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.

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.

You're right, that was too broad a statement.

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

This is clearly true. But I think that separating the issues might be helpful.

I don't think three days in Lightbulb is enough to come to a satisfactory resolution on the larger issues. I think we need to discuss that over a longer time, without a vote hanging over our heads so that everyone feels compelled to get their point out now now now. I know that I for one could use some time to reflect on this - I think we all could. Because with some careful thought and discussion, I still believe we can find a middle ground that's more satisfying to all.

If we could get the Elephant out of the room and give us all a little breathing space, we might be able to resolve this without killing each other.

brenda (and ita and Trudy) are bringing up an important point. It seems that this vote may be invalid under Betsy's grandfather clause.

It's a point of policy that needs to be addressed. I don't know if that should happen here or in Sartre.

I got lost. We cannot close or open any new threads until the 20th of September? I thought we voted in the Minear thread to start next week sometime. Is that invalid?

I could be completely misunderstanding and on crack.

Crack.

We can't change grandfathered policy until September 20th.

Ah! So anything that was here when we opened is coolio, but closing threads that existed prior to voting...huh. Maybe I need a link to refresh my memory.

Opening and closing threads are exempt, IIRC. It's the stuff like spoiler policy and such that's grandfathered.