The problem, as I see it, would be that we would talk about BCS, someone would inevitably say "how do you think that it will happen", and someone may inadvertently throw a spoiler in there, thinking that now that the BCS is out of the bag, it's open season. But, I am willing to trust in the integrity of the Buffistas.

The speculation versus possible spoiler is always out there, but spoilage hos have been pretty good about not speculating with information they already have.

But Vortex, we disagree with you because you're wrong ...

Facetiousness aside, the spoiled already watch what they say (with human error, of course). I don't think we'd be opening a bigger avenue.

That X will/will not be in the cast is allowed, facts about how are verboten. Seems viable to me.

I'll either vote for or neutral on this proposal, because it's obviously driving people nuts and I don't like to see people driven nuts. Plus I've given up on avoiding press spoilers, though I still don't read interviews so as to avoid the spoilers there.

That said, I'd like to defend against the point Cindy made here:

When that happens, the actor is not going to be playing a character on the show, and so it is not spoiling the show in any way.

If Alexis Denisof were not returning to Angel next year, that would have a major plot impact on the show. That's a spoiler that "something is going to happen to Wesley." Everyone now knows a big fact about the show - it won't include Wesley. (Or they're recasting Wesley, and there's going to be a fannish riot.) "It's not worth the cost to the board as a whole to try to conceal it" is fine, actually I agree, but I don't think it's silly to think of that as a spoiler.

what about Angel coming back season 3 of Buffy? Does anyone remember if that was discussed during the summer leading up?

I wasn't here yet but Angel's return from hell was, much like Buffy's return from the dead, not even remotely a secret. I seem to recall the affilliate running news promos during the finale about DB's spinoff.

used phrases like "anti-spoiler," which I find more irritating than our existing definition of "spoiler,"

Yes. This. I'm willing to back any proposal that will forever put the kabosh on "anti-spoilers".

I guess part of the problem is that knowing ASH wasn't going to be a BtVS regular after S5 was NOT considered a spoiler. We discussed it in the main threads without incident.

So why is the same type of information spoilery now? When did that change?

This proposal is an attempt to bring the spoiler threshhold back down to the saner level it was at two years ago.

I'm with John Sweden - I don't get the WB promos either. I would not have know about (season 7 spoiler) Angel appearing on BtVS had I not read people talking about the promo on the board. Now, I'm not saying that people can't talk about the promos, of course you can, that's in the rules and is entirely fair play. I try to leave the board as the watch-and-post ends so I don't get spoiled, but sometimes it doesn't work. My point, and I do have one, is that HSQ is sometimes impossible when people know too much (and, shit, the WB and UPN seem to give away the entire fucking agriculture business in their promos).

As for the current topic(s) I know two of them. One I was spoiled for by friends and a fic archive. The other I was spoiled for twice right here in the show threads. And, yes, spoiled twice because the first time I was told not to pay it any heed. I would have preferred to not know about either of them.

The thing I've noticed reading back through the spoiler thread (once the season was over it makes for very interesting reading) is how people seem to be surprised that people can be unspoiled. I don't search the internet for news. I don't read trade magazines. I do read EW, but they're pretty good about spoiler warning, so I can skip the article if I want. Spoilers can be avoided if a) you don't go looking for them and b) they aren't posted in normally spoiler free spaces by people who assume that they are common knowledge because they (the person) knows it.

Okay, this isn't particularly coherent, but my main point is - we can't assume that what is considered HUGE and EVERYWHERE is really something that can't be avoided as long as people don't talk about it in the show threads.

You say the news is on the WB site? What about people that don't go there? You say the news is in the trade magazines? What about people that don't read them? You say the news is being promoted in WB television spots? I don't get the WB, myself, but since most of you do and most of you - presumably - are watching it. Fair game, and well in keeping with our current policy.

How about calling them reverse casting spoilers?

spoiled twice because the first time I was told not to pay it any heed

Was that me? Because at the time (and I was in the spoiler thread), it wasn't concrete. In retrospect, it I guess it is.

'Twas you, ita, and I thank you for it. But the same sort of thing got posted again and spoiled me all over.

Al in all, there are things that come down that are saturated and unavoidable. In fact some things that one would have to engear themselves like Tommy to avoid. (Movie from the 70's...)

These things need to be accounted for. I wish there were some way to separate out these facts as "special circumstances" and declair it in the thread.

Then again, this Special Directive method could have been used for the Firefly situation.

Perhaps we just need a Special Directive process to deal with specific events, casting, spoilers and the like.

Major Angel casting issue #1 and major Angel casting issue #2 are the sort of casting issues being reported damn near everywhere but we can't talk about them? it would appear a bit pointless at that juncture.

For instance, Doyle leaving and Wes joining would not have invoked this because it would have involved a big surprise and affected a current season storyline. Whereas ACI#1 and ACI#2 will affect an upcoming storyline, but we can postulate how the events will happen without blowing an in-progress season.

My 2c, I guess