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.

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

But that particular proposal may not be valid under Betsy's grandfather vote. I'm trying to give us a workable compromise. If it's widely known and no longer a spoiler then we don't even have to vote.

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.

Okay, at the risk of 'riding the subject hard', mine didn't. But I don't need them to be published in every newspaper. If 'most of them' that published it includes newspapers that people would have a hard time avoiding (and, FWIT, I think that both the NY Times and USA Today count, though others may disagree) then it's widely known.

USian papers are MUCH better about important shit like TV info. (Esp. for US shows.)

Just a note, am I the only spoiled person who likes to watch the unspoiled scream with delight/horror when something I've known about for ages happens.

Honestly, it's a source of enjoyment for me. Which sort of makes me side with the spoiler virgins on things. That being said, there are points where the networks are doing everything in their power short of sending cast members door-to-door to let people know something is happening.

Which, I guess, means I don't care overly much how this issue is decided.

Carry on, then.

Okay, at the risk of 'riding the subject hard', mine didn't. But I don't need them to be published in every newspaper. If 'most of them' that published it includes newspapers that people would have a hard time avoiding (and, FWIT, I think that both the NY Times and USA Today count, though others may disagree) then it's widely known.

Point of information--it went out over the AP Wire and the Reuters wire, so nigh-every news source in the Western Hemisphere had an equal opportunity at publishing it.

(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 don't think it's up to Jim to table the discussion. If the rule existed before the grandfathering date it's tabled until September 20th.