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.

Huh. I did a GoogleNews search on one of the bits of casting news I know, and was handed a piece of information about S5 that is a separate casting spoiler. Which I already knew, but that's because I have been in the spoiler thread.

I'd not recommend that as a verification method for everyone.

What if the burden of proof were based on the releaser of the information? I mean, how I read the current proposal is that if someone with ME (presumably including an actor) or someone with an airing network releases the information to any kind of publication, no matter how small, then that information can be discussed. So the question isn't "is this widely known?" which is subjective, but instead "did a member of this group of people intentionally release this information in such a way that it ended up in a publication of some kind?" which is objective.