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.

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.

The talk about the virgins thread got me to thinking. I think a lot of this animosity is coming precisely because there is a separate spoilers thread. So the group on one side of this argument has a specific place where this topic naturally gets hammered into the ground.

Virgins point out spoilers when they happen, then let it drop. Spoilerfolk sit and rehash the unfairness of it all. It a function of board structure as much as personalities.

The end result, however, is hos ragging on phobes and not the other way around. Regardless of the threads 'culture', however, it is insulting.

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

And from my understanding, that policy is not up for modification except under very specific circumstances: 1) it involves a regular cast member, whose status is changing from one season to the next and 2) *we happen to be between seasons*, and 3) it has been heavily promoted in ads, just not yet televised in promos. As far as I can tell, those are the only proposed modifications to the definition of spoiler, and I do think that they don't alter the basic definition.

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.

This is not at all clear. In fact, based on today's discussion I would NOT mention it at all in the Angel thread for fear of setting off someone's spoiler sense.

In fact, based on today's discussion I would NOT mention it at all in the Angel thread for fear of setting off someone's spoiler sense.

Do you mean now or after the proposed change?

Also, something I brought up earlier but dropped. Does it make a difference if the spoiler affects what we'll see in the first ep or if it's something with longer implications? If so-and-so is slated to leave mid season, and it's in WB press during the summer, that counts? Because that would really interfere with how I would watch the episodes until that happened.

Okay, trundling off to bed.

So where are we now? Is this tabled until the 20th unless PMM establishes that the current language was slipped in in the dark of night by parties acting unilaterally?

This is not at all clear. In fact, based on today's discussion I would NOT mention it at all in the Angel thread for fear of setting off someone's spoiler sense.

(Warning, I statement time.)

I feel like we've (factions in this, pro and con) been operating under different assumptions for a while. For example, with the precendent of Giles and Buffy, I assumed that taking spoilers like Faith (guests and recurring) to the spoilage lite threads rather than whitefonting wasn't going to have an effect on between-season discussions of the REGULAR cast. This seems to have been a COMMON assumption. Also common was the assumption that this meant ALL casting information, no matter who what where when why or how, was verboten.

Virgins point out spoilers when they happen, then let it drop. Spoilerfolk sit and rehash the unfairness of it all. It a function of board structure as much as personalities.

The end result, however, is hos ragging on phobes and not the other way around. Regardless of the threads 'culture', however, it is insulting.

Meanwhile, the phobes have determined board policy as to what can be discussed where. I hate this us vs. them shit, but I also hate screaming "fuck you" at my computer and it keeps happening.

Does it make a difference if the spoiler affects what we'll see in the first ep or if it's something with longer implications? If so-and-so is slated to leave mid season, and it's in WB press during the summer, that counts? Because that would really interfere with how I would watch the episodes until that happened.

I think it does, and that that should be worded in the proposal.

This is not at all clear. In fact, based on today's discussion I would NOT mention it at all in the Angel thread for fear of setting off someone's spoiler sense.

And you would be right not to. But at some point the information reaches a zeitgeist (huh, am I spelling that at all right?) and it's so widely diseminated that it really is almost impossible to avoid. For me, with SMG leaving after season 7, it was when CNN reported it. I mean, CNN, how much more mainstream can you get? Has the BCS reached that point? Will it? I don't know. But it is a possibility that should be considered. And, in fact, might warrant investigation.