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?

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.

Not ita, but Lorne's decapitated head is the most egregious example of this.

If the WB gives away stuff on it's website above and beyond what's in the previews

They do -- I consider Lorne's decapitation and the upcoming cast to both fall into that category. So "but it's on the WB website!" doesn't strike me as a sound argument, because I suspect most people consider the decapitation a spoiler.

I'm just trying to iron that out.

Because, to me, the argument "It's on the website, in major city morning papers, TV Guide, and many web interviews with Joss" says inevitability, which is the only thing that leads me to a yes (but not in all threads).

Not ita, but Lorne's decapitated head is the most egregious example of this.

I was unspoiled for Lorne's decapitation. I know this is an obvious question, but because this is the first I've heard of it, I'm asking anyhow. Did they reveal Lorne's decapitation before that episode aired?

And if so, even though we're being abstract about this, why are we being abstract. That's a plot spoiler. We're not talking about plot spoilers. We're talking about off-season casting changes to the regular contracted cast. This very much feels like a red-herring argument, abstract or not.

Ok again - somethiing I can't prove but:

1)I think the particular kind of "spoiler" being legalized is something the overwhelming majority (not everybody but a really overwhelming majority) won't be bothered by.

2)A really tiny minority will be bothered by the passage of this proposal.

3)A much larger miniority will be equally bothered by the non-passage of this proposal.

4)And this proposal is really the compromise that frustrate the fewest people and unfrustrates the most - compared to the current system.

OK now I can't expect those opposed to the proposal to accept the above four premises. But I hope it is easy to see that support for it does follow from them, and that they are not obviously irrational or self-evidently wrong.