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?

Trudy, don't read the whitefont.

Cindy: Because there are two main possibilities for Cordelia's fate next season; either she recovers from her coma and continues on as a regular, or she doesn't and she's off the show. The information that CC is not a regular on Angel answers that question - spoils the viewer for which of those outcomes is going to happen. Knowing that CC is not a regular inherently gives the information that Cordelia is not going to be appearing regularly on the show, which is a spoiler.

Does that make sense?

Whitefonted response to Katie:

But she could wake up and appear in multiple episodes next season without being a regular. Tara was never a regular; neither was Lilah, or Giles in Buffy's last two seasons. Admittedly, the *most* likely thing, based on CC's personal issues and her other commitments, is that she'll stay in her coma indefinitely -- but I don't think that can be inferred simply by knowing she's not in the opening credits last year.

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?

Cindy, the news came as a massive shock to me, and changes the entire complextion of the show for me. I didn't want to hear the news, and I can't unhear it.

Edit - and Katie explains it for me, much better than I could have. It spoiled me, Lyra. It did. Just as much as having your speculations confirmed or denied would spoil me.

I don't understand where all the anger is coming from. I really don't. Could someone explain to me why it's a problem to not openly discuss the issue(s) until they meet our previously agreed upon definition of non-spoiler?

Those are the two extremes, Katie. They do not represent the full spectrum of possibility.

AB wasn't a regular on BtVS, was still in every episode of S6 (until Tara died). MB was a regular in S5, and he left halfway through the season.

Cast regulars can be left out of episodes (Spike, The Body; Xander, CwDP). Recurring characters can be in all 22. The only thing you can determine from a cast member's status as regular vs recurring is whether or not they're getting paid for the episodes they're not in.