You will need to decide how to determine the "winner" of item 3: A simple plurality? A runoff if no option gets more than x% of the vote? Pr****ial V****g? etc.
Jayne: There's times I think you don't take me seriously. I think that ought to change. Mal: Do you think it's likely to?
'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!
Jon B. - Aug 28, 2005 11:59:37 am PDT #5947 of 10289
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!
Topic!Cindy - Aug 28, 2005 12:08:35 pm PDT #5948 of 10289
What is even happening?
d. Whitefont all the time with a one-line no whitefont for show discussed.Does this just mean the show title will appear in black font above the white fonted part of the post?
le nubian - Aug 28, 2005 12:10:09 pm PDT #5949 of 10289
"And to be clear, I am the hell. And the high water."
yes, Cindy.
Jon, I was thinking runoff if no option gets more than x%. Don't know what x equals.
§ ita § - Aug 28, 2005 1:14:48 pm PDT #5950 of 10289
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Me, I can't separate the thread's existence from the spoiler handling. Putting my anti-prolif stance aside, that is. My yes vote that turned out to be for a no whitefont thread is a wasted yes vote.
Nutty - Aug 28, 2005 6:14:07 pm PDT #5951 of 10289
"Mister Spock is on his fanny, sir. Reports heavy damage."
I am against whitefont in a "New Shows" thread, but I think I'm for it in a TV Natter thread. Does that make sense? "New Shows" is a time-sensitive idea, and I really think the thread should only be open for like 2 months before all TV talk migrates back to its usual home (Natter) or gets its own thread (e.g. VM).
A general TV Natter thread has no time constraints, so whitefont makes more sense. Despite my formally stated dislike of 90% whitefont discussions.
sumi - Aug 28, 2005 7:03:12 pm PDT #5952 of 10289
Art Crawl!!!
So, really when you're saying stuff like KC is really excellent or really sucks -- that doesn't have to be whitefonted but when it's all "can you believe that NB and DC did whatever" - that should be whitefonted.
le nubian - Aug 28, 2005 7:13:22 pm PDT #5953 of 10289
"And to be clear, I am the hell. And the high water."
I think should a new thread be created, we may have to have a different discussion round and different ballot for white font.
Nutty - Aug 29, 2005 6:41:43 am PDT #5954 of 10289
"Mister Spock is on his fanny, sir. Reports heavy damage."
So, really when you're saying stuff like KC is really excellent or really sucks -- that doesn't have to be whitefonted but when it's all "can you believe that NB and DC did whatever" - that should be whitefonted.
What I am saying? No. I really think that the purpose of the thread -- short-term expose-me-to-everything vs. long-term more-careful -- determines in my mind the need for whitefont.
Like how in Spoilers, there is no whitefont, ever, whether it is casting spoilers or an in-depth discussion of 24 (this spring). In Spoilage Lite, whitefont.
I kind of like the idea of an all-NAFDA-alla-time, no-holds-barred short-term thread, or anyway moreso than a TV Natter.
Kat - Aug 29, 2005 10:53:52 am PDT #5955 of 10289
"I keep to a strict diet of ill-advised enthusiasm and heartfelt regret." Leigh Bardugo
Not surprisingly, I'm with ita on spoiler policy being they key to my understanding of the topics.
I don't think it's a good idea for us to establish a topic, for which we don't have things like whitefont worked out in advance and I pretty much would strongly object to voting it in then establishing a policy after the fact.
le nubian - Aug 29, 2005 11:39:12 am PDT #5956 of 10289
"And to be clear, I am the hell. And the high water."
Do you have suggestions about how to resolve this?