because as Cindy pointed out last time the FAQ has changed since the Grandfather clause was passed

The FAQ may have changed, but the spoiler policy is longstanding. It is grandfatherable. Someone show me when it wasn't the policy.

As far as anti-spoilers I relinquished them yesterday, took them off the table. So far, all the other Virgins have agreed with me. I wish people would stop bringing them up.

And, as far as the howls of "the supreme court" "gerrymandering" and the like-- they're nasty and need to stop. We aren't a bunch of teetotaling prigs trying to ruin your fun. We are long standing community members who would like to continue to enjoy the show as we have.

In practice, this season, people are including summertime casting announcements under the including casting news condition in the FAQ. Historically, they have not.

Ok, this is clear. Can we try to figure out why this is so? From my perspective, the HSQ level of the BCS seems to take it to a different level than say, the AH-is-only-part-time news. Obviously some don't agree. OTOH, there is also the inevitability question. The others that I'm aware of don't seem as major, but do seem less likely to become known through saturation. Do any of these factors matter? I think they do, but it seems that many of us do not. Can we find some middle ground here?

For all the talk about spoilerphobes having to be babied and mollycoddled, it's the fact that no one had raised an issue with the prior instances that got us to this place.

Why is it offensive? Also? I did explain. I don't know how to say more about it than I already did. I posted 3 huge posts, one of which focused specifically on grandfathering, and was X-posted in bureaucracy.

Cindy, I saw your posts, but I still disagree. And that's where I take offense. I think a reasonable person can look at the grandfathering policy and believe that it would apply. I think the opposite is also true. And I think that as reasonable people, we can discuss whether or not it should in fact apply.

What I'm upset about is the implication that it's so clear that grandfathering would not apply that any mention of it must be an attempt to undemocratically subvert the process. Neither of those things are true.

The FAQ may have changed, but the spoiler policy is longstanding. It is grandfatherable. Someone show me when it wasn't the policy.

See my post above. I can't find any proof it did. Unless someone else finds it, I was wrong.

As far as anti-spoilers I relinquished them yesterday, took them off the table. So far, all the other Virgins have agreed with me. I wish people would stop bringing them up.

See my earlier post on this to you. I believe you will relinquish this. I do not believe that because you will, others will. In fact, we've been repeatedly reminded we can't guess how spoiled other people are, or what their opinions of spoilers are.

I am sorry to Trudy, brenda, Gar and whomever else my use of gerrymandering offended. I was offended to see this in Bureaucracy:

Trudy Booth "Bureaucracy 2: Like Sartre, Only Longer" Jul 25, 2003 11:12:04 pm PDT

I need a stompie. Do I need a second and a third?

I move we close the lightbulb thread. The current topic, which proposes to change grandfathered policy, is (due to the preference of 84% of the voters) invalid for discussion until September 20th (or until such time as it's determined that this issue is not protected under the grandfather clause).

I was offended that you would make a middle of the night run to shut down a discussion. I might have been more open to the suggestion that this was done in the spirit of the grandfather clause, if it didn't come in the middle of the night after a whole day of discussion, and if it didn't come with a demand for stompy action.

Still, offending you (and anyone else) right back is no way to solve that, and I am sorry for the offense I've caused.

(edited to add a comma)

and to add...

brenda - that was a crosspost. I felt the way in which the grandfathering clause was brought to bureaucracy was dirty dealing in the middle of the night, like that.

It has been something of a shock to find that a thread full of people I am fond of has developed a culture where they sit around and rag on a group (including myself and many other long standing sorts) of Buffistas.

That means they have to find us a pre-March citation, where it was proposed that all official casting announcement that come from anywhere but TV promos are out of bounds as NAFDA acceptable sources for casting news.

I asked before, but I think it got lost in the flurry of posts. Do we have accessible archives other than at WX? Because I have vague memories of spoiler policy discussion, but I frankly don't know what all they contained. Either way, I'd like to be able to know for sure.

But in the meantime, I at least cannot get into our stuff at WX, and I think we need to if we're to get an answer to this question.

I was offended that you would make a middle of the night run to shut down a discussion.

We didn't slip in in the middle of the night to shut down a discussion. We had been discussing it for some time and it seemed to have reached a conclusion-- we'd hit the grandfather clause, it was time to close the thread.

brenda - that was a crosspost. I felt the way in which the grandfathering clause was brought to bureaucracy was dirty dealing in the middle of the night, like that.

Ah. I can see where it might have seemed that way. But honestly, the timing just reflected the fact that it was during late Friday night discussions that it came up.

It has been something of a shock to find that a thread full of people I am fond of has developed a culture where they sit around and rag on a group (including myself and many other long standing sorts) of Buffistas.

I remember saying (I think to brenda, in fact) that I love you and wouldn't want to spoil you, but that I disagreed with [the thing we're not going to bring up anymore].

I remember brenda telling me I have to take you at your word that you weren't spoiled for BCS, and me telling her you'd said earlier in the day that you'd been spoiled 3 times.

I don't remember people ragging on you. I do remember people being very venty about the spoiler squeeze, and I'm sure, if the times that people vented, you were one of the people squeezing, it must feel like a personal attack. If there were personal attacks made by me, I am sorry and ashamed. I don't think there were, but there might have been. If there were personal attacks made by others, and I was there and didn't speak up, I am sorry and ashamed for that too.

brenda and Plei's discussion about the underlying hostilities bothered me. I'm not saying they're not right. I am saying, I don't have that kind of clique identification here at b.org, personally. And any disagreement I have with you, or Elena, brenda or Jen over the spoiler policy, is based on the policy issues and how we work them in practice and in theory. Personally, you're all Buffistas I really like and admire. I couldn't say that about every random group of people, but in this case, it happens to be true, whether I agree with you on spoilers, or not.

In case I was unclear (and it seems I was) I mean the Spoilers thread.

We didn't slip in in the middle of the night to shut down a discussion. We had been discussing it for some time and it seemed to have reached a conclusion-- we'd hit the grandfather clause, it was time to close the thread.

You didn't slip in in the middle of the night, right. But you did demand a stompy in the middle of the night, instead of suggesting that you wait to continue, until people were around and could try to agree whether or not this was a grandfather issue.