Isn't that what the proposal is about? Defining *at what point* it should be considered widely disseminated.

Burrell, I thought that the proposal was to change our spoiler policy.

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.

I'm sorry, PMM, but if you're talking about SMG's return after season 5, that was considered unavoidable. If you're talking about SMG's not signing on for more after season 7, that was considered unavoidable (or, if it wasn't, the point was quickly made moot by people posting about it in the show thread to such an extent that it was quickly unavoidable). If you're talking about ASH going semi-regular, I'm not 100% sure how that went, but it may either have been considered not a big enough deal to fuss about, or a case of trying to get the horse back in the barn.

Trudy, you missed the joke.

It's a tabled thing.

So, you know, my insect reflection and I will be over here still thinking it's funny.

Well, if it's tabled it's time to close the thread. I'll move on with my life and try to forget the Ashcroft crack.

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.

Okay, if I'm in it, then I'm in it. Perhaps, maybe, whatever - I keep hearing the above statement, but... - I don't remember seeing anything resembling an organized discussion about this and granted I was only a lurker. But I've been lurking since Buffy 2 on TT and I lurked on as many threads as I could keep up on. That pretty much means everything but Natter and Bitches (this was before I had a decent home computer). And it doesn't address the whole ANTI-SPOILER concept and how those came to be spoilers - or ME cast member careers. And, ya know, after all this, I STILL don't care how it comes down (well, I do, but I'll abide), but I WANT it put to a vote. What's the problem? Vote and be done, however you see fit. This is why I'm getting pissed off. I mean, what's the argument here - that the vote shouldn't happen? Because that's the vibe I've been getting and that's what's pissing me off.

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.

Well, in that case you'd be right not to. It is a spoiler by our current rules. It is also an issue where it's reasonable to consider whether it should be an exception.

But as far as changing our definition of a spoiler - well, there's the problem. Some people do consider casting news to be a spoiler, some don't. Saying that allowing free dissemination of casting news, even over the summer, doesn't change our definition of a spoiler is incorrect.

I do think that the current proposal violates the grandfathering that we just voted in. I don't think it should be voted on. That doesn't mean I don't think we have things to discuss.

Can we come to some agreement on the current BCS without dragging in all the other actual or potential casting spoilers? Without changing our established policy to respond to (what I think is) a one-time situation that will resolve itself anyway in a month's time? I don't want discussion to be stifled, I don't want people to feel pushed aside. I also don't want to lose the sense of courtesy that has guided our actions in the past.

Burrell, I thought that the proposal was to change our spoiler policy.

This indicates to me that we are reading the proposal very differently.

Well, if it's tabled it's time to close the thread and I'll move on with my life and try to forget the Ashcroft crack.

Did I call you Ashcroft? No.

Do I feel extreme fear has taken over where it hadn't before? Yes.

Tabled doesn't mean the same thing everywhere. Like I said, insect reflection.

This is why I'm getting pissed off. I mean, what's the argument here - that the vote shouldn't happen? Because that's the vibe I've been getting and that's what's pissing me off.

Point the first - this thread exists so we can discuss these things before they come to a vote.

Point the second - brenda brought up, and ita and Trudy (I think) said 'hmm', that this vote may in fact be an unvoteable issue under Betsy's grandfather policy that was voted in previously. It's not to shut down discussion - it's a point of policy that needs to be resolved.

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.

Also, this is what I meant about the Supremes taking over (unless I deleted that remark as too inflammatory, but I no longer consider it so), and I don't think it is REMOTELY in the spirit of the rule, even if it somehow, by calander time, is in the letter.

Can we come to some agreement on the current BCS without dragging in all the other actual or potential casting spoilers? Without changing our established policy to respond to (what I think is) a one-time situation that will resolve itself anyway in a month's time? I don't want discussion to be stifled, I don't want people to feel pushed aside. I also don't want to lose the sense of courtesy that has guided our actions in the past.

Brenda, I've been trying. I really have been trying to see if we can come to some kind of an agreement on the BCS.