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.

I'm going to serial post instead of editing again.

Somewhere in the proposal could we determine if the discussion - if declared an open subject - is going to remain in the Angel thread? Because if it moves to Bitches or Buffy (which I assume we're keeping open for a while longer) then I'll have to unsubscribe from those threads, too. And I'd hate to do that.

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

Jess, I can't speak for everyone, but I can tell you that I think exactly what Katie whitefonted. And it's the most likely explanation.

Katie - I don't agree that those are the only possibilities - see Lyra Jane's post and I think there are even more possibilities. And again, this information will be evident from the pre-season promos (which are already fair game), the title credits (the ones that run with photos, while the theme song plays), and was long ago officially announced by the WB in a "We renewed the series, here's the regular cast" sort of announcement.

People are not going to get this information first from the plot. Are people (sincerely) really getting their HSQ moments from the title credits sequence?

When, how, why, where did this change?

our previously agreed upon definition of non-spoiler

Elena, this is in no way to single you out. I think this statement, however, is where some of the issues are coming from. When did this become "our previously agreed upon definition of non-spoiler" and who agreed to it?

By definition, the fact that SMG had chosen to leave BtVS was a casting spoiler. It should not have been discussed ever. Period. And we should now be living in a state of "What will happen in S8?" But that was, for me and I think for many other people, taking spoiler status too far.

The question is, for me, when do casting changes become news as opposed to spoilers? If, for example, an ME cast member had been arrested for hypothetical X event and wouldn't be on the show for an extended period, should we not ever discuss it?

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?

Under the current definition, I don't know if that kind of news would ever be considered non-spoilery. The anger comes from things being declared spoilers for no apparent reason, when they were openly discussed in the past.

ASH. JAR. AA.

AH being in American Wedding. SMG being in Scooby Doo.

All. Not. Spoilers.

Why is this summer suddenly different, and how did it change with no discussion on the matter? That is where the anger comes from.

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?

Given we discussed SMG after The Gift, and ASH's status, I don't see this as meeting the previously agreed upon definition of non-spoiler or spoiler, or whatever. It's like someone took the definition and planted a really thick hedge around it.

X-post with juliana and Jess. Elena - I was just trying to answer you, not pig-pile on you.

I can tell you that I think exactly what Katie whitefonted.

But you drew that conclusion based on spoiler-free speculation. Nothing I can spoil you for would confirm or deny it.

And again, this information will be evident from the pre-season promos (which are already fair game),

Yes, and when the pre-season promos air then it will be fair game to talk about it.

I think this statement, however, is where some of the issues are coming from. When did this become "our previously agreed upon definition of non-spoiler" and who agreed to it.

It's been our definition of spoiler since we were on WX, agreed upon by the people who have been members of our community as we were building it.

And, yes, SMG not renewing would technically be a spoiler, but it was in magazines and newspapers that were not entertainment related. My local newspaper had a headline about it (and a full colour picture - oooh) and this is a case of something really being common knowledge.

I just don't know that this/these items are at that point. And if they are I will bow out and shut my mouth. But I would hate to see people spoiled - as I was spoiled - by those who think that 'everyone knows'.