September. About the 20th. TV was specifically a part of the talk around the grandfather thread, because it had been discussed pre-voting-implementation.

I think, coming to the end of the life of the initial grandfather clause, that it's done its job. We limited the number of issues we could bring up at once, and thereby avoided (even more) rancorous argument. Not that you all should go out and propose we all be required to post while wearing purple hats, or anything.

We will also be due shortly (couple of weeks) for a gut-check on the moratorium period -- whether 6 months is good or longer or shorter. Considering how little has been voted down and come under the moratorium, I have practically no opinion about it!

We will also be due shortly (couple of weeks) for a gut-check on the moratorium period

According to Jesse "Sunnydale Press" Mar 29, 2003 7:54:50 am PST the 'official' 3 months time from the vote was on June 29th, so the 6 months time is September 29th.

We limited the number of issues we could bring up at once, and thereby avoided (even more) rancorous argument.

I'll note again my theory that everytime we have a divisive discussion or vote we use up a fair amount of our community good will. I'm of the opinion that limiting the votes is probably healthy for us, because the rancor and frayed nerves come on pretty quick. So I don't mind the grandfather clause, even if it makes us impatient occasionally.

It's a whole checks and balances deal - but in this instance it's between change and stability. There's some value to having changes occur slowly.

Eh, with all the hassle of trying to go through WX, I doubt it's worth it. But, like the movies and music threads that eventually were established, it's popped up more than once.

Anyway, it's hardly an issue. People wanted to talk about it, so fine. I've pretty much decided that in my head, neither that nor the moratorium exist. I'm happier that way.

But I'm curious what besides the War thread people thought it would apply to. Because we could have just said no way no how to that one and left it at that.

So I don't mind the grandfather clause, even if it makes us impatient occasionally.

What I mind is how it gets pulled out as a death-knell, to end a discussion that some people don't like.

To be fair, maybe it only happened once. But it sure rankled to see it used like that.

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?

You know, I remembered that it was grandfathered in after I made my anti-TV thread posts. I didn't bring it up because I decided that, after the most recent gf discussion, I didn't want to go there again.

ETA: And Steph explains why I didn't want to bring it up better than I could.

I think we agreed that the grandfather clause card can't be used unless a cite/link to the discussion/consensus is provided. Or maybe I'm just making that up.

Okay, I just didn't remember a general TV thread discussion ever getting that far before which, as I understood it, was NOT covered by the grandfather clause, as it never got serious attention.

I'm willing to accept that I'm wrong about that, but that's why I was curious.

I think we agreed that the grandfather clause card can't be used unless a cite/link to the discussion/consensus is provided. Or maybe I'm just making that up.

No, you're not making that up, Wolf.

That doesn't mean I'm not crazy.