I don't think it's up to Jim to table the discussion. If the rule existed before the grandfathering date it's tabled until September 20th.

Also, this is what I meant about the Supremes taking over (unless I deleted that remark as too inflammatory, but I no longer consider it so), and I don't think it is REMOTELY in the spirit of the rule, even if it somehow, by calander time, is in the letter.

Can we come to some agreement on the current BCS without dragging in all the other actual or potential casting spoilers? Without changing our established policy to respond to (what I think is) a one-time situation that will resolve itself anyway in a month's time? I don't want discussion to be stifled, I don't want people to feel pushed aside. I also don't want to lose the sense of courtesy that has guided our actions in the past.

Brenda, I've been trying. I really have been trying to see if we can come to some kind of an agreement on the BCS.

Saying that allowing free dissemination of casting news

This isn't how I read the text of the proposal. It puts very clear limits on what kinds of casting news could be considered open for discussion. As with Elena, here is the point at which you and I are clearly reading the proposal very differently.

Ken, the spirit of the rule is that we don't pick apart old policy until September 20th. 84% of voters agreed to that.

Also, this is what I meant about the Supremes taking over (unless I deleted that remark as too inflammatory, but I no longer do), and I don't think it is REMOTELY in the spirit of the rule, even if it somehow, by calander time, is in the letter.

Ken, we do not have a Supreme Court, if by that you mean a small group of people that ultimately overrule the will of the people. The will of the people - 84% of the people - was that policy decisions made before voting came in were not eligible for changing through further votes until September 20th.

Brenda, I've been trying. I really have been trying to see if we can come to some kind of an agreement on the BCS.

Elena, the problem is it goes beyond the BCS and to a big sore spot for a number of posters.

I keep hearing the above statement, but... - I don't remember seeing anything resembling an organized discussion about this and granted I was only a lurker.

But what then? Did Moses come down from the mountain with the spoiler policy text? I really, really wish we could get into WX right now because I'd like to be able to try to dig up some of this. I suspect that the Torez spoiler might have brought up some of these issues. I can't do that though. But somehow, somewhere, a spoiler policy was written and adopted, and it has been accepted practice.

But I've been lurking since Buffy 2 on TT and I lurked on as many threads as I could keep up on. That pretty much means everything but Natter and Bitches (this was before I had a decent home computer).

So I'm assuming, then, that you were around when the grandfathering idea was discussed last fall and this spring. Why is that invalid? People felt strongly then that it was needed to avoid looking back at established policy and saying "we never properly decided this." It passed overwhelmingly. So I don't see where bringing it up should be seen as a hostile act, or should generate such hostility.

Elena, the problem is it goes beyond the BCS and to a big sore spot for a number of posters.

Cool. One of them can move to change the existing policy after September 20th.

Elena, the problem is it goes beyond the BCS and to a big sore spot for a number of posters.

Okay. And, if I understand the issue, which I may not, the sore spot is that they feel our current spoiler policy stifles discussion. Does that seem accurate? Wouldn't freeing up the BCS stop much of that, err, stiflisation?

Seriously, how do we close the thread? Is it a motion and a second and a third like opening it?

I move we close the lightbulb thread. This topic, due to the preference of 84% of the voters, is invalid for discussion until September 20th.