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.

Why is that point key? Does it make a difference to how the Phoenix surfing habits of Buffistas change or not change? To how deeply how many people may be inconvenienced by the change or the continued status quo?

It is. Some people like it, some people don't.

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?

I think the publicized by studio/producers/network thing is pretty clear. If it's genuinely unclear -- say, Joss holds an online chat and says Joel Gray is joining the Angel fulltime, and you haven't heard anything else about it -- you could check in spoilage light and see what the consensus is.

I honestly don't think this will be a problem that often.

I think the publicized by studio/producers/network thing is pretty clear.

If you've heard it from those sources sure. If you haven't one has no idea if it's not been mentioned there, does one?

If Spoilage Lite is the right place to go to verify if something's verboten or kosher in the main thread, I think it should be stated in the proposal, and also in thread headers.

ita - I think you are right that we can't tell people how to feel. I think the main thing we can do is guess how many people feel what. We don't have unbiased statistical surveys. But we do have the biased but still indicative responses of actual posters.

I may repeat my reasoning in a future post as to why I think more people are frustrated by not having this proposal in place than will be frustrated by having it place. But I just want to make one point (not to ita but to those who have gotten a bit emotional, including perhaps myself).

Taking either side on this proposal is not a sign of insensitivity.

Those who support it have judged that more people are frustrated by not being able to talk about widely known stuff, than the tiny minority who would be spoiled by talk of it.

Those who oppose it disagree with the "widely known" premise or the "tiny minority" premise or (most likely) both.

It is at bottom a disgreement about what the facts are. Thus I don't think anyone is being insenstive or trying to ride-roughshot or expects to be mollycoddled or packed in cotton wool. I honestly think people on both sides of the issues are supporting what they think is the best choice for all the Buffistas as a whole.