which are being advertised by Fox, the WB or ME in press advertising or their official website, are no longer spoilers,

Just to pick nits, you mind want to amend this to be a bit less specific: Change WB to "the network the show airs on" just in case, for example, Sci-Fi decides on the spur of the moment to start Firefly again, or Joss gets a new show on ESPN.

Katie - there should be a summer stipulation. Jim hasn't been here much since he made the proposal.

Jim - when come back...

Jim your proposal was worded as follows:

That major casting spoilers (to the main cast only, not recurring or guest), which are being advertised by Fox, the WB or ME in press advertising or their official website, are no longer spoilers, and should be discussed in the show threads. This includes cast additions or departures. The Main Cast are those characters who appear in the opening credits.

Jim, you will have the decision making power about the final wording of the proposal. I would like to suggest modifying it slightly to something like:

Major casting information, released during the NAFDA summer, regarding the addition to, or departure of actors from the cast of contracted regulars, which are being announced by the network, the studio, or the producers in press, advertising, or on their official websites, should no longer be considered spoilers, and should be open for discussion in NAFDA threads. Contracted regulars are those actors whose characters appear in the opening credits. This proposal should not affect other plot or casting spoiler rules. It does not lift the prohibition against NAFDA discussion of recurring character casting spoilers. It does not lift the prohibition on NAFDA discussion of an actor's change in status from contracted regular to recurring.

(I replaced FOX, the WB, and ME with network, studio and producers to vague it up for the future, in case someday, we're all devotees of show made and aired by other folks - unlikely, I know. )

Because I haven't seen any answer to my question on what we are protecting by having the rules limited to only allow the discussion of broadcast promo information, here's why I am voting for Jim's proposal (wording dependent - like if he says we have to send him all our money, I reserve the right to change my mind):

Most importantly, I think it's inevitable that this information will be allowed in NAFDA before the S5 premiere, so I don't understand the point of putting it off any longer, particularly in light of the fact that there have been official announcements of the cast.

Additionally, people are highly unlikely to get a HSQ moment from these contracted regular cast changes, because mostly likely, the network broadcast promos will reflect these cast changes, thus opening up the subject to NAFDA threads, before the show airs. The information has already been given in press releases, announced on the networks cast list page, and revealed by writers and producers in media interviews.

Even if the network doesn't produce new TV promos for the show, the opening title credits will show the names and images of those actors who are contracted regulars for a given season. Thus, the only likely HSQ moment we seem to be protecting isn't an HSQ moment at all, but rather an anti-climax. I understand some peope skip the credits, but that's neither here nor there where I'm concerned. We never restrict topic based on which parts of the broadcast hour someone skipped.

Finally, between season casting spoilers do not reveal any plot information. Anything is likely to happen, and it seems to me the season finale of the prior season gives much more of an indication to what we'll see in the coming season, than the addition or removal of some actors and characters.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not with Sean on all casting spoilers.

Cindy is dead to me.

Except where she says this...

People are presuming that knowing about a departure or arrival tells them something about the plot. At the very worst, it tells them there may be something to speculate about. That's it.

We now return you to the dead woman speaking for me in all things.

I personally like the promo limitation because it's so clear and easy to follow, you know? There's no grey area. Promo has been shown including X fact or it hasn't. Plus, it's the rule I "grew up with" when I went spoilerfree after S4 Buffy, so it's what I'm used to.

(Posting this to answer Cindy's question, not to argue the point.)

So the answer to ita's question is now that if Time Out New York announced over the summer that AA was leaving Angel - whether in the first episode or the fifteenth - then yes, we could discuss that in the NAFDA threads. If Joss announced it at Comicon, we still wouldn't be able to discuss it outside of Spoilers. Yes?

It eats Sean, starting with his bottom.

Okay, seriously, because I keep bouncing off of this:

How is "Giles isn't going to be in Sunnydale for most of the year" not a plot point?

How is "Giles isn't going to be in Sunnydale for most of the year" not a plot point?

How is it a spoiler? What does it spoil? What surprise does it give away? Does it tell you how they'll handle it? Does it tell you where he'll be or why he'll be wherever? Does it tell you why he won't be around? Does it tell you what he'll do when he is around? Does it tell you his fate? Does it tell you if he'll have sex, get decapitated, sing again, step through the screen and take me away from all this?

What surprise does it give away?

The fact that Giles isn't going to be in Sunnydale. Which otherwise would've been a surprise, since he'd been a regular for five years.

How is "Giles isn't going to be in Sunnydale for most of the year" not a plot point?

Because we can't say Giles won't be in Sunnydale from knowing ASH won't be on the show. We can infer it, but they could have handled his absence as they did Kristine Sutherland's in S4, where the character was referred to but not seen.

Because we can't say Giles won't be in Sunnydale from knowing ASH won't be on the show. We can infer it, but they could have handled his absence as they did Kristine Sutherland's in S4, where the character was referred to but not seen.

Ah, okay, that's an argument that makes sense to me. Thanks.