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 The last proposal, which has since been withdrawn, certainly violated it, but still should have received the level of discussion it did, and should be carried on when the time is right, regardless.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"Oh, it's been withdrawn.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."

Can't disregard drama for drama's sake.

The last proposal, which has since been withdrawn, certainly violated it

The proposal for a general TV thread? How did that violate the gf clause?

Hasn't it come up and been shot down multiple times? Wasn't avoiding topics like that one of the main reasons for the gf in the first place?

What then would the gf actually apply to? Apparently I'm not clear on the concept.

War thread, politics - those were grandfather issues. I don't know if the TV thread ever made it that far before we started voting, or if it was a "let's wait and see what happens when Buffy ends" situation. I might have been grandfathered. I never thought of it, but depending on how we left the discussion, brenda might be right. Can you find the conversation, brenda?

God DAMN, but I hate that grandfather clause. When does it end? September?