Do you mean now or after the proposed change?

I mean now. I can only go by now. For all I know, by morning a much more satisfactory compromise will have been worked out, but right now, I am not seeing any possible compromise being granted.

Seriously, unless someone disproves the validity of the FAQ this should be tabled until September 20th.

It may be a more sensitive barometer than some people need, but spoiling people is what we have always tried to avoid.

Except that precendent says otherwise about THIS SPECIFIC sort of situation.

USA Today and NY Times, both of which have mentioned it.

I have asked, repeatedly, if the BCS has been widely disseminated and this is the first answer I've gotten that seems like it has been.

Perhaps this discussion should be - has the BCS been mainstreamed to the point where it is no longer reasonable to call it a spoiler?

Perhaps this discussion should be - has the BCS been mainstreamed to the point where it is no longer reasonable to call it a spoiler?

Well, yes, but that's not the seconded proposal.

ALL the casting spoilers for the season regulars went out to major media as a press release, and most of them published it. I know my local paper did.

Except that precendent says otherwise about THIS SPECIFIC sort of situation.

Well, let's set about proving it so.

The fact that it's been reported in the NY Times and USA Today seem like a reasonable jumping off point for the discussion.

This is nowhere near the level that SMG's return was.

That was unavoidable. This was avoidable until one of you blabbed (and I've continued to successfully avoid it since that point as I don't want to know any more than I do).

Meanwhile, the phobes have determined board policy as to what can be discussed where.

Ken, with all due respect, how do you know this? At some point we put together a clearly worded statement on what was considered a spoiler. This wasn't done by fiat, or without any input from spoiled people. When the Torez spoiler came calling, we adapted to give some room to people who wanted to discuss that topic without being totally spoiled. In the past, we've managed to handle these issues with civility and courtesy as our watchwords.

The last couple of times this has come up, we haven't handled it as well. I get that people are frustrated at being called on stuff that previously might have been given a pass. I'm not sure what the fix is. But we've lost our ability to connect on this issue somehow. That saddens me. But it's coming from both sides.

Again, I really wish we could have taken up the BCS issue as a one-off, and given ourselves some more space to talk out the remaining issues in a less driven manner.

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.

Isn't that what the proposal is about? Defining *at what point* it should be considered widely disseminated. And based on primarily your arguments and Trudy's today, I am assuming that there is no safe point from which to make that assumption.

Elena, with all due respect, does board precedent mean squat? Because what Hec brought up, and what Amych brought up, and what Nutty brought up, and what Cindy brought up, is that all of this was stuff we discussed during summer hiatus before. We have serious board precendent here. We just, you know, lacked the foresight to mention all possible contingencies when hashing things out before. See above re: assumptions. Hell, we're human.

(As for tabled discussion, recall that Jim's English, and this is his baby. It's tabled right now, AIFG. Or, you know, AIFGoing On.)

I'll be back in the morning. For now, I have to clean my kitchen and sleep. Night, y'all.