Snerk.

I propose "Firefly 3: Big Damn Zombies, Sir." Though maybe it's not an inclusive enough joke. And the thought that "zombies" might refer to the prematurely deceased show makes me sad. (Firefly! Come back! I'll feed you only the most exquisite of gourmet BRRRRAAAINNSS!)

I think we all need a nap. PROPOSAL: That all Buffistas wherever they may lie be allowed to nap on demand.

Seriously, is the bureau-malaise such that I should hold off on posting my Lawspeak Summary? I'm about done with it, and almost ready to send it to Jon for final HTMLification, but we've got Betsy's proposal to get voted on and Allyson's proposal to move into the Light Bulb seat and the finale and lots of nerves and brain-explodey.

Shall I hold off? I mean, I don't particularly foresee debate on it when it's done, but if people's eyes are already melting out of their sockets, I'm fine to wait, too.

This is where I am, too. I mean, it's an online forum -- we aren't exactly curing cancer.

Unless, of course, cancer turns out to be curable with copious amounts of snerk.

I think we all need a nap. PROPOSAL: That all Buffistas wherever they may lie be allowed to nap on demand.

I second this. Naptime!

I third the nap thing.

-----------------------

It's not the voting, it's how we've decided to define and regulate the process to where we're anticipating violations of our "constitution" - you know, the thing we never wanted to have, because we didn't want to be the kind of place where more specific rules of behavior were necessary?

The process was meant to be a way so that we didn't end up having to count through 300 posts to find that originally 18 people wanted a war thread, and 10 did not, but then 7 people changed their mind.

We got ridiculous.

We wanted a minimum of 42 people to show before we could even decide we'd decided for or against something. If we had 3 choices before us in a choose one situation, we decided that whichever wanted the most votes, wasn't good enough, and that one option needed a true majority. We decided we had to talk about/weigh in on (vote) things for a week, when formerly, we let a conversation take it's natural course.

It's not the voting. The voting is a poll. Simple. Direct. We just didn't use Mr. Poll, because people cheated on the "monkey" thread title and decided to use an email form.

FWIW, it seems to me (and this is only an impression that may be mistaken, but if it's not, I'm drowning in irony) that some folks who are most unhappy with the process are folks who came across (to me) as most in favor of highly regulating it - with mvt's, majorities, etc. Also, fwiw, despite being labeled one of the gang-of-14 or possibly 8 elephants in a living room (I hope we're pink elephants) I was against every one of those things that further complicated what was supposed to be a simple procedure.

The last substantial complaint I read here seemed to be that we had no procedure in place for handling trolls, when in fact, we voted it in a while back, just, sadly, as were were in the middle of handling our last troll.

I think there's a lot of skimming going on. And I don't blame anyone for that - it's a mental health tool. But I think there are a lot of mistaken impressions about who did what - and where.

I propose that at anytime someone may say, "Thread talk!" And then for the next two hours no one may post anything but funny ideas for future thread titles. Hard to get upset and argue when you are cracking up over someone posting Angel 4: Two Souls, No Waiting or Firefly 3: Taking Up A Collection To Send Jasmine To FOX.

If those are the types of things that might crack you up, that is..

And remember, a motion to adjourn is always in order.

And remember, a motion to adjourn is always in order.

Good luck with that one. (remembering desperate pleas of 'can we stop talking about gerunds!')

Nutty - You can send me your document and I can work on it and we don't need to even mention it here until a beta version is all done.

I propose "Firefly 3: Big Damn Zombies, Sir."

Hee!

Yes!