Drafting versus At-Vote Threads

[Ardchoille]

Ideally, debate would be cut-off at 12:00 in the debate thread, and continue on in the at-vote thread as 12:01.

But that requires timely mods!

*Ostentatiously puts another X besides G-R's name on The List*

Merging in the archives seems to me more convenient for reference. I think it'd be easy enough at the same time to do Mousebumples' idea of putting a link in the OP to the post where the At Vote debate begins. Don't expect this to be automatic, though; an elbow-jogger in Moderation with links would make the job easier.

Krioval's got a good point. I've seen (and done) some horrible merges. I guess, if the times are very close, the author could warn mods, and then we could put the threads in separately.

One way round the draft/debate thing would be for the author to edit a link to the first At Vote post into his drafting thread's first post. But people do tend not to read first posts every time on something that's been growing for a while. Which brings us back to the two-threads idea ...

Anyway, I'm fine with leaving it up to the proposer, as in my earlier post, and responding when they wave madly in Moderation to let us know we're needed.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Why not just leave it up to the OP whether or not they want an after-the-fact archival merge? I mean, we already generally defer to them when they want a new thread for the vote, right?

[Ardchoille]

Meh, I'm pretty much okay with that. The only caveat I have is that if you're looking up archives, it may be easier to have the whole thing together in one thread so you can see the logic that led to changes in the proposal to go to vote, and whether this logic worked on delegates coming in only after it was At Vote. Like, for the researchers' sake I'm thinking it's easier. But it's no big deal either way, unless the system goes back to making merges unpleasant.

Or, if you'd like a bit of good old GA melodrama: Fine, fine, do it your way, then! But I won't forget this, Kenny, I won't forget this!