Can we please stop the political metaphors? They just get people's hackles up.
Dawn: I feel safe with you. Spike: Take that back!
'First Date'
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
Burrell - Jul 27, 2003 10:49:58 am PDT #3503 of 10005
Why did Darth Vader cross the road? To get to the Dark Side!
Lyra Jane - Jul 27, 2003 10:50:51 am PDT #3504 of 10005
Up with the sun
Edited out, Burrell.
§ ita § - Jul 27, 2003 10:54:18 am PDT #3505 of 10005
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
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?
Cindy - Jul 27, 2003 10:57:51 am PDT #3506 of 10005
Nobody
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?
Noumenon - Jul 27, 2003 11:01:27 am PDT #3507 of 10005
No other candidate is asking the hard questions, like "Did geophysicists assassinate Jim Henson?" or "Why is there hydrogen in America's water supply?" --defective yeti
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?
Trudy Booth - Jul 27, 2003 11:04:57 am PDT #3508 of 10005
Greece's financial crisis threatens to take down all of Western civilization - a civilization they themselves founded. A rather tragic irony - which is something they also invented. - Jon Stewart
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.
Lyra Jane - Jul 27, 2003 11:10:00 am PDT #3509 of 10005
Up with the sun
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.
Cindy - Jul 27, 2003 11:14:13 am PDT #3510 of 10005
Nobody
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.
§ ita § - Jul 27, 2003 11:17:49 am PDT #3511 of 10005
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
What documentation could the challenger present, though?
My read was that -- this is one of the rules. It's not a rule because it's in the FAQ -- it's in the FAQ because it's a rule that we got tired of re-explaining, and that's precisely why it's in the thread header too.
In fact, this gives it an edge over other rules simply because it is documented, and has been documented in plain view for yonks.
And as such, has no bearing on the other things that are in the FAQ. It was just a place to put it.
Cindy - Jul 27, 2003 11:28:32 am PDT #3512 of 10005
Nobody
What documentation could the challenger present, though?
My read was that -- this is one of the rules. It's not a rule because it's in the FAQ -- it's in the FAQ because it's a rule that we got tired of re-explaining, and that's precisely why it's in the thread header too.
In fact, this gives it an edge over other rules simply because it is documented, and has been documented in plain view for yonks.
And as such, has no bearing on the other things that are in the FAQ. It was just a place to put it.
Don't ask me. This is why I wouldn't enter a vote on the ballot. But it seems to me, the challenger needs something, or the clause can't apply. Maybe that's a good test of whether the clause applies. In the case of the war thread, we can nilly where it was consensed from happening. In this case, we if we can't, we can't use it.