But we also can't assume everyone knows -- and I have been explicitly told that. So weighting one's vote on how many people are inconvenienced either way, although tempting and perhaps unavoidable, isn't sound.

I disagree. I mean, there's no way we can say what people who haven't posted about this know or don't know, full stop. So all we have to go on is what *has* been posted, which implies that the vast majority of Buffistas seem to know the casting news and/or to not regard it as an important spoiler. I think that's important to recognize, especially since past experience shows us that few lurkers vote.

It's possible the people who already know are posting about this issue of all balance to their prevalence in the population. But if they are, we'll know that when this vote goes down in flames.

Well, this is true, but is counterbalanced IMO by the inability to assume that there isn't such an army

I think this is a safe assumption. That's where we differ.

Edited to expand: Maybe you can explain where my logic is faulty, but this is how I think about this -- We know we have at least one Israeli poster. It's *possible* there are other posters who have not said where they live who are also Israeli, and also possible we have many Israeli lurkers.

But if we started talking about catering to the Israeli posters (say, by making the board Hebrew-language), I imagine people would protest that, based on the fact we don't know of many Israeli posters and it would be inconvenient for the rest of us. Now, the entire population of Israel may, in fact, read these boards. But unless they post about it, they don't count for purposes of decision-making, because we can't prove they exist.

From my perspective, the main point is fairly simple. The boards are here for discussion. If there is a supermajority of people who want to discuss a casting change between seasons, it is something of an imposition on the hardcore spoiler avoidant, but it does not completely compromise them. More importantly, it serves the board's basic purpose - discussion. By having a highly sensitive spoiler avoidy policy, we inhibit discussion in the show threads about the actual shows.

That's counter productive. I don't know if there is a wider principle at play here since there are so many personally held preferences about narrative-unveiling and spoilers that you really can't accomodate everybody. Some people will (and have) to make their own decisions on which threads to visit no matter what our policy is.

So, I think between season casting changes should be fair game for two simple reasons: (a) it is a relatively minor imposition on the spoiler avoidant - because it is only for the time between seasons, and doesn't include plot spoilers, and since it's betwee seasons most of the discussion in a show thread will probably be speculation about the new season. (b) Because it enhances rather than inhibits discussion.

We're spending a lot of time focussing on the elephant in the middle of the room.

Suppose Amy Acker is leaving the show ... Elena doesn't know she doesn't know, so she can't tell you. Are you assuming she knows, just because she knows the BCS? Are you willing to have people choose to avoid every NAFDA thread because of things they don't know they don't know?

And this affects inevitability. The WB may never mention ahead of time that Andy Hallet has left the show. It may never be apparent from promos, never make the major press.

It may not be inevitable.

On what grounds does the proposal intend this to be openly discussable?

I'm not clear on that.

I think this is a safe assumption. That's where we differ.

Well, not exactly. I think it's a fairly safe assumption too. We differ on whether we regard the observed proportions to be a statistically reliable indicator of the actual proportions. I believe it contains a persistent bias, for the reasons given.

But we also can't assume everyone knows -- and I have been explicitly told that. So weighting one's vote on how many people are inconvenienced either way, although tempting and perhaps unavoidable, isn't sound.

Again, if this is referencing my remarks in the spoiler thread, quite some time ago, I was admittedly being venty and hyperbolic.

Cindy, you weren't the only one who's said it. But I don't have Nilly's amazing powers, so citation will have to wait.

How else would it be changed?

Oh, no, I totally see why this is necessary, I just mean it points to how flinchy the board has become about these issues.

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

groovy!

I just mean it points to how flinchy the board has become about these issues

Spoilers, you mean? Or changes? I didn't think these issues had come up before.

If Amy Ackerman were leaving the show, and it was publicly discussed between seasons, then yes I think it would become widely known, and would not be a spoiler.