Okay, I couldn't keep up with this whole discussion, so I had to skip some. Apologies.

I personally think that the spoiler definition on this board is overly sensitive. I am one of those who think that, if it's being actively promoted (particularly over the summer), I don't feel spoiled by it. But hey, I also figure that Spoilage Lite was made for peeps like me. In other words, I may disagree with the spoiler definition, but it has never hindered my enjoyment of the discussion on the board.

Frankly, I think the avoidance of casting changes on the Angel thread is very artificial. I even think the need to bring this discussion up in Light Bulbs is kinda over the top. But again, I'm not convinced it's hurting anyone to assume that someone on the board doesn't know it and doesn't want to know it, and so to keep said knowledge confined to the two spoiler threads.

I also saw Burrell's first post!

Weird! Was I a big goofball? Or was I being a pretentious twit?

Elena, before I even comtemplate your last question, I'm still looking for an answer to this:

Okay. But I'll point out that I've asked several general questions (which I thing the below was) and ita has asked you a question that also remain unanswered.

What value is there to forbidding printed and electronic between-season contracted-regulars casting promos, when we don't forbid televised between-season contracted-regulars casting promos?

Because the televised promos were deemed to be more easily accessible and/or hard to avoid and thus in the realm of common knowledge. Though that is only my interpretation of the genesis of our current spoiler policy and may not be correct. Anyone else have other thoughts?

I am right behind, in front of, next to you, in that plot spoilers (even if they're in the media or on the WB's site) should not be discussed in NAFDA - not even in white font. Ditto for casting spoilers during the season.

The reason I am not with you on the between-season, contracted-regulars casting promos, is because the WB will televise promos with the cast, and even if they don't, when the title credits run, who is and isn't a contracted regular will be made clear to everyone. People are not going to get their HSQ moment from credits, are they? And if so, if that's what we're protecting, I think it's frivolous.

Okay... Um...

is because the WB will televise promos with the cast,

At which time they are fair game according to current spoiler guidelines.

and even if they don't, when the title credits run, who is and isn't a contracted regular will be made clear to everyone.

Yes. I don't think that's in dispute.

People are not going to get their HSQ moment from credits, are they?

Sometimes they do. I know that I have.

And if so, if that's what we're protecting, I think it's frivolous.

Okay. I don't. I think it's important to not spoil people who wish to remain unspoiled - cast, plot, location, whatever - until the matter has become common knowledge, which the spoiler policy states is when the promo has been televised.

I even think the need to bring this discussion up in Light Bulbs is kinda over the top

How else would it be changed?

We *can* make an educated guess that if (pulling numbers out of my ass) 48 people have posted implying that they know the casting news, and two have posted implying that they do not, 96% of all active board members know the casting news.

Just as a statistical note, I think that may not be a valid inference. Because a person who doesn't know the casting news would also be less likely to know that there is casting news warranting comment from them (simply because a person who knows the casting news obviously also knows of the casting news). This means that the sampling method proposed would likely skew against the unspoiled, as there's a certain element of self-selection.

I think the fact that Elena got spoiled for it within these threads creates another possible bias, namely, if it has been mentioned on these boards, it may be that those unspoiled who were participating in the thread and therefore were in a position to announce their unspoiledness, would have run the risk of becoming spoiled as a result - thus again skewing against the unspoiled by the given sampling method.

Weird! Was I a big goofball? Or was I being a pretentious twit?

Neither. You were delurking to make a pretty good point about Xander and Anya's engagement, and then there were a lot of "Welcome Burrell!!!"s

Except -the summer before it would have bugged me a lot when speculating about the on-coming season to have taken part in a discussion about *whether* Buffy was returning and having had to confine speculationa about *how* she was returning to the spoiler threads.

That's getting really close to the "all the lurkers agree with me!" argument. Obviously, we can't know what people who don't say anything know, think, feel or believe.

I agree, Lyra. And I'd like to point out that I'm not the person who keeps bringing up the 'most people know' point. (edit) Except to ask if that's really the case.

Billytea, I understand that. My point is that if they don't say anything, we can't assume there's a vast army of the spoilerfree. It's the whole proving-a-negative issue.

Also, this thread was announced in Press; I'd think the unspoiled would want to weigh in here, since theyr'e the ones at risk.

Billyteas point is why I have said I can't prove it. But not just in the lightbulb threads, but in the natter, and discussion threads, I have gotten the impression that an overwhelming majority of people on this board don't find this particular type of information spoilery.

Bear in mind that basically we are talking about stuff that will be in the promos but is not yet. So it is spoilery only for those who find promos spoilery and manage to avoid them. And I don't think it is a bad guess that this is a small minority.