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.

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

You're right-- that doesn't make sense.

I was trying to point out that I think there are 2 issues here:

1. There are some really big and seemingly impossible to avoid casting spoilers out there, and people want an exception to the spoiler so that they can be discussed.

2. There seems to have been a culture change where any actor who has ever been on and ME show cannot be discussed in terms of other projects. Also things that used to be OK like discussing that Buffy was coming back after Season 5 are now no longer OK. Under the current spoiler zeitgeist, it seems that we cannot, for example, talk about the casting for Wonder Falls, as it has not aired.

What I am concerned about more is #2.

Just FTR, Daniel's original post that got deleted accidentally included some statements that went beyond just talking about the actor's new project. And the way the article described the project, through no fault of Daniel's, really did give the impression that it was a series, not a one-off.

The JAR and AA arguments don't quite convince me - when they became regulars, they had a) already been introduced on the show, and b) neither of their storylines were really known. Not all cast additions will necessarily follow this pattern.

On Minear's show - I don't have any issue with those characters and actors being discussed, because we don't know them or their world yet. As to Firefly, at what point did we put up the Firefly spoilers thread?

I still believe that it's unlikely that a change in cast this big will come up again in this manner - over the summer, with no in-show background to start it off (as with the introduction of Fred in Pylea), and involving a known character. Brand new, never heard of them before, cast additions are a different matter.

What I'm still confused about it why it's so urgent to move discussion of casting changes, such as it is, to the main threads right now when promos should be appearing in a month's time, more or less. Or why discussion in the Spoiler thread would be so unsatisfactory. I hear mention of people who want to discuss cast changes but don't want to go in the Spoilers thread, but (IIRC) I haven't heard those actual people speak up. And it's only recently that the Spoilers thread started to become spoilery again anyway. So what was stopping people from discussing this subject all summer? I unsubbed last week or so, but up until that point, I saw very little discussion of the topic, so I'm confused as to why it's so important to discuss now.

Brenda, your post assumes that everyone knows someone from Buffy (or Angel's past) is coming to Angel. Which is more than some people do know, as of now, and I think those that don't, don't want to.

We should keep this abstract as possible.

My two cents...

One of the things I keep reading is how the current definition of a spoiler is different than the way things used to be, and that it was established by "consensus". However, the original spoiler usage (I don't think we ever nailed down a definition) was established by the same type of consensus, except it was back at the old (WX) board. The new definition was created in the original set up of the show threads (actually, when Firefly came on board, at which time we were actively trying to codify all of our "consensi".)

I had thought that we had agreed to grandfather in the previous "consensus" and not make changes to them until a certain period of time had elapsed. In fact, IIRC, there was a divisive debate about the whole procedure. I don't know what the elapsed time period was supposed to be, but it seems to me that this call to "return things back the way they were" violates that agreement, unless the time period has passed.

Personally, I try to avoid spoilers, but I don't actively avoid them like the plague. I feel that the Big Casting Spoiler is akin to the "SMG won't be returning" spoiler that was the Elephant in the Room, but I think we should err on the side of caution and try to make things as safe as possible for the spoilerphobe in the show threads, since you can't "unspoil" something after the fact.

I think the problem is that some of our spoiler policies were not adapted by consenses. For example there was never a policy against "anit-spoilers" . Someone just jumped in one day and started complaining about them. Similarly the whole "casting spoiler" thing pretty much slipped in without debate.

Again, I want to point out that the current proposal is extremely moderate. It is not making this a spoiler board. It really is a compromise, drawn straight down the middle between extreme spoiler phope and extreme ho.

It really is a compromise, drawn straight down the middle between extreme spoiler phope and extreme ho.

So spoiler-hos are still apparently limited in their discussion and phobes are exposed to information they don't want.

ita, thanks for pointing that out. I've edited where I can but one bit I just don't know how to say without at least touching on a certain topic. Whitefont there ok?

So spoiler-hos are still apparently limited in their discussion and phobes are exposed to information they don't want.

Speaking as a part-time ho (I make out with them, but I rarely go all the way), I don't feel limited by this rule at all -- I understand that guest stars and plot details are considered spoilers by most of this board, and I can discuss them in Spoilers or Spoilage Lite (or not, as I choose). The proposal just seems like a measure of sanity, and will, as Jess and Plei pointed out, return our former status quo.

What I'm still confused about it why it's so urgent to move discussion of casting changes, such as it is, to the main threads right now when promos should be appearing in a month's time, more or less.

I think we're dealing with this now so that if something comes up remotely like this - say Tim's show is a hit (yes, plesase) or there's a Buffy spinoff, or when the Firefly movie starts filming without XYZ actor, this has already been settled and we don't have to go through this again.

Also, what Gar said, as he said it most recently and succinctily.

Just FTR, Daniel's original post that got deleted accidentally included some statements that went beyond just talking about the actor's new project. And the way the article described the project, through no fault of Daniel's, really did give the impression that it was a series, not a one-off.

Yes, but the "some statements that went beyond" was that an actor wasn't an Angel series regular. When did anti-spoilage rise to this level of protection? Why? How?