Sorry about the serial posting.

Deena asked

I'm wondering how it will improve conversation about these spoilers if the conversation is held in the show threads instead of in the spoiler threads, other than there being more people involved?

And I think it's a good point. Why does this need to be brought up in NAFDA threads before it's reached the point of NAFDA non-spoiler?

Also, why do I continually type NAFTA instead of NAFDA?

Because there is no such thing as a Free Drade Agreement?

Hey, could we configure the ballot so that if it DOES pass the creation of a Virgin Thread is built in?

I am also curious about the current spoiler rules and Tim Minear's new show. Are we really and truly not allowed to talk about the regular cast until the first ep airs? Really? Wow. We didn't do that before Firefly's first ep.

You know. Big Casting Spoiler is a spoiler by anyones definaition.

I am certainly coming around to the fact that we can wait to talk about it.

My issue right now is that I feel as if I had news that the guy who played Dead Gay Larry was going to be joining the cast of gilmore Girls, I couldn't share, because that is s spoiler that he WON'T be on Angel.

And we used to talk about these things. I distinctly remember at the end of season 5 easily decideing to talk about the fact that SMG would be back and that ASH would perhaps not. And I was one of the people who really thought for a few days that they would try to do Season 6 Buffy without SMG.

Trudy - you posted:

Well, at that point it was obvious from the none to clever hinting that:

[rest of Trudy's sentence continued in whitefont]

SOMEONE from Buffy was moving to Angel and eliminating Nick from the list made it that much shorter.

That's not an accurate picture of that anti-spoiler conversation. Perhaps in general, people had been talking openly that * someone from Buffy would or would/probably end up on A:ts. *

However, my comments had nothing to do with that. I asked if NB's pilot got picked up. Bitterchick told me it hadn't. Then I was doing wishful thinking that mentioned I'd like to see that actor on A:ts. What I said precisely (although I edited it out after you objected, I have it still, because I reposted then in the spoilers thread, to ask how it was out of line, because I didn't get it) was: * (me) Supposedly ME doesn't think they could fit Nick into Angel, because he and Angel don't like each other, and he'd have no reason to go to L.A. But if I can fanwank the things I've fanwanked on both shows, I'd gladly fanwank a half-assed reason for Nick's Xander. Any. Day. Let's see... Angel, with all his new-found resources, hears of Xander's unfortunate injury and joblesses. He thinks if he uses his wealth and power to hire Xander to be property manager for W&H, someday he'll get to enjoy warm, delicious cookies. *

I wasn't hinting at the elephant spoiler in any way, clever or un-. It wasn't even what I was talking about. I wasn't trying to make any list of possiblilities shorter or longer. In that conversation, you are the person who revealed (in posts 2130 and 2150) that there was going to be a BtVS person going over to Angel, not me. I was just talking about NB and I was wishing that performer would be on A:ts. I realize you probably weren't the first person to do so in NAFDA. But there was no hinting from me. I understand it was my interview mention you found problematic, but it wasn't spoiling anything. I edited out the offending portion for your sake, not because I thought your request was a reasonable interpretation of spoiler policy. I got your point, but it seems to me that the offending information really was that Some BtVS actor was going to end up on A:ts. I didn't mention that. You did.

I don't like the precedent this anti-spoiler business sets, because now, people are getting their posts about actors' TV movies-of-the-week either edited or deleted - actors who aren't going to be on the show.

by our previously agreed upon definition

Plei's point was that it was never agreed upon, except by bullshit consensus (and an unspoken one at that), and was a change from how casting had been discussed before.

I think it should be clarified, however, as to whether this is just for the NAFDA show threads or not. Becuase I'm pretty sure it SHOULD just be on the NAFDA show threads. That would mean avoiding Angel and the Minear thread during the summer if you are that spoiler-phobic.

But yes, if this passes, I don't know why Trudy shouldn't propose a virgin thread.

Meara-time for me. I *think* I edited out the bitchiness in my responses ... but if I failed, please remember it's early here and I am very, very tired, and this whole thing is making me want to bash my head in with a shovel.

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!"

I don't think I was around much at the end of S6, so I don't remember this specific discussion. But honestly? I'm surprised people can keep that kind of thing straight in their heads. I couldn't if my life depended on it. (And besides, like they WOULDN'T bring Giles back for the finale? Please.)

Besides, contracts can ALWAYS be modified. I'm pretty sure Seth Green was signed as a regular for S4, until he decided he wanted to do movies. Similarly, I suspect Tom Lenk got more eps in S7 than were originally in his contract, because they decided they liked Andrew.

I guess for me it just seems absurd to have to tiptoe around a topic that Joss himself has talked about in a major media outlet. It makes me avoid the Angel thread altogether, because I'm afraid I'll let it slip, and really it's impossible to discuss possible happenings for next season without talking about the cast changes.

Susan speaks for me. It does seem like we're posting very little in Angel in general lately. Some of that is probably just summer malaise, but most of it? We can't talk about the Elephant in the Room.

What's frustrating about having to restrain Probably Obvious Spoiler talk to the Spoilers Lite topic? Since I personally don't find that frustrating at all.

Adding a snarkier response to Plei's comprehensive one: Because Spoilers Lite, to put it bluntly, sucks for everyone. You have to white-font everything, post warnings, and be really careful about what you say. It's okay as a place where the unspoiled can go and ask, "I heard ED will be on Angel next season, is that true?", but for real discussion it's worse than useless, in my experience.

Plus, not everyone who knows the Bug Casting Spoilers wants to know everything in Spoilage Light.

Knowing means I have to think about the actors and the world of film during the show, instead of being engaged by the story.

It amazes me you can ignore this, because I *always* think about it. It's just there, when CC started to look pregnant or SMG's barely there in an episode because she's doing something else or I can spot the cuts between the actor and the stunt double. I love the shows, I adore the shows, but I never, ever, forget it's TV, and these are actors doing a job. I'm jealous of you that you can.

I'd be more comfortable with a limited "there's a huge spoiler out there that most people know and want to talk about so can we make an exception this one time" proposal than changing our spoiler policy that has always been clear and simple.

I would agree, except it's likely there *will* be other TV shows the board will talk about in the future, either ME projects or just things a lot of people like. And as I said earlier, the thought of having this discussion more or less yearly? Makes me want to claw my eyes out.

Knowing that the character Fred is coming on as a regular means I know the story line is going in a certain direction.

To me, it just means the character will be there. Period. I don't know if she'll be good or evil or get a lot of screen time or a little or in every episode or killed in the third one. I don't know if she'll shag every character onscreen or be celibate. Those are plot points; AA signing a contract is a fact.

And if Trudy wants a virgin thread, she should get one.

Big Casting Spoiler is a spoiler by anyones definaition.

Except to the people that don't think casting news is a spoiler -- I'm not sure where you're going with this.

(and back there somewhere Dan, I think, mentioned a casting spoiler 2-- I have NO IDEA what this is and would rather stay that way as long as possible)

THAT WAS NOT A SPOILER. It was news about an ME actor in a TV movie. It had nothing to do with AtS, AtS casting, or anything even remotely ME-related. There's no possible way this news could have affected the actor's availability for S5 in any way.

So I'm pretty pissed off that it was considered spoilery enough to delete. Because under spoiler "rules" that paranoid, it's a spoiler that AH will be in American Wedding. Anyone want me to whitefont that?

And that kind of thing became a spoiler with NO discussion sometime after the premiere of Firefly. I'm repeating myself and Plei here, but AA and JAR joining the AtS cast, and ASH becoming recurring on BtVS were not considered spoilers. All this proposal is trying to do is bring the definition of a spoiler back down to the sane level it used to be. We're not changing anything, we're undoing decisions that were never concretely made in the first place.

THAT WAS NOT A SPOILER. It was news about an ME actor in a TV movie.

The way the post was phrased, it could as easily have been a TV series. It wasn't, but if it had been that would have been a spoiler by some people's definition. Not by mine (although I did comment on why people thought it was at the time), and it shouldn't have been deleted.

But I agree, once upon a time, even if it had been a series, it wouldn't have been a spoiler to discuss, and I do want to get things back to that level.