You've raised a valid point here. Though, I'd disagree with you about the 'banning people' thread, though everyone seems to be an agreement, there are still loads of issues that need to be raised. Mostly technical stuff about how the voting will work,etc. Or What happens if someone survives a ban? do they get a clean slate? What happens if some gets 3 warnings over a period of a year or two years? Do they still go up for banning? Loads of little things that we need to work out now. I'll try to raise some points later.

Generally, though, I think he should go like this.

Someone riases a point. We argue, dicuss, hammer out the point until we've got something that we're pretty much sound on. Some one will go through the thread and write a final proposion, taking into account whats been said in the thread, then well vote on it. I would say a week is a good enough time frame for the vote.

(Obivously, if someone raises a point that is simple enough or as 100% support, like Garners spamming statement- we could pretty much skip the voting for sake of time saving. But if it's an issue that has some contention, i say it goes to the vote)

I say that once a thread has seemed to reach it's concluesion, we have a vote on it.

I Think a week is a good time frame for voting.

The banning people threads should probably last a week too.

After the vote has taken place, I think it should be moved to teh dungoen forum.