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)

"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, and should be discussed in the show threads. This includes cast additions or departures. The Main Cast are those characters who appear in the opening credits."

Katie, has "press advertising" been cleared up for you, then?

I'm wondering -- what form has "advertised by ... ME" usually taken in the past?

Yeah but Lorne's head on the platter was not a casting spoiler nor between seasons. For that matter, Lorne was not a series reguar at the time. So it would not have been allowed under this proposal (especially with various modifications proposed).

And officially published is NOT a logistical nightmare.

Here is what counts

1) press releases from ME or WB (or more generally the producer or network) - yeah a press release can be printed anywhere - but they have to be sourced back to an official intentional release by the network or producers.

2) Websites of ME or WB (or more generally the producer or network). Official sites only - Fan sites don't count.

3) Other publications by the producer or the network. WB is big enough that there probably is some sort of WB newsletter put out by the PR the department that the public can subscribe to. There is no ambiguity there. "Publication by" is a pretty narrow term. It has to be published by an entity legally part of the corporate family of either the Network or production company. Interviews in "Joe's fanzine and fish shop" don't count. Interviews in Entertainent Weekly don't count either. Because it has to be in a publication of owned by the network or production company.

Of course once they come from these official sources they may be widely shared. But they have to originally and provably come from one of the above sources.

Now advertisements (including posters and such) can first appear anywhere. But they are identifiable by being paid for by the production company or network. Again, no ambiguity whatsoever.

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.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

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

And that's exactly why.

Katie, has "press advertising" been cleared up for you, then?

Er, well, I'm not sure. Here's my current working definition (with the understanding that I of all people would never be the first person to bring up something that fits within my very wide definition of "spoiler," so it hardly matters what I think.)

Someone connected to ME or a network says, before the start of the season, "X is joining/leaving the show." That fact is a) publicized in some way (radio spot, tv promo, poster, etc.) or b) shows up in a professional publication (official website, TV Guide ad, article in the Albany Times Union). If this happens, it's okay to go ahead and talk about the fact that X is joining/leaving the show.

Er there are actually some proposed changes.

There was a proposed change to "officially published by the network".

Which I suggestion a futher change of:

"officially published by the network or production company".

This is a little broader, but I think still clear and unambigous.

officially published by the network or production company

I think it should be kept to just the network, so there's no ambiguity.