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
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.
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?
Can we please stop the political metaphors? They just get people's hackles up.
I
used
to enjoy political metaphors, but they've been ruined for me by all the badfic.
"Wielding his enormous poll [sic], he quickly began to stuff her ballot box..."
Y'know?
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.
Except that the clause expires shortly.
ita,
1) I could argue either way. It would piss me off enormously if we *didn't* vote, because I would see it as a technicality being used to overide the will of the people, especially in that no one seems to have expected the clause to apply to the entire FAQ.
But I do believe that we should experience the consequences of having voted things in, because what do votes mean if we don't?
2) Exactly.
Except that the clause expires shortly.
I don't understand. I'm asking if mere mention of the clause can hold anything up, or since the clause states the onus backing up the challenge with documentation is on the challenger, if the challenger's chance to challenge expires if he hasn't produced anything by the time the ballot is due to come to a vote.
