Alright, not a spoiler.

Telling people they can discuss X from the website and not Y will prove tricky.

And the disagreement is because the wording has not completely gelled. Different wordings suggest slightly different ranges of permissable sources.

Maybe we should stick to Jims orginal wording as far as source.

"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 credit

Advertised by ... in press advertising or their official websites.

OK - that is absolutely unambiguous.

I would still change "Fox, the WB or ME" to the "The network broadcasting the show, or the production company creating and writing the show" - so that if Angel moves to HBO that is included, and if ME changes it's name to "Mutant Fluffy Bunnies" that is still covered.

And of course include that this applies only to betwen season spoilers.

So the propose change is pretty close to Cindy's"

"That major casting spoilers (to the main cast only, not recurring or guest), which are being advertised by Fox, the WB or ME the network broadcasting the show or the production company responsible for creating and writing the show 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 credit. Information is only considered non-spoiler if released at least one month prior to the season in which the casting change takes place.

Most of the definitions presented by the people here have been very close to identical, so saying we "can't agree" and that the definition is "not obvious" is kind of blowing things out of proportion.

I don't think it is. We have a hard enough time with the policy as it now stands and it is VERY clear.

Telling people they can discuss X from the website and not Y will prove tricky.

I think "official copy" would cover it. That's very specifically not boards and chat rooms.

But I for one would be willing to forego web advertising, just to be safe.

Sean

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.

Burrell

"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" [quotations added to indicate that this is not my own language, I was quoting the proposal]

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

Guys, you don't even agree NOW what "officially published by the network or production company" means. AKA, it is NOT obvious.

I'm not trying to be a pill. What is the big disagreement here?

What is the big disagreement here?

You left out Katie's interpretation.

1) So, our policy would be that some website information is discussable and some isn't?

THAT will cause confusion as well.

2) I'd really like the wording to include: if this motion passes thread for those who wish to be unspoiled will be created.

Generally out of respect and particularly since it will be tricky to propose and pass a motion when there will hardly any threads on the board safe to us.

The disagreement is that one of you includes the website and one of you does not.

I think you have to include the website. Because once a major casting change is confirmed on the official website, it will be everywhere.

I am not trying to be a pill either, but I am wondering, Trudy if you were upset when we discussed Buffy coming back after Season 5 or ASH's recurring status in the main threads? I went back and read those threads and I didn't see much objection to the discussion.

I also vaguely remember discussing the fact that Amber Benson would still be recurring in Season 6 on the board over the summer with no problem. There was no spoilers lite and I was a spoiler virgin. I don't remember people being upset then either.

Perhaps it would be best if we stopped whitefonting in Spoilers Lite, which makes it a logistical nightmare?