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?

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.

I'm not whitefonting that information, for example.

Is there sparkle font? Because shiny!

Plei seems offended at whiting them.

Speaking, probably, for the Virgins I advocate not discussing unaired material and, as a courteosy, whitefont possible spoilers.

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.

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.

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.

Not talking in general at all ... that link was spoilery, right? Therefore needed to be tagged, but the movie's existence is NOT a spoiler?

I'm really completely confused.

The fact that there weren't loud objections doesn't mean they weren't spoilers.

How about the reason they weren't spoilers is because they weren't anybody else's idea of spoilers except for yours? And whoever else may not have made a loud (or any) objection?

Sorry. I've been trying to keep clear of the more volatile elements of this, as a newbie (at least as a poster), but Trudy, I love most of what you post, but the above quote was the first time that wasn't something from someone on here I thought was some form of troll that made me scream "Oh FUCK YOU!" out loud to at my monitor. And I talk to my monitor a lot, sadly.

It makes me want to say, deal with the vote or take your toys and go home. And I really don't want to be saying that. I'll deal with the vote quite nicely, whichever way it goes, whether I like it or not.

And if that's a flame, please let me know, becuase I will apologize. I didn't think I thought as strongly on this as I do - and as far as the OUTCOME - I don't. I just object highly to the content of the arguement against, right now.

But I do not understand where all the anger is coming from.

Because the rules shifted gradually, without discussion, and we feel like common sense was thrown out with the bathwater.

Things that would have been fine for discussion very recently suddenly aren't.

This point keeps getting ignored.

If you want to talk about slippery slopes and the erosion of rights, that's pretty much where you start, all apologies for the hyperbole.