But she was naked! And all... articulate!

Mal ,'Our Mrs. Reynolds'


Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!  

We open it up, we talks the talk, we votes, we shuts it down. This thread is to free up Bureaucracy for daily details as we hammer out the Big Issues towards a vote. Open only when a proposal has been made and seconded according to Buffista policy (Which we voted on!). If this thread is closed, hie thee to Bureaucracy instead!


Gus - Oct 27, 2004 1:55:36 pm PDT #4860 of 10289
Bag the crypto. Say what is on your mind.

I would have liked a thread where any spoiler for any show and detailed discussion thereof was allowed, all whitefonted.

What were the objections to this?


§ ita § - Oct 27, 2004 1:56:13 pm PDT #4861 of 10289
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

What were the objections to this?

It's not Lite.

eta:

Deena's description:

guest stars, episode titles, authors, and preview speculation in regular font, with exiting cast, tv guide and other entertainment articles and their discussion white-fonted

That rules out wildfeeds, set visits, discussions with actors, AICN -- a whole mess of stuff.


Wolfram - Oct 27, 2004 2:03:59 pm PDT #4862 of 10289
Visilurking

That's exactly how it is.

The last proposal I saw was:

I propose the addition of a Spoiler Lite thread and I propose the current Spoiler thread be designated as content for "hard core" spoilers and spoiler discussion.

That's one paragraph. If there's another proposal, I missed it.

I would have liked a thread where any spoiler for any show and detailed discussion thereof was allowed, all whitefonted.

So propose it.


Lyra Jane - Oct 27, 2004 2:04:08 pm PDT #4863 of 10289
Up with the sun

All whitefonted, clearly labeled by show/topic spoilers ...

If that is the summary, then it seems #2 hits the bulk of needs. A spoiler-choosy person and can pick and choose, and 'ho can just hit control-a and rock on.

Gus, that's what we have now, and the spoilered mostly dislike it and would like it to be non-whitefonted. (I don't like whitefont myself. I think it's a pain to read, and a bigger pain to type in. It's okay for one or two sentences, but I don't think it works for entire conversations.)


§ ita § - Oct 27, 2004 2:06:54 pm PDT #4864 of 10289
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

So propose it.

Would have, Wolfram. As I've said, I'm not on that boat anymore -- why bother?

That's one paragraph. If there's another proposal, I missed it.

One paragraph, two proposals. I didn't think your t p was a literal thing.


Topic!Cindy - Oct 27, 2004 2:07:10 pm PDT #4865 of 10289
What is even happening?

It's not Lite.

But so...what? Really. I am not meaning to sound like a smart-ass. White font and labels make it all lite in presentation. The user's choice on what to read increases the fat, or keeps it lean.

le nubian, what do you think about this:

Thread 1) No white font, hardcore spoilage. Open discussion, like we used to have in the Buffy & Angel Spoiler thread.

Thread 2) All white font, all white font labeled as to both show, and type of content.

examples:

Buffy, casting spoiler * Faith returns

Angel, plot spoiler Darla is pregnant

Firefly, writer spoiler Minear writes episode 10

Buffy, episode 7 title Once More, With Feeling

TV Guide for Angel finale It's a freaking dragon


Lyra Jane - Oct 27, 2004 2:09:36 pm PDT #4866 of 10289
Up with the sun

Cindy, that suggestion could work, but would anyone bother to post twice?


§ ita § - Oct 27, 2004 2:09:42 pm PDT #4867 of 10289
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

The user's choice on what to read increases the fat, or keeps it lean.

This isn't a discussion to have with me, you realise. There seems to be a clear community-generated definition of "lite" currently used, which doesn't match what you or I might think.

I have suggested alternatives to it, but I'm not calling them lite, because that's just confusing things.

eta:

would anyone bother to post twice?

I doubt it -- you'd get two separate communities. Which -- happens.


Gus - Oct 27, 2004 2:13:51 pm PDT #4868 of 10289
Bag the crypto. Say what is on your mind.

Oh. Um, OK. What are the rules of order on requesting a redraft of the motion? I think the motion should explicitly state the whitefont policies called for, with a definition of spoiler "depth".

I am reading it now as the current general spoilers thread will go no whitefont, any depth, and the new thread would be whitefonted, based on the depth of the spoiler.

This leaves the people wanting deep spoilers for only certain shows out in the cold. What about a convention that deep spoilers in the general thread be enclosed in specific font color, so that the leery can train their eyes to slide past, and the 'ho's can just read?


§ ita § - Oct 27, 2004 2:15:58 pm PDT #4869 of 10289
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

What about a convention that deep spoilers in the general thread be enclosed in specific font color, so that the leery can train their eyes to slide past, and the 'ho's can just read?

As much as I dream of an ita-centric land, a) if the text is there, my eyes eat it b) I'd be startled if the people who don't want to use the "s" quickedit are going to memorise a colour table and use font tags and c) I'd never even remember a colour table anyway.

There aren't any rules on redrafting -- LeN is free to ignore as much of this as she wants and propose anything she wants at the end of the four days.