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.

I think this is where the anger is coming from because obviously there are a number of people who do not believe there was EVER any agreement on this issue w/r/t main credits casting issues (I'm not even going to call them spoilers).

ita - the reason we want to discuss stuff that (for most of us) is not a spoiler is that it intergrates with the other discussion. For example, if there was a NAFTA 24 thread on the board, and it was widely known that Depp was joining the cast, then it would be very frustrating to discuss what next seasons 24 was going to be like without mentioning this. And the vast majority of people, including otherwise unspoiled people, would not be able to take part in Depp discussions, because they would not want to converse in the hard core spoiler thread, and might not want to take part in spoilers light thread, because they would not want to hear other spoiling casters that were not new permanent additions to the show.

I don't think a movie deal is comparable to someone signing on for another series.

This is part of what confuses me. In the incident in May, I made my wishful thinking post, in part, because I assumed that because it had been openly discussed that Actor X had a series, certainly my statements couldn't spoil anything.

I was corrected and told that because Actor X has a series, it does not rule him out for roles on A:ts, but my comments did rule him out. Now I'm being told that discussing that someone has a series is against the rules, because it does rule him out.

Which is it?

Jess, can you explain to me why it makes you angry? I was startled, because at first I thought it detailed a casting change, and then I realised it was just a poorly written article.

Admittedly, I didn't real the whole thing, because I'm big with the not caring, but was it explicit about casting news? And you're mad he couldn't link to explicit news? Because ... people do do that, caveated, all the time.

it intergrates with the other discussion

I guess I'm terribly slanted by my own huge disinterest, and after seeing how quickly it fizzled out in Spoilers.

Which isn't to say that your frustration is moot, but you didn't talk about how you feel your frustration balances against the people who are hard core averse.

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.

I've been an active member of this community since TT, and I disagree. The concept of the "anti-spoiler" did not exist until this past May, apparently created out of thin air during the incident that Cindy mentioned. The policy of white-fonting BtVS stuff in the AtS thread, and vice versa, was likewise created out of thin air after the creation of the Firefly thread, with no discussion.

I was corrected and told that because Actor X has a series, it does not rule him out for roles on A:ts, but my comments did rule him out. Now I'm being told that discussing that someone has a series is against the rules, because it does rule him out.

Cindy, to clarify my take on this: An Angel cast member signing on for a new series I'd consider a big honking spoiler. A Buffy cast member I wouldn't generally. But in that specific incident, the posts leading up to yours (in the day or so before) included several broad hints that someone from Buffy was joining the regular cast of Angel. So in that context, what would not ordinarily be an issue does have the potential to spoil. No, it wasn't against the rules to post. But it was a delicate subject, and I didn't then (and still don't really) understand what was so upsetting about being asked to whitefont it in that case.

Jess, can you explain to me why it makes you angry? I was startled, because at first I thought it detailed a casting change, and then I realised it was just a poorly written article.

Cindy's been saying it better than I have. I don't think this type of news would spark huge, deep discussions, but neither do I think they have to be instantly deleted, poorly written or not.

I feel like mentioning anything about any ME actor is going to get me stomped on for anti-spoiing. I have no idea where the line is anymore, and it's frustrating.

I mean, ED's new show wasn't considered a spoiler. So why was NB's pilot?

The policy of white-fonting BtVS stuff in the AtS thread, and vice versa, was likewise created out of thin air after the creation of the Firefly thread, with no discussion.

Really? I do remember discussion -- two week threshold and all that.

But it seemed fairly organic to me, just politeness for people in situations we knew about.

Not having my blood boil every time things like Dan's post get deleted.

It was deleted accidently - Jon apologised and indicated that he should have just whitefonted the spoilery preamble.

And I meant it when I said I can't tell, under current spoiler rules, when that kind of thing would cease to be spoilery. When the TV movie airs? When promos for it air? And if it's not on the WB, would the promos themselves be considered spoilers?

The fact that there is a tv movie wasn't the spoiler issue. The preamble about AtS was the spoiler, and it gave the impression that it was a series.

Elena, if your expectations for S5 turn out to be wrong, will you still consider yourself to have been spoiled?

My expectations for the season have been coloured by this. So, yes, still spoiled.