We can't decide what constitutes a 'change in circumstance' unless we want to get bogged down in very minute details. we cannot anticipate everything.
I think a change in circumstance has to be decided by "old style" consensus.
We open it up, we talks the talk, we votes, we shuts it down. This thread is to free up Bureaucracy for daily details as we hammer out the Big Issues towards a vote. Open only when a proposal has been made and seconded according to Buffista policy (Which we voted on!). If this thread is closed, hie thee to Bureaucracy instead!
We can't decide what constitutes a 'change in circumstance' unless we want to get bogged down in very minute details. we cannot anticipate everything.
I think a change in circumstance has to be decided by "old style" consensus.
We can't decide what constitutes a 'change in circumstance' unless we want to get bogged down in very minute details. we cannot anticipate everything.
I think a change in circumstance has to be decided by "old style" consensus.
Sophia, these two sentences are mutually exclusive. (Not that I don't post contradictory stuff myself.)
I think a method to break the moratorium should be part of this ballot because it directly affects how long people will want a moratorium for. Some people wouldn't want to see Nutty's Butt become a thread and don't want to see the issue raised more than twice a year. But they're afraid that if M.E. makes a show about Nutty's Butt they'd be locked into not having a thread about it for the 6 month period so they vote 3 month when they really want 6. So we need a method to break the moratorium in case Joss finds a way to make Nutty's Butt the lead in the next spinoff. (And I don't know Nutty's Butt, but I do believe Joss is capable of anything.)
I'm with Sophia. The method for breaking a moratorium should be old-style consensus.
TBut they're afraid that if M.E. makes a show about Nutty's Butt they'd be locked into not having a thread about it for the 6 month period so they vote 3 month when they really want 6.
It seems to me that these two premises are incompatible. Either you think that six months is the proper period to delay reconsideration, or you think three months is. If you are worried that there might be a good reason to reconsider before six months elapses, you should be voting for three months.
Those 2 sentances are not mutually exclusive if I elaborate a bit.
I don't think we can talk about putting a list of "WHAT CONSTITUTES A CHANGE OF STATUS" on a ballot. We can never come up with all of the possible situations.
We will have to take it on a case by case basis, and we cannot vote on whether or not to allow a vote-- becuase I saythat is ridiculous. Therefore, the only way to decide an emergancy circumstance (Mutant Enemy starts producing a show about Nutty's Cheese Butt) is to form a consensus when that in fact happens.
I feel that Nutty's Butt is getting overexposed in this thread.
Nutty, pull your pants up!
Nutty, pull your pants up!
I vote in the contrary!
(I just feel the need to mention that silly hypotheticals are one of my very favorite Buffista things. But that I would vote NO to the Nutty's Butt thread no matter how many times it comes up.)
With all due respect, I'd like to make a motion that 4 months be considered. I believe that Rebecca L and Lyra Jane have informally seconded it. Anyone else?
If it has to be narrowed down to 2 choices, then between 4 months and 6 months.
3 months is too soon, 1 year is too long, and likewise, I think 6 months is also too long. 4 months = 3x/year possible discussion.
24 hours to get seconds? Everyone agreeing that this appropriate has a home computer with unlimited access day or night. IJS. Not all of us do. If I have a busy Friday and Monday at work, with no home computer, I could be absent for 4-5 days. If you're on all the time, that can seem like an eternity, but it really isn't IRL.
OTOH, I don't expect that this should be designed to work around me, but do want to voice my experience/set of circumstances as representative of at least one person here.
And, how about all the people off on vacation this week? For example.
Wasn't some of this designed to make it less everyone-who's-on-right-now-gets-to-decide-everything?
And now I have to work for the next several hours, so, later.
3 months is too soon, 1 year is too long, and likewise, I think 6 months is also too long. 4 months = 3x/year possible discussion.
This is my position as well.
As for how much time people should have to get seconds ... why do we need a time limit? I would bet that most issues will get seconds with in a matter of minutes to hours. But if something doesn't, for whatever reasons, and three weeks later someone comes up with a fourth, I see no reason why their second should be invalid.
(BTW, if something is proposed and fails to get enough seconds, does it move to the list of Forbidden Topics, or can they bring it up again the next day?)
Language about "extraordinary circumstances"
How would we decide what constitutes extraordinary circumstances? Cause, I have a pretty high tolerance for things that are out of the ordinary that don't qualify as extraordinary.