User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-26285319-20170104192003/@comment-24894325-20170908125153

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-26285319-20170104192003/@comment-24894325-20170908125153 I'd like to thank Shambala108 for reopening the discussion. I did not think the consensus was reached either. But, being a participant in the discussion, I should not make determinations on it.

As for the discussion being off-topic (incidentally, I cannot find the phrase "This thread is off-topic enough; we've all passed judgment on OP's proposal, so an admin should shut down this thread, and we'll make a different one if we have different proposals." that NateBumber cites). When I entered this discussion (well before becoming an admin), I treated it as a discussion of T:VS, more specifically of Rule 4.

I had my concerns about Rule 4, and sincerely believed it to be against T:POINT to start another discussion of Rule 4 while this was ongoing. But even leaving aside the question of potential T:POINT violations, it is clear that having two competing discussions of the same rule of the same policy is a bad idea. What happens when these discussions conclude with opposing decisions?

I propose to treat this discussion not in the narrow sense of the OP, which only helps close it but serves no other purpose. My concerns have not been addressed. Editors should not be forced to repeat parts of this discussion that do not directly follow from the OP. It would make much more sense to try and arrive at a new formulation of Rule 4 that is based on a new consensus than to keep the old formulation that has been discussed here at some length as not satisfactory.