I think the attempts to squelch this discussion via the grandfather proposal are on a par with gerrymandering.
I find that really offensive. Please explain to me why citing the grandfather policy that we just ratified a couple of months ago is so out of line. Because I really don't get it. In what circumstances would it be appropriate? Any?
Addressing Brenda's point here. I disliked it because it looked like a parliamentary end-run on necessary discussion.
When we started making and enacting rules here we very consciously avoided to-the-letter prescriptions because we wanted common sense to have sway over thread-Lawyering.
But there are big implications to the definition of what's a spoiler, so inevitably we've gotten into a parse out every comma discussion.
I think the batch of summary posts in the last one hundred or so usefully articulate the different stances.
Personally I like the amended language (with the "only"). I do think that what we're discussing here is not hardcore spoilerdom vs. the pure of narrative, but rather the big chunk in the middle. It is my sense that most Buffistas do not want plot-spoilers discussed in NAFDA but are comfortable with between season cast changes because otherwise there is very little to talk about over the summer. The good thing is that we can take a vote and we don't have to depend on what my sense is about "most Buffistas."
I don't want the repurposed Spoiler Lite because I still won't go in there. It's too slippery, and I don't think that environment will support robust discussion.
I'd rather the voting got started already.
Also, I will note that Jim is going to be pissed. (In the American sense.)
I'd rather the voting got started already.
Yes.
Also, I will note that Jim is going to be pissed.
Has anyone sent him a message. Did we scare him off? Perhaps he is having tech trouble? I wish I knew.
eta: perhaps he is not around on the weekend.
perhaps he is not around on the weekend.
I think this is the case. Kristen has thoughtfully linked in some of the salient amending posts. Perhaps she could edit that to bring it up to date, otherwise he will say "Fuck it!"
The part of my post you interpreted as a personal attack was on another topic entirely.
I didn't take it as a personal attack. Just thought I was clarifying something about what I had said.
It was not directed at any one person, nor was it a response to any specific post. Okay?
Sure. Okay.
I find it upsetting that not one person in favor of the change is willing to entertain the possiblity that it might.
Untrue, I'm in favor of change, and before I shut down to get ready for dinner, I said that there were two issues on the table, 1) change, and 2) whether we could even vote on change without discussing whether or not we could have the vote re: grandpappy, and that we had to talk about grandpappy, first.
Allyson--Did you get my email? And did you see what Joss wrote in Firefly?
You're right, Allyson, I'm sorry I missed that.
Can I ask why Jim would be pissed? I mean, beyond the fact that at times in this discussion we've all gotten a little upset, probably (on all sides) more than was warranted?
Also, as to voting, what's our timeline on this again? It seems like a lot of folks haven't been around this weekend, so I hope we'll at least give it through Monday.
No Scrappy, when did you send it? Is it the script? BOUNCE!
I sent it to your profile addy--whihc I think is a Fury address?
