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?

The discussion of Buffy coming back was due to the change of networks and concern that the show was being cancelled (if you recall, the WB acted like it was).

The difference between that and "we want to talk about it NOW" is tremendous.

Trudy, not to be confrontational, but I think you're overstating a lot of things, and I don't think that's helping the discussion.

Quite frankly, no matter what our spoiler policy, there's nothing to prevent someone coming into even the Ultra Pure Spoiler Virgin thread and posting all over that place about how Orlando Bloom will be leaving the cast of AtS next season, and spoiling the crap out of you.

It seems like you're insisting that we find a way to create an absolutely pure and sanctified place for you to never be spoiled, or you're going to take your bat and ball and go home.

Again, I appreciate your view on this matter, but I don't think that's either realistic or constructive.