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.

Okay. The ASH casting news did not spoil that Giles wasn't going to be in Sunnydale. It only told you he wouldn't be in every show. For all we knew, they were going to start using ASH the way they used Kristine Sutherland.

In the case of someone leaving a cast in general, however, we never know if they'll come back as day players or not, so the "will he/won't he" surprise is still there. The only surprise broken is the "he won't be in every episode" surprise, but, as people pointed out earlier, that's a false promise anyhow. After a certain point, AB was in every episode until Tara was killed, despite the fact that she was never a contracted regular. JM was not in The Body, and EC and NB were not in CwDP, despite the fact that they were all contracted regulars.

edit - Xpost with Lyra Jane

Both positive and negative regular cast changes have been announced over summers past, and have not been treated as spoilers as recently as 1 year ago. (SEE: Firefly cast list, Giles, Fred, Gunn.) Now, they are considered spoilers.

I have not yet seen an argument that explains why the policy was allowed to change without consulting precedent. Therefore, I want to see the policy return to the precedent that worked for us (really! There didn't used to be complaints!) for 2-3 years before it was summarily changed.

Elephants in the room aren't at issue, in my mind, or they're only a side effect. The issue is that we pulled a 180 over the course of a year, very gradually and without enough discussion/resolution. Was the former policy so bad? Did it desperately need to change? I don't remember talking about it enough (at all), it just seemed to happen.

I think the non-spoiler-averse are feeling like we've been slowly, quietly marginalized, and that the marginalization is continuing to extreme, illogical results (i.e. "anti-spoilers"), which is why the anger. I'm pretty much middle-of-the-road on spoilers, and even I am feeling that anger, because it's moved into the realm of what feels really silly -- and paranoia-making -- to me.

I feel like mentioning anything about any ME actor is going to get me stomped on for anti-spoiling. I have no idea where the line is anymore, and it's frustrating.

Yes, this. The line keeps moving, and it feels like it keeps moving in only the one direction, and faster than I can keep track of it. Daniel was really hurt when people jumped on his post -- he had no idea he was posting wha some people would call a spoiler.

Allowing other network-authored promos is a logical extension of allowing aired promos. The network is advertising something. Therefore, it's officially Out There. And that's different, and very easily distinguished, from someone's con report or newspaper interview or whatever.

Yes, this. If the WB starts putting up ANGEL posters in New York, can I not talk about them because they haven't gone up in Iowa City?

May I ask what could be a stupid question (and for which I apologize in advance)?

What's an "anti-spoiler?"

Thanks!

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?

It tells me that their decision-making is going to be short-sighted, that their research is going to be incomplete and based on a weaker understanding of the lore and most importantly, it doesn't let me find out his absence within the context of the show, which is how I prefer to find out.

Sadly, I didn't account for my feelings about how the character was written in S7..

I think the non-spoiler-averse are feeling like we've been slowly, quietly marginalized, and that the marginalization is continuing to extreme, illogical results (i.e. "anti-spoilers"), which is why the anger.

Yes, this.

What's an "anti-spoiler?"

It's something that tells you something is probably not going to happen -- kind of a spoiler-once-removed. For example, saying Iyari Limon has a series next year, which most likely means Kennedy won't join the cast of AtS full-time. (At least, that's my understanding; it's a fairly new term).

Edit: And I got my year of birth post number, for the second time this week. Yay, me.

(I savor small triumphs)