as I understand it, the person who put forth the proposition can amend it prior to posting the ballot based on what is said in here:

When the fourth full day of discussion is completed, the original proposer writes the text of the ballot. (Sophia Brooks) consensus) It is up to the proposer to write text which is not confusing, and which presents tenable choices to the voters. The proposer may want to read Light Bulb carefully, and accept suggestions from debaters, but the proposer makes the final decision of what will go on the ballot and how it will be phrased. The proposer sends the text of the ballot to Jon B., who creates the web ballot, and posts the ballot text in Press with a link to the web ballot (Sophia Brooks).

But, I'm still kinda new to all this, so I might be misunderstanding it. (I'm really wishing I had done student government as a kid to better prepare me for all of this).

At an average of 1000 posts a year, isn't that a 10 year extension on the thread?

details.

If Aimee were to choose to offer a compromise, she wouldn't have to stick to 10,000. She could offer any number under that she wanted, if she wanted to offer it.

Again, I only threw it out as a suggestion, because it came to me this afternoon and I tend to dislike all-or-nothing choices when a compromise is feasible.

You know, I think justkim speaks some sense there. I know one of the reasons people aren't using Firefly at the moment is they don't want to use up the remaining posts - it does seem a bit strange to be having this debate so close to it's potential demise. If you picked a number like 1000, you'd get another year out of it.

And if people start doing rewatches and get into spirited discussions and use up the "extra" posts quickly in a conversation that could easily continue, would we then close the thread anyway? I don't like it.

What if a the thread were continued for one last stand, 10,000 posts guaranteed, and at the end of that thread, the topic would be closed permanantly.

Um, I'm pretty sure that *is* the proposal. In other words, the proposal is to simply close the thread once it reaches 10000, not create a new thread. As you can see from the discussion generated here, those who want to keep the thread open do not consider that a compromise.

Is this a good time to close the Firefly thread? Possibly. I can see the arguments for both sides. But my own preference would be to see Firefly 5 created and then a vote to close the thread. Merely reaching the 10,000 post limit is not enough for me to vote to close the thread.

I think this too is meant as a compromise, along the lines of "if we don't close the thread now we can always bring up the possibility of closing it later." Frankly, "bring up another vote to close it later" doesn't sound like any more of a compromise than "vote to close it now."

Original proposal:

I propose that we close the dedicated Firefly thread and continue our discussions in the Minearverse thread.

Which seems to be 2 in one. First, to close it now, not at the magic 10,000 count point. and Second, to adjust the Minearverse thread to be the place to talk Firefly stuff. Obviously that can be reworded when the ballot is written.

Seems attention in the beginning was a NIMBY effect of "we don't want them drunken Browncoats in our lounge", and more recently of "should we end the Firefly". As of yet, it seems neither has been decided, but I guess that is what the voting is for. It will be curious to see how the ballot is written.

:: pulls up chair, pops the can o beer and watches intently ::

Second, to adjust the Minearverse thread to be the place to talk Firefly stuff.

That's been revised. The current proposal is to let discussion happen where it will.

If a spirited discussion begins I would think it would have to be with the understanding that the thread would be closed after X consition is reached, be it a time limit or post number limit. Add it to the header if necessary. If the users choose to use that condition to discuss episodes, the exact proper length of a real browncoat, and/or a new on-line place to meet after the thread is closed, it's up to them. At least they would know their time is limited when they started.

It seems to me to be very similar to what happened when Table Talk went to paid subscription. A time limit was given; the Buffistas used some of that time to come up with contingency plans. The existence of this board is the result of that time limit to plan. I don't see why we can't extend a time limit to other users. I'm sure if there were a need/reason to close Sang Sacre, for example, the users would be given a chance to plan to regroup elsewhere, assuming they haven't already.

I'm sure someone will make an argument that the users should have made contingency plans before, and the argument has already been made that there are already places to go on the 'net to discuss FF. Regardless, contigency plans apparently weren't made, and people have discussed their discomfort at other FF sites. I don't see who it harms to allow a little more time. Six months or 5,000 posts; whatever. Aimee could pick something, and, if it passes, it sticks. What the users choose to do with that grace period is their business.

Um, I'm pretty sure that *is* the proposal.

My understanding is that the topic (as opposed to thread) will be closed in the very near future, either immediately upon approval of the vote or when the current thread reaches 10,000 (less than 100 posts to go now). I'm unclear as to which of those two options is really being proposed.

My compromise suggestion is to allow the topic to continue for one more thread, for a limited amount of time/posts.