My problem with saying "we never actually went by the FAQ or the slug headers" is ... we did. We used them as reference to clear up many a mispost.

So it seems perfectly possible for some people to be sure that the times like talking about ASH leaving or Buffy not being dead are exceptions, in the same way that others see it as the rule.

So it seems perfectly possible for some people to be sure that the times like talking about ASH leaving or Buffy not being dead are exceptions, in the same way that others see it as the rule.

That's why I think this is the most relevant issue to discuss. I think this is the crux of the conflict.

I think applying grandfather in this case, or any case where it is not evident that we're dealing with a situation the clause was designed to help us, is a bad idea.

I wouldn't rule it out just because this is the FAQ. But I wouldn't say it applies just because it's the faq, either.

In my eyes, the clause rules itself out here, because the range of its coverage is too ambiguous. If this proposal asked to close the music or movies threads, or yet again to open a war or politics thread, I'd yell, "Grandfather." That's seems to be the kind of situation the grandfather clause would cover, because that is the kind of situation the clause was inspired by, and was developed to remedy those sorts of challenges to our old process. That someone said the FAQ was developed by 'bullshit consensus' didn't help things here. Grandfather springs to my mind, every time I hear that phrase. But because one poster chose to term the faq development as such, isn't by itself a good reason to trot out the clause.

I'm sure there was discussion and decision making going on about the spoiler policy when the faq was being written. I don't think the faq changed itself. I don't think the slugs changed themselves. I don't think the faq should be overturned because it was written under a consensus system, rather than a voting system. I do think, when the answer to a frequently asked question doesn't (to some people) seem to accurately answer the question with an account of how things were working in actuality, we're hurting our culture more by stopping the discussion than we are by having a vote on it.

Is the faq more important than precedent where grandfather is concerned? Isn't precedent just as much a (demonstrable) part of our culture and tradition as the faq?

And, I totally think that next year the slogan should be the "3 times and you still have your soul? We'll go again."

Oh, totally.

cereal...

So it seems perfectly possible for some people to be sure that the times like talking about ASH leaving or Buffy not being dead are exceptions, in the same way that others see it as the rule.

That's why I think this is the most relevant issue to discuss. I think this is the crux of the conflict.

I think so, too. Because some people thought those were exceptions, and some people thought that the FAQ didn't cover the summer casting news items, and that when we started using it to prohibit free NAFDA discussion of summer news items, that it was part of the squeeze.

I don't think we'll ever get an answer that satisfies anyone, as to how what happened did happen. I do think, if we let the proposal continue on to a vote, we'll get an answer where enough Buffistas tell the Buffistas who didn't get what they wanted, to shut up and post.

eta... and I say that last line, totally unconvinced how this will play out. I don't want it to be take as a dig at the anti-proposers. It's recognition that of those of us hashing this out, not all of us will be happy with the outcome, but we'll at least have an answer that will make us let it go.

Query: Is it a real possibility that we won't go to a vote on this because of the grandfather clause?

Because that would REALLY bother me.

Can we please stop the political metaphors? They just get people's hackles up.

Edited out, Burrell.

LJ, if the grandfather clause does apply to this, do you think we should vote on it anyway? And if so, what strength does the clause have?

Query: Is it a real possibility that we won't go to a vote on this because of the grandfather clause?

That query got me thinking. I don't recall seeing this addressed in the section of the grandfather clause that addressed how to challenge a proposal via grandfather clause. There's no time limit.

Does this hang over this proposal forever? Shouldn't there be a reasonable time period? Do we have to wait to go to vote on the proposal until someone does find something they think is evidence, or what? Just the mention of it can't stop anything, can it?