Susan, I think those were fairly major exceptions to the rule, and covered under the increasingly cryptic 'common knowledge' rule.

But to me this is the exact same thing! I really don't see the difference.

I've been trying to come to a compromise on this. I really have been. I welcome any and all attempts to have the BCS declared common knowledge...

I just don't want things that aren't as well disseminated to get lumped in, because then I can't play in NAFDA.

I bloody well wish I'd voted against the Sept. 20th thing now, because I never meant for it to be applied like this!

You only wanted it applied to rules you do like?

Seriously. What do you mean by this?

Trudy has a point - I thought the main reason for the grandfather clause is because we didn't want policies already in place to get picked apart.

You only wanted it applied to rules you do like?

Bloody hell. Of course not. I've always wanted a Politics thread, but I'm not agitating to change the 9/20 rule for that one because I don't feel like there was a bait-and-switch what the initial consensus MEANT in that case.

Seriously. What do you mean by this?

I mean that in previous years, the spoiler rules weren't applied to casting changes (or non-changes, in the case of SMG's return in S6) that were announced over the summer. It was an unwritten exception, but a consistent exception nonetheless. Suddenly, this year, the exception no longer exists. That change was never codified or agreed upon in Bureaucracy or by a vote. I feel like the Sept. 20 thing shouldn't apply to cases where we want to clarify an existing rule because (in my perception and many others') the interpretation has drastically changed without any formal discussion.

But the problem is that while the "law" may have been written one way, it has previously been interpreted a different way. So then they could both be grandfathered decisions.

If the FAQ truly falls under grandfathering, we shouldn't be having this debate.

On the other hand, if the precedent falls under grandfathering, this debate is moot because the casting spoilers in question can be discussed right now in NAFDA threads.

If the FAQ truly falls under grandfathering, we shouldn't be having this debate.

That's what we're trying to determine.

On the other hand, if the precedent falls under grandfathering, this debate is moot because the casting spoilers in question can be discussed right now in NAFDA threads.

This is not so clear, because the precedents don't, in my opinion, count as policy.

It was an unwritten exception, but a consistent exception nonetheless. Suddenly, this year, the exception no longer exists.

At the 2002 F2F Matt The Bruins Fan flipped over a chair in order to avoid a spoiler. As far as I know, he remained virginal until the new season. I have certainly made it into new seasons knowing much less than those around me. My recollection is not of this exception being unilateral.

My recollection is not of this exception being unilateral.

OK, I know I've been very obviously angry in all my posts tonight (and I just made a nonspoilery post in my livejournal trying to figure out why), but I promise the following question is not being asked in anger:

Could you please clarify? I really, honestly don't understand what you mean by "unilateral". Are you saying you don't think the exception I talked about existed, or that it wasn't consistently applied?

I don't think it was as consistently applied as you are asserting.

I stayed unspoiled between seasons. Other people stayed unspoiled between seasons. There was whitefonting between seasons on questionable matters.