See or not see by cookie, it's good enough for me.
I have no clue if this is a possibility, but I think the idea rocks.
Angel: How're you feeling? Faith: Like I did mushrooms and got eaten by a bear.
'A Hole in the World'
Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!
We open it up, we talks the talk, we votes, we shuts it down. This thread is to free up Bureaucracy for daily details as we hammer out the Big Issues towards a vote. Open only when a proposal has been made and seconded according to Buffista policy (Which we voted on!). If this thread is closed, hie thee to Bureaucracy instead!
Laura - Jul 25, 2003 6:26:04 pm PDT #2116 of 10289
Our wings are not tired.
§ ita § - Jul 25, 2003 6:27:14 pm PDT #2117 of 10289
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Trudy, how is a TV movie a spoiler about a show that just started filming this week?
brenda m - Jul 25, 2003 6:30:36 pm PDT #2118 of 10289
If you're going through hell/keep on going/don't slow down/keep your fear from showing/you might be gone/'fore the devil even knows you're there
That post didn't have just the TV movie description in it. It had a flatly stated casting spoiler. The problem of the unclear description of the movie just compounded things, but it wasn't the main issue.
§ ita § - Jul 25, 2003 6:33:25 pm PDT #2119 of 10289
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Ahah.
Then it kinda looks like the argument is at crosspurposes, or maybe I just don't get it -- links have been provided and marked spoilery (sometimes post-event, but it's been the de facto practice). Is this what you want to stop, Trudy?
Or is Plei saying that links don't need to be tagged ... or what?
P.M. Marc - Jul 25, 2003 6:38:09 pm PDT #2120 of 10289
So come, my friends, be not afraid/We are so lightly here/It is in love that we are made; In love we disappear
Or is Plei saying that links don't need to be tagged ... or what?
Links should still be tagged. Mention of the movie, or of NB's pilot, however, should still be just freaking fine.
(Daniel's original cut and paste blurs the matter, but only slightly.)
JM is playing a gay guy in a movie. He may smooch a feller. It should be glorious.
I'm not whitefonting that information, for example.
Laura - Jul 25, 2003 6:40:57 pm PDT #2121 of 10289
Our wings are not tired.
I'm not whitefonting that information, for example.
Is there sparkle font? Because shiny!
Trudy Booth - Jul 25, 2003 6:41:44 pm PDT #2122 of 10289
Greece's financial crisis threatens to take down all of Western civilization - a civilization they themselves founded. A rather tragic irony - which is something they also invented. - Jon Stewart
Plei seems offended at whiting them.
Speaking, probably, for the Virgins I advocate not discussing unaired material and, as a courteosy, whitefont possible spoilers.
§ ita § - Jul 25, 2003 6:41:49 pm PDT #2123 of 10289
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
It would seem to me that Charisma's TV Movie (spoilery for Angel S5) is fair, then, right? To both PMM and Trudy? Nothing needs be whited out, but the link is tagged?
I just don't see why the fight.
Elena - Jul 25, 2003 6:41:53 pm PDT #2124 of 10289
Thanks for all the fish.
I had planned for this to be my last post on this subject - answering some questions and clarifying my position - but I have been asked to try to stay, and I will try.
Cindy
Cindy "Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!" Jul 25, 2003 12:16:47 pm PDT
said
Because I haven't seen any answer to my question on what we are protecting by having the rules limited to only allow the discussion of broadcast promo information,
Cindy, I answered that here (I assume you skipped or skimmed my post first time around) -
Elena "Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!" Jul 25, 2003 11:30:52 am PDT
Because the televised promos were deemed to be more easily accessible and/or hard to avoid and thus in the realm of common knowledge. Though that is only my interpretation of the genesis of our current spoiler policy and may not be correct. Anyone else have other thoughts?
But the linked post has a fuller answer to your questions.
Trudy said
You know, white-fonting an implication that someone is leaving the show shouldn't be skin off anybody's nose.
Plei responded.
White-fonting that someone has a TV movie airing, however, is. And it's unreasonable.
I will repeat - for at least the third time - that there was a very spoilery commentary in the quoted article before they talked about the tv movie. Very spoilery. It spoiled me.
My position on this issue is that if we run a risk of spoiling people we shouldn't talk about it in the show threads. Talk about it in the two threads available for that purpose. I am concerned that people will be bringing up subjects that they assume are widely known when they are not.
I understand that people are frustrated about not being able to discuss it. I understand why people are frustrated. But I do not understand where all the anger is coming from. And I especially do not understand where all the contempt for the unspoiled is coming from. I thought that this was a board where people tried to respect each other and their views. I do not belittle and mock people who enjoy spoilers, and I assumed that my views would garner the same basic respect. I was wrong, and that saddens me more than I can express here.
I will ask that the proposal be very clearly worded on which threads will allow the discussion and which will not should the proposal pass.
P.M. Marc - Jul 25, 2003 6:44:03 pm PDT #2125 of 10289
So come, my friends, be not afraid/We are so lightly here/It is in love that we are made; In love we disappear
Only if the content contains spoilers.
A report on the movie, in thread like
Hey, anyone catch that Charisma is going to be in See Jane Date on Sunday?
should not need tagging or white font. To be clear.