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.

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.

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.

It's possible the original FAQ was written by monks who scoured the Sacred Texts of the Buffistae for Divine Knowledge of what our spoiler policy should be, but more likely, they wrote it mid-season, and just didn't think about summer casting changes.

I decided to go have a look through the old threads on TT just to see what I could find on all this.

The FAQ was written in December 2000, with a bunch of individuals each adding bits and pieces. There was no formal review, but anybody was allowed to question anything. The question of what constitutes a spoiler was not discussed at all at that time, it's just that whoever added it to the FAQ (probably jengod) used what was the accepted definition for the board at the time. And not a single person complained about that definition. They may not have read it, but no one complained.

So yes, the FAQ was created mid-season.

However, the original TT spoiler thread was created in the middle of the summer (July 4, 2000 to be exact) specifically because people were getting tired of all the white font in the main Buffy thread regarding the casting for the upcoming season, specifically the addition of Michelle Trachtenberg, and the announcement that Marc Blucas might not be around for the whole season.

And just to prove that no Buffista discussion ever ends...

David S. - 10:17 am PST - Jun 22, 2000 - #6368 of 10021

Hmmm, maybe we need to making a list ruling on what constitutes spoiler info during the off-season...

the challenger needs something, or the clause can't apply

The challenger has a FAQ entry and the header of the NAFDA threads, both in place and well-used during the period protected.

Short of stone tablets, what else is there?

Okay, that's me still startled by the idea it all got written down with no discussion, and the silence didn't encompass lack of objection.

Are we having problems, or is it just me? I seem to be either timing out or getting threads realllllllly slooooooooow.

Or I *was...* It may have cleared up. *sigh* It took me so long to post that it got better.

I was having problems also Daniel.

ita - I dunno - I think grandfathering this in is getting too legalistic. And I don't think silence neccesarily gives consent. I think the point of the grandfather clause was to avoid refighting battles that had already been thought - not to freeze in place stuff we saw no problem with , and now having experienced it do.

Anyway if some of us think it is grandfathered and some don't how do we settle it? Do we have a vote on whether the grandfather clause applies? Do we have the stompies collectively act as supreme court? I think both of these will be more divisive than saying it applies.

I note that some of the people who orginally thought the GF clause applies now think that would be too narrow and legalistic an interpetation.

It's fair to say I have no idea what the grandfather clause applies to. I had thought it was the rules that we were working by (and if they're written down, even easier to find), but it seems that confusion reigns again.