Umm, do you? Because I do, and I see there a fair bit of frustration, much like what you'll see in this discussion, but not contempt.

Our mileages clearly vary on this. I have read part of the spoiler thread after the fact, and have been informed of more recent discussions there, but warned to stay away from them.

Amy, when you're part of the object of that frustration (well, the barrier to what everyone onthread wants to happen), it's very easy to take it all very personally.

The question up for vote, as it stands, IS about the shift.

The casting elephant has not been broadcast in promo or episode. It is a spoiler under current definition, regardless of shifting.

In the past similar (though not nearly so epic and intreiguing) casting news has been discussed pre-season. Even though they were, by letter of the law, spoilers nobody objected since their impact wasn't that big a deal.

It looks like people on both sides feel marginalised, while neither feel like they're marginalising.

As it stands, the proposal will make certain threads untenable for some people. This is making some folks tetchy.

The Phoenix has gotten more and more spoiler-restrictive over more of its breadth, and this is also tetchmaking.

This is a good summation of the frustrations that I am seeing here as well. I'm not seeing a resolution yet that will make most people happy. But maybe one way to start is to shift the discussion here to discovering what *is* the common ground--what can we all agree upon--and then to finding a solution that is most acceptable to most people.

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.

ITA on this. Have you seen something like this? (Not snarking, an honest question.) But that's a start in getting some things identified that we are in agreement on.

I have been reading the spoiler thread. Much discussion of coriander, basil, and cilantro. There is frustration, but I wouldn't say contempt - at all.

Sadly, I don't agree, and I find it both upsetting and mystifying.

I’d appreciate it if you could find a solution overnight because it is the hour for me to retire to bed with book and sake. I have 4 kids here tonight and I need to get them settled down. Night all.

by letter of the law

OK - this can't help but be unpleasant, but which law? If it's the Phoenix FAQ, or other board law, from what I saw (and I lurked a LONG time before I posted) then that was the bullshit consensus law. Which is WHAT THIS VOTE IS TRYING TO CHANGE. Sorry for the asscaps, but, ya know, get the votes and put the question down. Why is that an issue?

Can I be confident in extrapolating that not only is the definition of spoiler an issue here, but how far this will extend? That Trudy, for instance, won't be comfortable in Bitchy Fic or Bitches under the new definition?

Yes.

If people are discussing non-broadcasted content in Bitches I don't know that I would hang out there.

Here is our policy as-is:

Q. What do you guys consider a spoiler?

A. Anything that hasn't been broadcast. So anything from the show and the preview trailers is okay, anything from TV Guide or anywhere else is a spoiler, including casting news, episode titles and plot twists. No white fonting. Spoilers should only be posted in the spoiler thread.

What, specifically, is objectionable to various people?

Since the rule has stood since early Table Talk, I think declaring it the bullshit consensus law is inaccurate.

All laws before voting are "bullshit consensus" laws, though, aren't they? It's just the definition I've been using for "bullshit consensus" -- which isn't functioning as a judgment on said rules, just a marker in time.