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.

Oh! I agree the numbers are probably not valid on a scientific level, but they do give a rough indication, which is all I meant to start with.

So if it's not widely discussed (and what's your definition of widely?) then it is a spoiler? Because that needs to be reflected in the proposal.

If AD is leaving Angel, for instance, how will the promos tell us this?

Given that they never bother to put him IN the general promos... it'd be kind of hard. Not that I'm bitter.

(Ahem)

Any cast members that they do tend to focus on in promos leaving, I think we'd tell by their absence. Or at least start speculating.

Or, if they had one of those (like the promo stills) shots with the full cast, and someone wasn't in the shot, that would be a Big Ass Clue.

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.

What's this? Amy Acker is leaving the show to train elephants to sit in the middle of a room?

ita - YOU BASTARD!!!

Okay.

con - Many people have said that knowing such things as the current casting spoilers decrease their enjoyment in the show.

pro - People who know the spoilers want to discuss them freely in the NAFDA threads because not doing so decreases their enjoyment (in the board? in the show?)

Is this an accurate summation of the basic positions?

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

I'm not clear on that.

I think this is a key point. Isn't the proposal limited to discussion of between-season casting spoilers that are being actively promoted by either the network or ME?

In which case, I personally know of 3 spoilers, only two of which, in my mind, would meet this criteria.

So if it's not widely discussed (and what's your definition of widely?) then it is a spoiler? Because that needs to be reflected in the proposal.

I agree with ita. I've been asking a similar question all day.

I think this is a key point. Isn't the proposal limited to discussion of between-season casting spoilers that are being actively promoted by either the network or ME?

Yes.

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

I meant spoilers.

. Isn't the proposal limited to discussion of between-season casting spoilers that are being actively promoted by either the network or ME?

Which I think is a reasonable definition of "widely".

Except as I remember it has to be a "major" casting spoiler - which I dimly remember as as involving a regular (every episode) cast member being added or deleted.

Does someone wan't to repost the full-text with amendments that were accepted?

In which case, I personally know of 3 spoilers, only two of which, in my mind, would meet this criteria.

Oh, my god. I only know two. Are they the two that Burrell thinks meet the criteria and would be openly discussed if this proposal passes or is there another one that will be discussed that I don't know about.

See, this is the problem. And this is why we needed to have guidelines about when something is considered to be widely known and not a spoiler. Which is how we developed our current spoiler policy.