I'm 17. Looking at linoleum makes me want to have sex.

Xander ,'First Date'


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!


§ 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.


Wolfram - Oct 27, 2004 2:16:50 pm PDT #4870 of 10289
Visilurking

One paragraph, two proposals. I didn't think your

was a literal thing.

So you get now why I was confused by the two proposals in one paragraph thing?

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

I meant to suggest that anyone who sees a need for a general spoiler whitefont-only thread should propose it. I just don't think the Lite concept should be repurposed to accomodate what, seems to be, an inconvenience solely to those who like to be heavily spoiled.


§ ita § - Oct 27, 2004 2:19:23 pm PDT #4871 of 10289
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

So you get now why I was confused by the two proposals in one paragraph thing?

No, not really, since she said "I propose" and "I propose." But that's neither here nor there.

I meant to suggest that anyone who sees a need for a general spoiler whitefont-only thread should propose it.

I don't think three threads are a good idea, and I also think two threads are a given. Remember me, anti-proliferation girl? I'm certainly not proposing a third. Hell, I want there to be just one, but with complex yet intuitive whitefonting announcement rules.

And a pony. There should be a pony.

But someone else needs to propose thread #3.


le nubian - Oct 27, 2004 2:19:46 pm PDT #4872 of 10289
"And to be clear, I am the hell. And the high water."

How's diving into vote proposal feel, LeN?

No comment.

Understand, my original proposal in B'cracy was made to smooth out discontent in the Spoiler thread. There were several (it seemed to me) who wanted a hardcore spoiler thread without white-fonting. I figured a Spoiler Lite thread would help deal with the issues.

Now, I'm actually pretty confused and have no idea if my proposal would help the situation at all. I'm stymied. I really don't know what to do. I couldn't even begin to put a ballot together because I'm not sure what options would suit the most people.


amych - Oct 27, 2004 2:20:45 pm PDT #4873 of 10289
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?

There should be a pony.

What, in the thread? Imagine the bureaucracy when someone forgot to whitefont the manure!


Gus - Oct 27, 2004 2:21:01 pm PDT #4874 of 10289
Bag the crypto. Say what is on your mind.

Well, for the record, I want deep spoilers about O.C., and don't about Lost. Lite, as defined, does nothing for me.


§ ita § - Oct 27, 2004 2:23:49 pm PDT #4875 of 10289
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

LeN, feel free to just suggest making whitefont completely un-required in Spoilers, and you'll be good.

Someone else can shoulder the burden of defining alternate spoiler threading, since it's not something you're even vested in.

Imagine the bureaucracy when someone forgot to whitefont the manure!

Hey, we gotta earn our keep.


brenda m - Oct 27, 2004 2:24:16 pm PDT #4876 of 10289
If you're going through hell/keep on going/don't slow down/keep your fear from showing/you might be gone/'fore the devil even knows you're there

Well, for the record, I want deep spoilers about O.C., and don't about Lost. Lite, as defined, does nothing for me.

Nor does the regular spoiler thread, unless it's all whitefonty.

I'm beginning to believe that there are some of us who just can't be accomodated without specific show spoiler threads. Someone convince me otherwise.

(Whoa, did that sound snarky? I meant to include myself in that, and to state it as a fact that has become sort of apparent to me, not a loaded statement at all. But I'm too crazed at work to figure out how to reword instead of explaining.)