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.

Yep. I was following procedure as I saw it. And there were several stompies around.

Brenda pointed out the grandfather clause, since that point anti-spoilers, larger policy, etc. were being hashed again. The conversation, imho, needed to end and if people wanted to start a new one they could re-open the thread.

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

See, I don't THINK it's a clique identification issue. For me it's that, when I joined, and when a lot of people joined, there was a lot more wiggle room in terms of what you said and how. Things were relaxed (see Hec's drug law analogy), and now they aren't, and I'm baffled as the next person as to how that happened. I suppose I should re-read that damn article. So what's been building for me and a few other people I know of, and what I was referring to, is the gradual shift to letter-of-the-law interpretations of a number of things. Spoilers being one of them. It makes me feel uncomfortable, and I keep waiting for the next rule to tighten.

OK, besides the "anti-spoilers" (which have now been relinquished) and the current elephant, what other aspects of spoilerhood do you feel have been tightened, Plei?

Things were relaxed (see Hec's drug law analogy), and now they aren't, and I'm baffled as the next person as to how that happened. I suppose I should re-read that damn article. So what's been building for me and a few other people I know of, and what I was referring to, is the gradual shift to letter-of-the-law interpretations of a number of things.

Plei, we're (mostly) on opposite sides of the current issue, but your statement about I'm in full agreement with. I think the whole move to codify procedures got us started down this road, and none of us realized where it would lead. General growth might account for some of it as well. And I think we need to sit back and figure out why this happening and how to ease the situation. But I don't think the current proposal really addresses this.

OK, besides the "anti-spoilers" (which have now been relinquished) and the current elephant, what other aspects of spoilerhood do you feel have been tightened, Plei?

See: 'spoilers being one of them.'

See also: Cindy's statement that just because you, Trudy Booth, have relinquished the 'anti-spoiler', doesn't mean everyone will.

See also: the idea that the letter of the law trumps previous interpretation of the law.

The generally feeling I'm getting from the board is that people are a hell of a lot more uptight than we were back in the day. We're being more careful about language, more pissy about enforcing artifical courtesy, and ceding honesty to comfort.