can't survive 6 months gestation, maybe it shouldn't be a thread?

edited for homonym issues.

I'm confused and tired and shouldn't be trying to make decisions at midnight about stuff like this.

I'm going to bed and I'll think about this, by the time I get back online I'm sure there will be many more posts on the subject.

Withdrew the question as not really appropriate for this thread.

See, I'm for open discussion, as opposed to limiting it. This is, after all, a discussion board, isn't it? I think that 6 months is just too long - that is saying that we still could not revisit issues that came up in the first month or so this place was open. Think about that. Think about what you were talking about at the end of September - were your views on it exactly the same as they are now?

Think about what you were talking about at the end of September - were your views on it exactly the same as they are now?

Yes. Because we weren't talking about all the changes we wanted to make. We were talking about how great things were.

I'm a stubborn git, and my opinions aren't often easily swayed. But let me tell, my opinions on new threads - haven't changed at all. My opinion on unchecked, unfettered growth, also not so much with the changing.

I have no problem with 6 months though.

I think the constant meta discussion drives people insane and makes people bail and say fuck it. Moreover, I hate rehash because it irritates me personally. If every week a person who wanted a war thread brought it up, I'd be crying for a user filter after every post they made.

t deletia to remove snark.

The thing is, we're a discussion board. We aren't a nag-until-you-get-what-you-want board.

The thing is, we're a discussion board. We aren't a nag-until-you-get-what-you-want board.

In fact, yep. I'm going to just let Kat post for me in all the threads, I think.