You are right that it is basic netiquette, but it also encourages the idea that the SMOFs really are a secretive cabal who run things from behind the scenes – the very thing that “SMOF” was supposed to parody. These issues are of concern to all of fandom, and they ought to be discussed openly, as they are here.

Lynching? Uh, no. More like, “Well, why would someone want to second a motion without endorsing it?” ANS: “So that it can be debated and (hopefully) a workable proposal be hashed out.” (I paraphrase highly, as I don’t have the archives handy right now, but really it was pretty civil.)

“The trouble with the SMOFs list is that it is a private forum whose members strongly resent anything they say there being made public.”

This is basic list netiquette, and shouldn’t be trifled with. Nothing’s preventing you (or anyone else) from being a list lurker.

With Tim and Kevin’s assistance, how could anyone doubt the amendment had been proposed perfectly in order with the rules?

As, indeed, it was.

The discussion had gone completely beyond the proposal at that point…..they were looking at the matter from a Rules of Order perspective (because, you know, the SMOFS LIST, right?).

The trouble with the SMOFs list is that it is a private forum whose members strongly resent anything they say there being made public. Therefore those of us who are not on the list have to rely on rumor and hearsay as to what goes on there. I must admit I’m surprised at how little discussion you report. I’d been given to believe that there was a torrent of abuse (possibly by people who wishes that there had been).

Uh huh. I really don’t see much of a distinction between flaming someone for endorsing a proposal you dislike and flaming the proposal itself, except that the former is clearly completely despicable and the latter is arguably a form of free speech.

there were a total of 9 brief posts on the subject, 3 of them facetious.

There was considerably more comment dissing the proposal on LJ, then – which was what I read, Friday night.

Just to clarify for the historical record, between Kevin Standlee’s announcement of the proposal (on Thursday evening) and some AOL user posting as ‘Gary’ announcing its defeat, there were a total of 9 brief posts on the subject, 3 of them facetious. There were also 4 strong objections, of which 3 were from women.

Much of the actual flamage about the proposal was whether seconding a proposal was an actual endorsement of it, and similar matters of procedure (ah, sweet SMOFS list!).