Except for the part where I don't know if the rest of the casting news I know qualifies for discussion or not. How is that overthinking?

Okay, if it were me? I would just decide that, if I can't decide, it's still too spoilery. I would assume most of us would come to the same conclusion. Granted, I'm making assumptions here, but so are you. It's just you seem to assume that this proposal would lead to major spoiler leakage and I'm not convinced it will.

Granted, I'm making assumptions here

That's the essence of the problem. "Aired in show or promo" doesn't have this problem.

"Officially published by the network."

I think that is a really big change. I would further amend that to "In the summer hiatus"

It's just you seem to assume that this proposal would lead to major spoiler leakage and I'm not convinced it will.

No, I'm not.

I just think that we may have 15 people with 20 different assumptions about what counts, and how to work out what counts.

I'm trying to narrow it down to two or three. Which are "don't say anything about it, then", "ask Plei", and "use GoogleNews".

I think the first one is weird, since .. why not? I don't cruise network release spots -- there's pretty much no way in my day to day I'd find out. Second one -- pretty clear. Third one -- there'll probably be spoilage of the person searching.

But since not everyone here even agrees on what "wide" is .. it's obvious it's not obvious.

"Officially published by the network."

Check me on this, but I would read this as not including interviews, so that Joss talking about it all summer does not allow us to talk about it, but ads, posters, promos, and radio spots do allow us to talk about it.

If that is the case, that definition would have very specific repercussions on which of the upcoming AtS casting changes we can talk about.

I'm happy with this definition. And it makes it as specifically quantifiable factor as "on air promo" so we don't have to deal with anything vague like "widely known."

HOW would "officially published by the network" be determined?

I'm telling you, it's a logistical nightmare.

And if the website is included that means Tim shouldn't have been upset about Lorne's head on a platter. Silly Tim!

I would also read "officially published by the network (during the summer hiatus)" as only including offical copy on thewb.com* for the show page.

(*or applicable network page)

Discussion boards, warnerbros.com, fan sites, none of those would count. Interviews would not count, but ad copy, including quotes, would.

Just as quantifiable as "on air promo," and actually doesn't all that radically change the current policy or definition, as far as I can see.

But since not everyone here even agrees on what "wide" is .. it's obvious it's not obvious.

If the proposal used as vague a term as “wide,” I’d be in total agreement with you and very firmly against this new proposal. But it doesn’t, it specifies:

That major casting spoilers (to the main cast only, not recurring or guest), which are being advertised by Fox, the WB or ME in press advertising or their official website, are no longer spoilers

I feel that a straightforward reading of these lines ("advertising" = advertisements; official websites != fansites) leaves little to no room for misunderstanding.

Just to put my biases in the open: My personal position is that I dislike the current level of spoiler sensitivity, but do not find it an overall impediment to enjoying the discussion on the board. Hence, I am not willing to support a change that would substantially change the board's spoiler policy, even though I am in disagreement with it. I'm just not convinced it's been adequately demonstrated that this change would do that.

And if the website is included that means Tim shouldn't have been upset about Lorne's head on a platter. Silly Tim!

Under the proposal, this would've still been a spoiler, because a) he isn't a regular member of the cast and b) the picture wasn't published over the summer.

Anyway, I think that's how it's working. Anyone have a similar or different understanding?

I'm telling you, it's a logistical nightmare.

No, Trudy, it's not a logisitical nightmare. It just expands the definition of "on air promo" to include radio, print, and web advertising. It very specifically does not include interviews and other second and third party information.

All it does is allow us to talk about the rest of the marketing campaign, which in the case of Angel, refers to one specific poster at this time, as far as I know.

(EtA: We can also specifically exclude web advertising, if that makes people happier)