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.

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.

This is how spoiler confirmation was handled through large portions of S4...

Why is that point key?

It's key, because we're being told something isn't allowed that used to be allowed, and that really, is still allowed in some instances. We're free to discuss Christian Kane not being on the show. We're free to discuss AD and DB being on the show. How does discussion of new-person-on-the-show differ from those that are allowed? How does it spoil us more? How does discussion of the departures differ from those that are allowed?

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

Wow.

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."

You quoted me as saying:

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

As that came across as telling you how you (or anyone feels), I apologize. I didn't mean to do that, and I can see where it reads as if I did.

I do think taking it as being told how you'll feel, seems to ignore the context of this proposal and ensuing conversation. I think it unlikely ita, because we are allowed to talk about them once the promos air, and because they will be evident in the credits long before they are evident in the episode. And when we post and watch, somebody is going to mention the opening credits.

Disagree with me. But when taking a point out of a particular context that I've stressed again and again, and equating it with preferential voting, your posts no longer read as a devil's advocate stance. I am very much talking from a place of inevitability, which, if I recall correctly, you said was your reason (at one point) for considering this proposal. If in choosing different reasons where, when, why and how I see it as inevitable, or speculating about a different result of that inevitability invalidates my opinion in your eyes, so be it.

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.

Actually I've been told by one group of people who are already spoiled against their will that a new series doesn't mean someone can't be on A:ts, and I've been told by another group of people that a new series does in fact mean someone cannot be on A:ts, and I'd better not mention anyone's new series. So, I don't see why you're barring "Charisma has a new series." I am under the impression that I ought not mention if Charisma gets a series. That confusion is a big part of what I dislike about the current enforcement of the spoiler policy. It is being enforced at the whim of the most averse in the thread, at the time, sometimes with disregard for the actual policy's purpose.

I don't know what SAHMness means. I am also confused by your use of vector (which is my fault) so I'm not positive I'm going to respond to the question you've asked, but I'll try.

If you're asking why I think the spoiler policy needs to be adjusted (rather than just giving the elephant an exception), then my answer is that cast photos and promos generally show the cast. If I took Plei's recent post correctly, I've just learned that AD never was shown in a televised promo. I don't think I'd read that when I made my earlier comments. Still, even though he wasn't in a TV promo, last year, we certainly talked freely in NAFDA about seeing AD's Wesley, come the Fall. Ditto Fred, Gunn, Lorne, Connor and Cordy.

I think by allowing casting information from televised promos, but disallowing official announcements of the new cast line-up from the official website, press releases, and interviews with studio heads, writer/producers, and network suits ignores the reason we allow discussion of previews and promos in the first place. Isn't some of the reason we allow discussion of previews and promos because it's sanctioned by someone (the crack-smoking promo editors, no doubt) as "stuff we can know that won't spoil"?

I'm with you that the WB spoils Lorne's decapitation is bad spoilage - (very bad). I still think it's a red herring in this discussion, because the proposal is discussing casting changes among contracted regulars. Those announcements just tells us which actors are in the cast - something we always make some sort of post about, whenever we speculate (even unspoiled) on any series.

Why could we annouce Wash was going to be played by Alan Tudyk, but can't say Regular Y is going to be played by Howdy Doody?

I am also with you about during-the-season casting spoilers. They can reveal plot, because depending on the storyline a character is right in the middle of, learning the actor is suddenly no longer a contracted regular may very well tell us he'll be killed, etc.

An upcoming season is a blank slate, and learning so-and-so is coming or won't show up at all, doesn't tell us word one about how it will be addressed, and in the case of departures - whether it even will be addressed any more than it was in the prior - and by definition NAFDA-approved - season.

Plei, are you willing to be included in the proposal? That's all I'm kvetching about right now (well, that and DON'T use GoogleNews if you don't want to get more spoiled about what you think you know).

Make it clear. 'Sall I'm saying.

Well, all I'm saying right now.

I'll be saying something else as soon as I think of it.