It could be worse. I could be counting California recall ballots...

DX, the to line will be "votes@buffistas.org", anyway.

On Angel and the Previouslies:

I'd strongly prefer not to have the syndicated Angel eps discussion in the main Angel thread. I don't think it'll do either conversation justice, and it will lock out the UnAms. One of the most enjoyable things about the original Prev thread when Buffy was first syndicated was getting to hash out the eps with people we never got to talk with in NAFDA. So I'd prefer to keep the Previously thread if at all possible.

That said, I liked the earlier suggestion of moving the Angel Previously discussion into the Buffy thread if it were slightly revamped. That's something I'd like to hear more opinions on.

I see Kat's proposal is simple housekeeping. Trying to get rid of threads that are redundant or else low traffic AND without a vested subcommunity.I see Kat's proposal is simple housekeeping. Trying to get rid of threads that are redundant or else low traffic AND without a vested subcommunity.

This is more or less where I stand. But I'm not at all certain that we're all on the same page as to what constitutes a subcommunity, and whether or if it should get any consideration. To me, the various subcommunities are an important part of this board, even the one's I'm not a part of. They're not the only important thing, or the most, but they do have value.

I'm not saying that anything should be untouchable. I am asking that we try to get a little clearer on what we need to do and how urgently before we move on some of these. I only have a vested interest in one, really, and I know some of you are saying "shut up on this already, Brenda," but I think it's important.

There are lots of changes on this ballot that, if passed, can be put into effect with very little effect on anybody. So it's not a matter of "doing nothing" if thread that have advocates are spared the chopping block, even if only on a contingency basis. I'd be more comfortable if on the DS/SM/Farscape issue, we built some time into it - as in, give it a month or so, and see what happens. If, as we near the Oct. 1 D-day, it still seems like there are big problems to resolve, then go ahead with consolidation if it passed. Maybe Kristen and ita could be appointed the judge and jury on that determination, so we get away from both the advocacy and the extended discussion, but the change gets made only when it's clearer that it's needed. Hell, I'd even vote in favor in that scenario.

Is it accurate that as proposer I have the right to adapt it without committee changes?

And it's a good thing, Kat, because when the discussion goes to left field, I kind of trust you not to follow it, and I don't have to rush to each thread's defense.

And respectfully, it's all well and good to tell people not to panic, but when our (does she have an official title? webhost liason? official server goddess) panics, it's the kind of thing that tends to be contagious.

It's bad to panic, Dana. Thespis can smell fear. By the way, good point about the Fic thread. If it doesn't have fic, and is work friendly, it shouldn't be consolidated with the fic workshop threads. I will volunteer to gather pro/con points like that for each ballot point, once we have the final version. Wouldn't that be helpful?

I'd strongly prefer not to have the syndicated Angel eps discussion in the main Angel thread. I don't think it'll do either conversation justice, and it will lock out the UnAms. One of the most enjoyable things about the original Prev thread when Buffy was first syndicated was getting to hash out the eps with people we never got to talk with in NAFDA. So I'd prefer to keep the Previously thread if at all possible.

I keep seeing talk about this locking out the UnAms. What is stopping any of us from discussing anything not spoilery-to-UnAms in the UnAm thread?

That said, I liked the earlier suggestion of moving the Angel Previously discussion into the Buffy thread if it were slightly revamped. That's something I'd like to hear more opinions on.

I think we're getting over legislate-y again. If we remove "Previously" entirely, the "where" we discuss syndicated Angel is up to us, and needn't be legislated, because we never get stompy about off-topic-topic in the show threads, as long as the off-topic-topic doesn't violate spoiler rules.

This kind of issue - "where to talk about safe Angel episodes" is something that doesn't need voting. Consensus was made for that kind of issue. There was plenty of talking about old Buffy episodes in the Buffy NAFDA thread, even when we had new Buffy episodes to discuss. We didn't legislate that.

By the way, good point about the Fic thread. If it doesn't have fic, and is work friendly, it shouldn't be consolidated with the fic workshop threads.

Nou - just to be extra-pointy, it's not going to be. Kat left the workshopping thread out of the consolidation.

Kat, Jon, Wolfram - aren't we getting way overboard with the NP in this case? Doesn't leaving an item blank on a ballot you cast, count as a 'no preference'? Do we need a 'no preference' option?

Wasn't 'no preference' for the case of a one-item ballot, where you wanted to make sure the issue got decided one way or another, but didn't want to enter an opinion? Seems like we're going to make things difficult for the counter. If DX gets a ballot with "yes" votes on each evenly numbered item, and no votes at all on each odd numbered item, don't the no votes count as no preference? I think we're making this harder than it has to be.

Am following this with interest, but the only thing I have to add is thanks to Monique and Kristen for their patience and their constructive suggestions.

We'll sort this out. With some grumpiness, undoubtedly, and some feeling of disatisfaction at having to tighten belts, but I think it's all do-able.

Kat, Jon, Wolfram - aren't we getting way overboard with the NP in this case? Doesn't leaving an item blank on a ballot you cast, count as a 'no preference'?

No, leaving an item blank does not count as a "no preference." Leaving it blank doesn't count towards the MVT; a vote of NP does count towards the MVT.

Wasn't 'no preference' for the case of a one-item ballot, where you wanted to make sure the issue got decided one way or another, but didn't want to enter an opinion?

Actually, the value of "no preference" increases in a multi-item ballot, since each item's votes are tallied separately to determine whether the MVT has been reached for that item.

I keep seeing talk about this locking out the UnAms. What is stopping any of us from discussing anything not spoilery-to-UnAms in the UnAm thread?

Here's the scenario: An old episode of Angel airs on TNT. An American wants to talk about it. S/he goes into the Angel thread to post comments. Unamericans don't get to join in. Unless all the old-Angel-ep talk initiates in UnAm, it will lock them out. And I doubt that Americans will think to do that.

I'm going to go out on a limb and argue that keeping the Previously thread could actually remove redundant posts. If we remove Previously, discussion of old Angels will happen in two places -- Angel and Unamericans. Keep it, and the discussion will be focused to that one thread.

Cindy-- Jon is right about how no preference works. This is why I voted against no preference....

Seriously-- I think we should explain the difference between no pref and no vote at the top of the ballot. It is very confusing.

Okay. I suspect I had major disagreements with minimum vote totals as a whole, so I'm probably transferring that disagreement to these posts. Carry on Jon, and thanks.

(We got way too detailed when we did this stuff.)

eta...

But not about the Previously stuff. That can be decided by habit and word of mouth. We can mention in NAFDA Angel, "Hey, there's a great discussion of AYNoHYEB in UnAm right now, AIFG!"

It's just silly to have so many threads where you can discuss old Angel, and hang onto one of them when you're trying to clean house.

Sorry to cereal in these times, but I didn't want Jon to not see this if I added it to the old one, in edit.

Why I think Previously can be cut with minimum pain...

On May 22, 2003, the first post of the day was post number 3498 (by Sophia - hi Sophia!). Fastforward a quarter of a year to yesterday (when the last post was made, by Matt - and hi Matt), and you'll see it is number 3752.

(Okay, now it's Theodosia and number 3753, but the stats aren't really affected.)

A grand total of 254 posts have been made in 3 months (92? days). That rate isn't 3 posts per day. FX airs BtVS in syndication how many times a day? Plus, FOX airs it on weekends? And we don't think this thread is superfluous?

Even if you figure, "It's summer and the board is slower," we have to remember this is the first and only Previously thread since we opened this board last September. There have been 3752 posts in 11 months. What's that come out to - 10 or 11 posts a day?

I'm not saying Previously serves no purpose. I am saying the purpose it serves is small, and specialized in theory, and not used to anything approaching full potential in practice. That's exactly the kind of thread you get rid of when you're housecleaning, especially when (more than one - in fact 6) other threads exist, where the purpose is also allowed to be served. All it takes is a change of habit to do so, and to tell you the truth, it doesn't look like many of us have been slaves to the Previously habit for quite some time.