OK - this can't help but be unpleasant, but which law? If it's the Phoenix FAQ, or other board law, from what I saw (and I lurked a LONG time before I posted) then that was the bullshit consensus law. Which is WHAT THIS VOTE IS TRYING TO CHANGE.

Actually Ken, you bring up an interesting point. To wit:

Result: 84% of those voters with a preference have decided that

Pre-vote decisions are NOT open for discussion and change until September 20, 2003.

ETA - That said, I do think it's worthwhile hammering out some of the points of agreement and finding out where we really are. But this has gone beyond unpleasant - there has got to be a better way.

Sadly, I don't agree, and I find it both upsetting and mystifying.

It's very upsetting to me, too, brenda.

Well, let's be diligent about drift and, per the will-o-the people, adhere to the rule as it now stands until September 20.

What do you object to in the rule as it is now worded?

There's a difference between the wording of the spoiler policy and the history of its enforcement. The current situation is sort of like a crackown on pot-smoking laws. The laws have always been on the books, but there's been more latitude in the past. There's been an insistence on the letter of the law and it's stifled things. That's just my opinion. But even in legal decisions, past precedent counts. And it's not superfluous to note that historically we've discussed cast changes during the summer.

My only standard really on this is that I think the current situation stifles discussion. What the hell are people supposed to talk about on the Angel thread during the summer anyway if they can't discuss possible storylines for the next year? The post-mortem has already happened, and the show is clearly going in a new direction. I want to talk about that direction in the show thread.

OK, I was about to do a huge spout on the word "drift", except, of course, it's nowhere in Hec's post.

IOW - WHAT HEC SAID!

Brenda's point is sound -- this is grandfathered bullshit, isn't it?

I'd say that's the prime thing up for debate.

So let's watch the drift and follow the letter of the law.

You know, not EVERY concesus decision was "bullshit".

The concensus left the possibility for bullshit and hence the now voting -- but we happily managed by concensus for quite some time.

Trudy, you're using the word "bullshit" more judgmentally than I am.

Like I said upthread "bullshit consensus" equates to me as "decision making before voting came about".

That's all. Someone used the term, it made me smile, and I really had thought the first level meaning had been beaten out of it.

Since it still seems to be bothering you, I'll drop it.

It just had a pithy feel ....

You know, not EVERY concesus decision was "bullshit".

True dat.

I don't see a solution that's going to make everybody happy and that's the way it is in grownupland sometimes. I'd rather have the change and I'll vote that way. If the vote goes the other way I'll just do what I've been doing. It's an imposition on one portion of the population whichever way it goes. My feeling is that the status quo inconveniences a larger population, and hence the move to change it.