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.

If you haven't one has no idea if it's not been mentioned there, does one?

I'm not seeing your point. After all, one presumably knows how to use search engines, doesn't one?

I have no problems with your proposed Spoilers Lite modification.

One presumably knows how to use search engines, doesn't one?

Guh. I preferred your suggestion about clearing it in Spoilage Lite. Trawling through the web, quite possibly other spoiler sites to find cites may be okay if you're a Sean who's not concerned about what he knows, but popping in to Spoilage Lite seems more hospitable. For one.

Ita, I didn't mean freaking Google! GoogleNews, or TheWB's internal search engine, or LexisNexis, or any of the thousand other news search engines out there. I just assumed that was obvious from context.

Tho really, if someone hears something but is too afraid of being spoiled further to do some elementary research to confirm it, isn't that his or her problem? If it's true, it will no doubt come from someone else; if it isn't, it's betetr kept under wraps.

Ita, I didn't mean freaking Google! GoogleNews, or TheWB's internal search engine, or LexisNexis, or any of the thousand other news search engines out there. I just assumed that was obvious from context.

Sorry to be dense, but what search engine did you mean, then?

if someone hears something but is too afraid of being spoiled further to do some elementary research to confirm it, isn't that his or her problem?

Yes, yes it is. However, if someone wants to discuss casting news in the Angel thread, it's his or her problem. Also, if someone wants to not discuss casting news in the Angel thread, it may become his or her problem.

That's why we're talking about it.

The current criterion (been aired on the WB) is really, really simple. Everyone knows whether a given piece of information falls into allowable (although we're human, and sometimes we slip).

That's my favourite thing about the current guidelines, actually. You can just point at the sign and shrug.

If you're going to replace it with fine print, or absent print, there's going to be a lot more accidental spoilage. That's the point I was trying to raise.

Sorry to be dense, but what search engine did you mean, then?

Perhaps I was unclear -- this is what I meant people could use:

GoogleNews, or TheWB's internal search engine, or LexisNexis, or any of the thousand other news search engines out there. I just assumed that was obvious from context.

FTR, I just tried this theory to confirm the big casting changes for Angel next season (my search terms were the series title and actor and character names). GoogleNews was able to confirm two out of three without giving away anything else. Granted, not everything on GoogleNews is major media, but it's a start.

Edit: Going home now. Have fun, all.

The reason I think it is key is that as someone who mostly has avoided spoilers since we were at TT, I feel like all of the sudden there has been a change in how we operate and what is considered a spoiler, especially over the summer. It seems like every other summer things have just been discussed-- not plot points, just minor casting things.

I feel like how the spoiler zeitgeist is right now means I can't even talk about Buffy the show being over, as it hasn't aired on a UPN promo. Or that Alyson Hannigan is in a movie.

Sorry. I thought you said you didn't mean those things.

Whatever your suggestion, I think it should be made explicit -- *this* is the burden of proof that has to be met. I think it should be part of the proposal.

which are being announced by the network, the studio, or the producers in press, advertising, or on their official website

I don't see any ambiguity there. And if someibe is unsure, I think going to spoilage lite, and asking there is a reasonable way to determine. Or backchannel Plei.