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)

It's something that tells you something that's not going to happen -- kind of a spolier-once-removed. For example, saying Iyari Limon has a series next year, which probably means Kennedy won't be a full-time cast member on Angel.

Ah. I see now. I was thinking like a foiler, but I knew that couldn't be right. Thanks.

I still don't think it spoils anyone for anything that is going to happen on the show

people are highly unlikely to get a HSQ moment from these contracted regular cast changes

And, you know what? Preferential voting is easy to understand.

Now that we're done telling each other how the other one feels, can we toss it out the window? Because those points are just as valid as "It's no big deal not to discuss it."

I think it's inevitable that this information will be allowed in NAFDA before the S5 premiere

I don't include departures in that, and I'm curious to know the vector you think would make those inevitable, barring "Charisma has a new series in the fall". Because if she's just staying home to play with her kid, and the Boston Herald interviews her about her SAHMness ... that's still inevitable? I don't think it's hardly inevitable.

As things stand, I'd vote for moving cast additions into allowable topics for the threads of the show in question. Anything else, I'd probably vote no on.

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.

I think Nutty's point here is key.

And I'm also unsure about the mechanism by which a piece of news is determined to valid under this.

Say there's casting stuff I know because I know. I don't know if it's been widely disseminated. How do I find out?

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.

I think Nutty's point here is key.

I agree. I am also not sure that the proposal as it stands addresses this. I am also middle of the road for spoilers. I am still in spoilers right now because I can keep up there, but will probably step out soon.