I've made a desperate plea for compromise that I think solves nearly everything with a minimum of pain... I'll link here so people can skip the entire conversation to that point if they want.

Elena "Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!" Jul 26, 2003 1:07:30 am PDT

OK - I don't think the grandfathering vote is being interpeted right. I seriously doubt that most people voting for it thought they were grandfathering in the entire FAQ.

The grandfathering thing was to avoid revotes on stuff that had been debated. I don't think the definition of spoiler was ever debated. No it was not snuck it; it kind of grew. But there was never the kind of debate that rejected say the politics theread. I think if there was no debate, no sense we were setting a permanent policy then it is not grandfathered in.

And I would point out that voter intent should count for quite in bit in interepeting stuff like the grandfather clause. Because in spite of having lawyers on our board, we did not draft things in legal language. So taking narrow interpetations of language over original intent when it can be determined is going to lead to a lot of ill feeling. How do we determine original intent? Simple. Ask people who voted on the Grandfathering issue whether they though they were voting to grandfather (or not) the entire FAQ and etiquette.

The grandfathering thing was to avoid revotes on stuff that had been debated.

Literally, it was to avoid bringing up every potential voteable issue until after we'd all gotten used to voting, so we didn't fly into a frenzy and destroy everything that consensus (bullshit one or not) had previously built. If we'd debated it as an action, and consensed on not doing it, we can't vote to do it till September.

The problem here is multiple:

• FAQ spoiler policy has never, as far as we can see, been a literal expression of policy in practice. It's a reasonable rule of thumb, most of the time, but items both intratextual (Buffy will arise in S6) and extratextual (SMG is in some movie) are discussed without ever having aired on WB.

• FAQ spoiler policy has never been discussed since we came to Phoenix. Its interpretation has, but only in these instances: (1) restriction of NAFDA by network/show; (2) reduction of NAFDA restriction to a shorter window; (3) currently unresolved -- have you noticed how that's killing the conversation? -- discussion of where to hold UK-Firefly talk. The concept of the anti-spoiler (extratextual item) is coming up in Bureaucracy for the first time.

• The other spoiler discussion I have seen is much less discussion than implementation, and the tendency has been to implement the spoiler policy more and more literally as worded in the FAQ over the course of the past year. This shifting has, I believe, been largely unconscious -- we all started asking, What does the FAQ say? and then implementing that, rather than asking, What have we always done before? We need to modify what the FAQ says, or else acknowledge that it is not the same as a constitution or set of laws.

• Since anti-spoilers have never been brought up for policy interpretation before, they're quite legitimate to discuss as a policy issue now. (Can you tell this is the most salient issue in the spoiler policy morass, for me?)

• Policy in practice, for all of the Buffistas, has been to modify if it isn't working. We did manage to consense, and then consense again, about the NAFDA restrictions above, as circumstances warranted.

X-posted in LightBulb...

t fact We have made changes to the FAQ since the grandfathering rule was voted in. t /fact

On the basis of that precendent, I reject the charges that refining the definition of official news disregards the grandfather policy.

Laugh with me now, it'll help...

By saying a voted-in grandfather clause invalidates the time-honored ability to adapt the FAQ to board culture as need arises, you are flying in the face of the voted-in grandfather clause you are citing. The grandfather clause was developed and voted in, in order to protect time-honored traditions adopted prior to the time voting was instituted. The grandfather proposal was put in to ensure that non-voted in items weren't considered invalid, just because they weren't voted in. You're claiming our always previously available ability to change our FAQ is now unavailable because we voted in a grandfather clause. You are attempting to use a voted-in measure to keep the FAQ frozen (which has not historically been a static document) until such time as a voted-in measure expires, and you're telling us this on the basis of the results of a voted-in measure - the grandfather clause.

Whatcha got heah, is a paradox, my friends or possibly marzipan in my pieplate Bingo.

A paradox?
(laughing) A paradox!
A most ingenious paradox!
We've quips and quibbles heard in flocks,
But none to beat this paradox!
A paradox, a paradox,
A most ingenious paradox!

Any luck on getting people unblocked that lost access to us after we moved off HR? <missing Jesse>

Aw. But there's nothing we can do, I'm pretty sure. I mean, we have no influence on the software my office uses to block sites. I'm blocked from a lot more stuff now, including shriftweb.

Wrong thread. Easily confused person. Not enough coffee.

Thanks, I needed that. Smile.

wrong thread

Can someone give an example of a prior spoiler policy? Anyone? Bueller?

We have had this one for a looooooooooooong time.