Mal ,'Out Of Gas'
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
(Were we supposed to revisit the length of the moratorium at some point? Or was that something else? My memory is faulty.)
We were brenda, and I think that date has already happened, although I'm not certain. Other than the grandfather question on the casting items issue, I don't think we've had to mention either grandfathering or the regular moratorium at all. I don't know that anyone has any issues with the length. Right now, I'm inclined to say it ain't broke, so let's don't fix it.
If there's stuff we can't include on the ballot for this proposal, but don't realize that until Lightbulbs discussion makes it evident, can we agree to not moratorium it out of business for six months.
If it's not on the ballot in the first place, why would it be subject to a moratorium?
Close Buffy Spoilers Lite
(I think it's the one closing we all can agree on.)
I agree!
Change the name of the Buffy/Angel Spoilers thread to "Angel Spoilers"This seems like a silly thing to vote on -- There are no Buffy spoilers so this doesn't repurpose anything. It's just a name.
If we never vote on it, there is no moratorium. So I'd assume that any suggestions that came up but didn't make it to the ballot would be fair game whenever, moratorium not withstanding.
So I got four seconds (Sean, Brenda, Lori and Burrell), now what?
In fine Pink Gingham Junta fashion, should I have a coup de board and just move the conversation to lightbulbs since it was never closed after Raquel withdrew her proposal?
We probably won't know our Angel schedule until the week before, since ASN doesn't do much PR.
If it's not on the ballot in the first place, why would it be subject to a moratorium?
Specifically? I don't know. I'm just trying to cover bases. I can see someone objecting to further housekeeping in the next few months, because we already did our housekeeping and that housekeeping was voted in and is covered by the moratorium.
I can see someone objecting to further housekeeping in the next few months, because we already did our housekeeping and that housekeeping was voted in and is covered by the moratorium.
And I can see someone getting bitchslapped.
(not you Cindy -- whoever would say that something not on a ballot was moratoriumized)
Kat -- You got your seconds so this should be moved to lightbulbs.
MWAH! Thanks, Jon.
I don't think we've had to mention either grandfathering or the regular moratorium at all.
Frankly, I'd say we'd do better to dump both of them. The one time g-f came up, it caused huge problems. The last proposal, which has since been withdrawn, certainly violated it, but still should have received the level of discussion it did, and should be carried on when the time is right, regardless. There is some concern right now that the moratorium might end up causing problems down the line too.
I'm not proposing anything - the gf will be moot soon enough, and the moratorium issue can wait for another day. But in the abstract, I think both were better ideas in theory than in practice.
(Oh, and just FTR, I wasn't suggesting above that we needed to revisit the moratorium either. It just keeps sticking in my mind that there's something we agreed to come back and look at later, but I can never remember for sure what that something was.)
My head is swimming. I didn't have time to read B'cy for a couple days, so upon catching up:
"Huh. Yeah, I might vote Yes on that."
"Yeah, look, Lightbulbs is open. I'd definitely vote Yes on that."
"Oh, wait, tricky spoilage. And server problems! Crap, I'm gonna vote No."
"Oh, it's been withdrawn. All that compressed drama for nothing."