Don't thank Ken Buddha for that (which is, after all a REALLY LAME SINCE NO ONE GOT THE JOKE psuedonym), thakn Ken Russell.
Bureaucracy 2: Like Sartre, Only Longer
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
I need a stompie. Do I need a second and a third?
I move we close the lightbulb thread. The current topic, which proposes to change grandfathered policy, is (due to the preference of 84% of the voters) invalid for discussion until September 20th (or until such time as it's determined that this issue is not protected under the grandfather clause).
I have to second.
Because it's a policy point that needs addressing. I am in no way trying to stifle discussion on this issue, but I think that it's essential that we decide what fits under the grandfather clause.
I think that you really need to cite the discussion that grandfathers this issue.
Here, Kristen,
Laura "Sunnydale Press" May 22, 2003 11:59:07 pm PDT
It was a vote. Some people think that the spoiler policy is grandfathered. We're trying to see if that's the case.
The Spoiler Policy is in the FAQ.
No, I get the grandfathering. I'm just unclear on when this shift in spoiler policy was discussed before being implemented.
No, I get the grandfathering. I'm just unclear on when this shift in spoiler policy was discussed before being implemented.
That seems to be the sticking point.
Unless proven otherwise, it seems reasonable to assume that the spoiler policy as stated in the FAQ predates the board and should be grandfathered.
We're trying to determine when the shift occured. Well, I'm not so much trying as saying 'hmm, don't remember' at intervals. But I'm trying to remember, so I think I get partial points.