It wasn't ever discussed or talked about, and we have already amended the thing that happened with Cross Show discussion, so there's that p. word again.

Plei, p. word? I don't know what that would be.

Oh fuckity - did I just make it so the Supremes get to decide this vote?

Can you explain to me why it a) was not a valid decision and b) shouldn't fall under the grandfathering we just voted in?

See above. There was NEVER discussion about it through what were, at the time, the proper channels. Hec's simile about pot laws comes closest too it.

I think that where part of the problem, and part of this misunderstanding comes in about the anger, is that the response here has been from the unspoiled "take it to the spoiler threads", without any real knowledge of what the spoiler thread culture is like, or how that would affect discussion.

Hmm. I'm not making much sense, and I know that.

But, here goes, I'll try.

You are essentially saying "don't ask, don't tell", because as much as I love the discussion in the spoiler thread, it's not really the same as an open discussion about what might happen with, for example, a non-regular Giles (and now I want to make Exlax jokes). It's much more limited, and tends to die out faster. Ghettoized discussion has serious drawbacks.

As a side note, posts made in the Spoiler thread are being judged like they have the same tone as the rest of the board. They don't. It's a subculture, with a language all its own. If you don't know it or speak it, it might seem harsh. It's just... different. Please also take that into consideration.

Okay, I'll try to recap the arguments as I have heard them WRT the shift in the spoiler policy. FTR, these are not necessarily my views. There is a perceived shift towards more spoiler-phobic. I am not arguing that this is necessarily the case, but that it is being perceived as such. Here are some of the reasons for that perception:

Shift that is not spelled out in what Trudy cited: For most of the entire season, we could not discuss the one show on the other thread. That was not the case in previous seasons, I don't think. Some objected, others seemed to not be bothered by it. Others, who were on tape delay for one show but not the other, were grateful.

Shift for between seasons: ALL info WRT Angel S5 is being considered spoilery, and hence there is no speculation going on in that thread at all about next season. I am not convinced that the big elephant is different in *kind* than the news that Buffy was going to return in S6, but it certainly is being treated differently in the threads.

Points where I think there is major agreement: I don't think that anyone wants to change the basic definition of a spoiler. There is no proposed change whatsoever to plot spoilers. None to in-season spoilers either.

Plei, can you please answer my question in this post

Elena "Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!" Jul 25, 2003 9:57:26 pm PDT

Because I can't make sense of what you mean without knowing the answer.

Wasn't ever discussed or talked about? Who wrote it then? Why is in the FAQ?

We changed the FAQ, IIRC, mid-season this year. Because there were some white font problems.

I recall having to restate the spoiler policy a million times to one problem poster.

The P-word = precedent, which I wasn't feeling like spelling.

Who made the decision?

Well, it didn't really come up until now, and I think it was sort of an outgrowth of the increased crackdown and tightened def. of spoilers.

I don't think that anyone wants to change the basic definition of a spoiler. There is no proposed change whatsoever to plot spoilers. None to in-season spoilers either.

Am I mistaken in thinking that the current policy explicitly states that casting information is a spoiler?

I'd also like to reiterate that in the past things like Buffy's return to season 5 was technically a spoiler but considered to be to such commen knowledge that it was permissible to discuss. The same thing may very well be the case for the BCS, in which case we *can* openly discuss it before it airs in promos.

My concerns are

a) The BCS may not be common knowledge.

b) Things other than the BCS may be discussed, even though they are likely to be even less widely known.

That's it. Those are my concerns, and have been since my first post in here.

See above. There was NEVER discussion about it through what were, at the time, the proper channels. Hec's simile about pot laws comes closest too it.

Never discussion about what, though? The spoiler policy, or the shift that you perceive? I do think that Hec's simile comes as close to the mark on this situation as anything I've seen. But the fact is, the policy itself was decided on at somepoint. So I guess what I'm hearing is that it's the fact that some people have been calling for stricter enforcement of the already existing policy that's got other folks' backs up? Is that fair?

You are essentially saying "don't ask, don't tell", because as much as I love the discussion in the spoiler thread, it's not really the same as an open discussion about what might happen with, for example, a non-regular Giles (and now I want to make Exlax jokes). It's much more limited, and tends to die out faster. Ghettoized discussion has serious drawbacks.

Ok, this. I've asked several times for people to explain why discussion in the spoiler thread wasn't satisfactory, and I'm glad to have an answer. It makes it a lot easier to get where you're coming from. Finding the answer is another story, of course.

As a side note, posts made in the Spoiler thread are being judged like they have the same tone as the rest of the board. They don't. It's a subculture, with a language all its own. If you don't know it or speak it, it might seem harsh. It's just... different. Please also take that into consideration.

I do get that, and that's why I've refrained from quoting or responding to the couple that I've seen. But I still found them hurtful and not a little bit patronizing.

PMM, I can't imagine how the current state came to be without any discussion. If someone made an executive decision, I'd be surprised -- and how did it get done without objection?

I have absolutely no memory of it happening one way or another, and I'd really like to see where.

ita, I've been threadsucking like mad to see where the fuck the enforcement started, but I can't find a damn thing.

So I guess what I'm hearing is that it's the fact that some people have been calling for stricter enforcement of the already existing policy that's got other folks' backs up? Is that fair?

Basically. It's like getting a ticket for going three over.