I don't actually understand what you mean by 'riding this really hard'. (Literally, not sure what the phrase means here.)

You seem to be responding very similarly to everyone when they mention a scenario in which a main casting spoiler has been disseminated (i.e., "I haven't seen it." "Not to me." etc.)

Can we get abstract for a second, Cindy? I'm asking about principles -- you've stated that the WB promoting something is sufficient that you don't consider it a spoiler.

I'm trying to understand that if the WB promotes something the writer doesn't want you to know -- do you still consider that something that can spoil?

Again -- my only reason for voting yes would be because I'd bowed to the inevitability of the news spreading. Not the rightness, or the lack of detriment to people that don't want to know. Just that ... it'll happen to most, trust me.

Other people are obviously coming from different places, and I'm trying to ascertain what they are.

You seem to be responding very similarly to everyone when they mention a scenario in which a main casting spoiler has been disseminated (i.e., "I haven't seen it." "Not to me." etc.)

I'm just saying what my experience is. If I'm giving similar answers it's because they are true - I haven't seen these things that are being mentioned. Is it really any different then people explaining where they saw the news?

Have you guys ever been spoiled when you didn't want to be? It's not a good thing. I'm just trying to keep it from happening to other people. I don't think that's a bad thing.

Yep - Joyce's death in a thread title at the old WB threaded Bronze. It sucked. It wasn't the only time, either. I wasn't always a spoiler hound. Sometimes, I'm so pristine I could be canonized, and I have reasons for both spoiling and not spoiling.

The thread title on Joyce's death spoiled a story for me - spoiled the end of IWMTLH.

I'm going to ask again, what are we protecting by delaying this discussion of additions/departures until the promo airs on TV? At that point, we all agree the info is fair game for NAFDA. So people who go to NAFDA would not learn this information as part of a plot, anyhow. Those who abandon NAFDA around August or September would still not learn this information from the plot, but rather from the opening credits.

What value is there to be had from extending the rule to this extreme?

What value is there to be had from extending the rule to this extreme?

I'm still not 100% sure that this is an extension of the rule. I consider it to be within the actual spoiler guideline.

That's quite different from the current understanding/ruleset. I think the promos set a good line because they are canon-ish. Once the WB airs a promo, that's easily quantifiable.

I think, as Cindy points out, the most important one of the set is WB promotional material. Networks do not spend a crapload of money in promotional materials unless something is set in stone.

I agree with Elena -- the request is for a modification to the clearly delineated status quo.

Can we get abstract for a second, Cindy? I'm asking about principles -- you've stated that the WB promoting something is sufficient that you don't consider it a spoiler.

I did, but I stated it in the context of this proposal. I should have qualified that, I guess. I understand people avoid show websites and TV Guide, etc., to avoid the kind of information they'd only otherwise find out on the show. I'm all for protecting that kind of information, including the kind like Lorne's decapitation, or Faith's return at the end of the S2 A:ts premiere, as already noted.

I'm trying to understand that if the WB promotes something the writer doesn't want you to know -- do you still consider that something that can spoil?

I don't know. I know we're being abstract, but can you give me a for instance? Because right now, all I can think of is the previews, in which the WB does tell us things the writers would rather they don't, but still, we allow discussion of the previews in NAFDA.

If the WB gives away stuff on it's website above and beyond what's in the previews, I don't know about it. Do I want plot information spoilers to be allowed in NAFDA? No. I do think off-season changes to the regular cast should be allowed in the discussion, because the WB has officially released this information in some promotional materials already (poster, web site, press release, WB Brass interviews), so like you, I think it's inevitable that it will be discussed before the show hits the air.

If I'm not getting what you're asking, please let me know. I'm not trying to be difficult.

I wanted to answer this:

What if an ME had been arrested for some crime, which then affected said actor's ability to be on the show. How would that situation be defined?

I think it would quickly become an Elephant in the Room -- even if it wasn't major news on entertainment sites, we'd probably find out fairly quickly. Like any other life event (e.g., CC becoming pregnant) it wouldn't be a spoiler, though plot points based on it (e.g., Cordy's coma and the birth of Jasmine) would be.

I'm still not 100% sure that this is an extension of the rule. I consider it to be within the actual spoiler guideline.

I don't want to play semantics. What value is there to forbidding printed and electronic promos, when we don't forbid televised promos?