To be completely honest, I guess I'm just feeling like y'all think I'm a moron for thinking that this *is* a spoiler, by my definition of spoiler, whether or not I think it's worth trying to hide.

I don't want you to feel like a moron, Katie. My utter lack of being able to think of casting news as a spoiler is probably just as alien to you as your desire to remain casting news free is to me.

As frustrating as it is to me to not be able to discuss something that's actually old news in my office, it must be terribly frustrating for you to have people virtually glare at you for keeping us from talking about it.

Not that I think any of us have glared or been terribly mean about it, but you get what I'm trying to say...

I think. Not that I'm sure I'm really saying anything with this post.

I'm sorry, I'll go now.

Katie - I do see some casting news as spoilers. With regard to the elephant in the living room one, I see it as inevitable - but still a spoiler. I don't think we're that far off there. I don't think, if an actor decides to leave the series or is let go or whatever in the off season, that it should be treated a spoiler to the level where when someone mentions the actor has another project, we need to delete or white out his posts.

The elephant in the living room one? I get it's a spoiler. That Mary Tyler Moore isn't on the series? Not so much. I don't think you're a moron. I don't think that we can't discuss former ME actors and their careers, although we can discuss former ME writers and their careers makes any sense at all.

Now if one of those actors were to come to/come back to Angel for a guest spot, we couldn't discuss that, so you wouldn't be spoiled.

But, if AD is not a regular cast member next year, I brace myself for exactly the same thing. Worse yet if he appears in the opening ep -- then it's all "dies? takes a wrong turn? runs off with Sahjahn? WHAT??!?!?"

Do you want an exception to protect against that sort of thing, so that if a regular changes to recurring status, we can't discuss that? I get that's a spoiler and I get why that would spoil your moment. I didn't think it was what was being discussed here, but I don't see why it's a base we can't suggest the proposer cover.

Cindy, I'm only against the assertion that "casting news isn't plot info". I'd like the point to be argued merely on inevitability.

Which I fully concede to ... there's no way to protect me against what I fear -- which is why I dived into the spoiler thread early on. To stop flinching away from possible sources of such news.

Thanks, Sean and Cindy - I appreciate you listening. Got it off my chest, 'sall good.

Do you want an exception to protect against that sort of thing, so that if a regular changes to recurring status, we can't discuss that?

When Andy Hallet changed from recurring to regular, it affected the plot not at all. When Giles moved back to England, it affected the course of the season, but nobody's HSQ was ruined by knowing he wouldn't be in every episode. AB wasn't in the opening credits, but was still in every episode of S6 until Tara died.

Which is a long-winded way of saying, if we're proposing that changes to the regular cast in between seasons are no longer spoilers, let's not start making exceptions. There is no way of deducing plot information from that kind of casting spoiler [edit: that's different from any other kind of speculation]. Really.

I don't understand why there is a need for a change to the current policy on posting casting spoilers when there is a both a spoiler thread and a spoiler lite thread where these issues can be discussed.

I don't mean that in a "Stay out of Angel, hos!" kind of way, but rather than I'm honestly curious.

When Giles moved back to England, it affected the course of the season, but nobody's HSQ was ruined by knowing he wouldn't be in every episode

Well, except when it got to the point where we knew he had one more ep on his contract, and worked out by elimination which one it was, and therefore went "Why isn't he here yet? When would be the most startling moment for him to appear? Now? Maybe now ... knew it!"

Which is why I tried to avoid the details of his casting agreement, but ... inevitable, so I was unsurprised by what was probably a startling moment for the un-webbed Buffy fan.

As I said -- I don't like the argument it doesn't have an impact. It just doesn't work for me. People have said it does, so it does. I don't think you can rhetoric it away.

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.

Really? Everywhere? Because I was spoilled for at least one of those major points (if, in fact, those are the points we're talking about and not something else that I don't know about yet) RIGHT HERE IN ONE OF THE SHOW THREADS.

Which is to say - not everyone knows these things yet. Not everyone wants to know them.

And, like Katie, I do get the impression that peoplewhodon'tknowthis=livingunderarock.

(edit to finish my thought)

People who are unspoiled would like to stay unspoiled. It may be a different mindset, but whatever gives people the most enjoyment of the show is what they should be allowed to have.

And, like Katie, I do get the impression that peoplewhodon'tknowthis=livingunderarock.

Waitaminnit...

You and Katie don't live under rocks?

You and Katie don't live under rocks?

Well, my apartment building is brick... not the roof though, so I guess I'll have to say No.