WAIT

Sorry for shouting, but as my head hit the pillow (where it should be right now since it's 4:45 in the am) I got what is either a fucking brilliant idea or some kind of sleep deprivation brain fever.

We have some problems. Let me list them as I see them.

1) Some people who know the BCS want to discuss it more widely than they are able to in the Spoiler threads, or won't go discuss it in the spoiler threads because they are worried about further spoilage.

2) Some people who know the BCS and some people that don't would rather not have it discussed in the regular show threads because they worry about people getting spoiled.

3) The BCS may or may not be considered common knowledge, and there doesn't seem to be an agreed upon method to determine this.

4) The proposal as currently written may require a change in policy which
4a) is not permissible under our grandfather policy
4b) is not a change in policy, just a clarification of policy which is not covered by the grandfather clause
4c) is a change in policy, but the policy itself is not covered under the grandfather clause
4d) is going to be a bitch and a half to determine
4e) if you type 'policy' enough it doesn't even seem like a word - policy policy policy - weird.

So what I suggest, to neatly solve all of our problems 1-4e is that we circumvent the whole thing by creating a new thread.

Hear me out.

When the Torez spoiler came out we created a special thread for people that already knew that Riley was coming back and wanted to talk about it and/or didn't care about being spoiled and just wanted to know.

If we do that this time then the people who know and want to talk about it can do it in a thread where they will get new blood as people who want to discuss this topic without further spoilage and people who are intrigued by the hullaballo join in. Solving problem one and three.

And people who either know and don't want to talk about it or don't know and don't care to know or may or may not know but don't want suspicions confirmed can steer clear of the thread and still have the regular Angel thread for general show discussion. Solving problem two and three.

Thread creation is not a grandfatherable topic, thus neatly shutting down all of problem 4. And since the topic will still be spoilery only until either a promo airs - rendering it not a spoiler - or the episode(s) in question airs - also rendering it NAS - which will be two months or less - thread proliferation should not be an issue!

Okay, I know that it's not the proposal on the table, but the proposer (Jim) can change the proposal to whatever works best for him, right? It's all up to Jim.

So the proposal can be something like this -

Create a new thread for the purposes of discussion of the Big Spoiler which you may or may not already know. If you click on this link (and link it to a whitefonted post in spoilers light or another thread) you can see what the spoiler is. If you wish, instead, to have your spoiler suspicion confirmed, you can contact (Plei, Susan W, Sue, Ken, Kristen, any number of spoiled folk who don't mind confirming). This new thread will self-destruct once the spoiler is no longer a spoiler and discussion can be moved to the Angel show thread.

yes ___
no ___
abstain___

***

And if people still want the spoiler policy changed and/or clarified they can propose it on or after September 20th so we can avoid the whole grandfather issue.

Oh, please consider this. It just seems to so neatly solve all of our problems with a minimum of pain.

Well, hello. Hope all are well. I hope we're able to come to a good conclusion that allows us to enjoy our board. I'm also very sleepy, so forgive the sentimentality. I think quite a lot of you, so I hope we work it out well.

About precedent: I'll go ahead and be your example dog for this one, too. I think I stated it earlier, but in case: I was unhappy that we discussed the ASH/AA casting information at the time. I doubt I said anything because of the aforementioned latitude. In all fairness, I don't recall being unhappy about knowing about JAR, but that may have something to do with shirts. Or I may just not recall. I was not unhappy about SMG's S5 return or S7 departure info. It had relevance to the continuance of the show.

About spoiler discussion: Unfortunately, I can no longer be your example dog for the inevitability and widespreadedness arguments. Because of the context in this thread, I now know the spoiler. I think. But don't tell me.

About grandfathering: I dunno.

Okay, that's it for me for the moment. Let me apologize to those I'm disagreeing with. I really don't intend to be confrontational or to support subtle and incremental changes that are problematic. I do intend to discuss the issues, and I hope we're able to reach an acceptable standard.

This is going to have to be (at least) two posts. I hate that, because I feel they'll get skipped, and you'll miss my brilliance.

t /delusions of grandeur

Liese - clearly you are wrong and I am right. t /Giles But anyone who offers herself up as an 'example dog' is too cool for school, and not one Buffista should ever apologize for disagreeing with another Buffista.

Elena - I love you to pieces, particularly for graciously proposing a compromise after you'd been up all night. Feel free to hit me, but (to me) making another thread still ghettoizes discussion. However (as you'll see, after much thought - I woke up about when you made that post) - I would like Jim to make this proposal be thread-to-show specific. In other words, casting news about A:ts should not be allowed in Bitches, BtVS, etc.

I would like to say (cc: Plei, Jim) that perhaps this information, despite the fact that it's a NAFDA issue, should stay only in the Angel NAFDA thread (and for future situations, staying only in the specific NAFDA show thread to which it relates), and I'm basing this on a personal appeal (which is unfair). I don't want Elena and Trudy to avoid Bitches out of fear of spoilage. Less personally, I don't think anyone should have to unsubscribe from all NAFDA threads over the summer, to keep from spoiling for one NAFDA show. Some people purposefully spoil for one show and not another, and/or are accidentally spoiled for one show and not another. I think we should make this concession out of courtesey.

I will ask that the proposal be very clearly worded on which threads will allow the discussion and which will not should the proposal pass.

Yes this, and really, I think it should be show-to-thread specific.

Can anyone else on the pro-proposal side back me up on this, even if you don't agree it fits NAFDA principles, can you, would you please see the human side of this which has a very pretty face, as pretty as if Elena and Trudy mated and reproduced? Yes. Just that pretty! Princessy, even, with tiaras and whatnot. Also? Although I don't want a discussion ghettoized, I also don't want them ghettoized. They would choose to remove themselves from Angel NAFDA, once the promos aired, anyhow. They would not choose to remove themselves from all NAFDA threads, and shouldn't have to.

Grandfathering???

t opinion

This proposal is will not eliminate, nor will it make the definition of spoiler more narrow. This proposal acknowledges official cast announcements as a valid source of casting news, whether that news is disseminated via an offical electronic cast list, press release, or on an official, televised promos. At most, it broadens the the field of acceptable mediums of official casting news sources, recognizing that in the past, this between season casting news has been allowed.

Given that the proposal is not trying to eliminate a policy, open a thread that was previously consensed out, or even change the de facto spoiler policy evident in precedent - for seasons - but rather it is trying to reclaim it and adjust it so that official casting news sources are acknowledged as such, I think the attempts to squelch this discussion via the grandfather proposal are on a par with gerrymandering. t /opinion

**We have made changes to the FAQ since the grandfathering rule was voted in.**

On the basis of that precendent, I reject the charges that refining the definition of official news disregards the grandfather policy.

Laugh with me now, it'll help...

By saying a voted-in grandfather clause invalidates the time-honored ability to adapt the FAQ to board culture as need arises, you are flying in the face of the voted-in grandfather clause you are citing. The grandfather clause was developed and voted in, in order to protect time-honored traditions adopted prior to the time voting was instituted. The grandfather proposal was put in to ensure that non-voted in items weren't considered invalid, just because they weren't voted in. You're claiming our always previously available ability to change our FAQ is now unavailable because we voted in a grandfather clause. You are attempting to use a voted-in measure to keep the FAQ frozen (which has not historically been a static document) until such time as a voted-in measure expires, and you're telling us this on the basis of the results of a voted-in measure - the grandfather clause.

Whatcha got heah, is a paradox, my friends or possibly marzipan in my pieplate Bingo.

...

You know what, I'm just going to go for the hat trick and do this in three posts, thereby guaranteeing nobody will read this thing I've spent hours on.

**In edit, I have struck out my argument that we've changed the FAQ since May 22, 2003, because apparently I was talking out my tush. I can't find an example of any rule-based FAQ changes after that date (the date the grandfather ballot item was passed). If someone can, please let me know.**

I groan at the notion of another thread. Because (1) we already have two spoiler threads, which strikes me as faintly ridiculous; and (2) I'm against thread proliferation in general, and a thread that is set up for the purpose of specific speculation will, come the time, turn into a thread about general speculation or yet another Natter. (And the problem with yet another Natter is my thesis about the fracture of a large community into several not-entirely-mutually-intelligible smaller ones.)

I don't think thread creation willy-nilly is ever the answer, unless the thread is going to continue to have a purpose in more than 6 months. I don't see that being so in this circumstance.

The other possibility I can think of is to rework Spoilage Lite temporarily -- create a "safe link" to the first post after which no spoilers but the elephant one may be discussed. People who want to discuss [2nd thing], [3rd thing] and [guest star this] and [guest director that] without going whole hog to Spoilers will perhaps be inconvenienced, but we avoid creating a NAFDA fracture, avoid spoiling those who are still pure, and avoid making major changes to the FAQ or invoking Grandfather Whatever.

Actually, this still does not solve the question of "is an anti-spoiler a spoiler?" -- which I think remains at the crux of the discussion. That part, I think still need airing and/or voting. But what do people think of the above?

I agree with Nutty.

Nutty is the voice of reason.

I especially agree about the anti-spoiler thing needing discussion. I think a lot of the anti-spoiler has to do with phrasing. If one posts in, for ex. Natter, that SMG has a new movie project-- not a spoiler. That same news in the context of a discussion of guest stars on Ats seems to be a spoiler.

Daniels post, I think was just unfortunate in that the news article DID contain a spoiler.

Re: Proposal...

Most of the definitions presented by the people here have been very close to identical, so saying we "can't agree" and that the definition is "not obvious" is kind of blowing things out of proportion.

I don't think it is. We have a hard enough time with the policy as it now stands and it is VERY clear.

Part of the reason the current interpretation of the policy is problematic, is because the restrictions inherent in "the WB can tell you here, not there" are counter-intuitive. The WB made this change official right around the BtVS finale. They updated their website with their official cast list. Suits gave interviews and made press releases. The writers/producers gave interviews, the actors gave interviews, etc. That is as official as a promo (and in the case of the elephant, especially now when we see they have printed posters of the elephant spoiler).

What is confusing is that SOME things from the website are ok and SOME things aren't.

If you choose to look at it that way, sure. Please consider it this way, too. What I find confusing, (and I think a strong argument can be made that it is WHY people got unwillingly spoiled) is that we can discuss who is a regular sometimes, but not others. We can discuss WB cast announcements via medium A, but not medium B.

Also? You're saying, 'forget the drift.' But your point when you've objected to things like NB's career news, are that they aren't allowable by the spoiler policy - which you want to keep as is. So although I believe you when you say you won't instigate drift again, anyone who wants to, can cite your drifts as precedent to do so, and use your defense of the policy-as-is as their basis.

But if it were merely effectively a semantic change, Sean, it wouldn't add any topics to the menu at all.

Maybe I wouldn't have used semantic, but still, what topics are added to the menu, ita? I can mention regular cast changes when the WB's announcement is in the form of TV promo, but not when the WB's announcement is in the forms of electronic and print promos? Where is the qualitative difference in the information allowed? It certainly doesn't reside in what type of cast news is kosher. The only difference here is which "official" source got added to our FAQ.

Elena - regarding your answers in this post: Elena "Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!" Jul 25, 2003 11:30:52 am PDT

I didn't think it answered what I was trying to ask. I am asking that since this information is allowable when the WB reveals their cast through TV promos, why the very same information more dangerous to a non-spoiled person when the WB uses electronic and/or print media to reveal their cast?

Because the televised promos were deemed to be more easily accessible and/or hard to avoid and thus in the realm of common knowledge. Though that is only my interpretation of the genesis of our current spoiler policy and may not be correct. Anyone else have other thoughts?

See above to ita. It's the same news, from the same source, containing the same information - namely, a revelation of an up-coming season's cast of regulars. Only the delivery medium is expanded. Since once the promos air, we all agree we can discuss this news in NAFDA, therefore making the A:ts thread inhospitable to unspoiled, the difference is one of time ** (see end), not one based on the source of news, or the type of news allowable. There is no protection from learning this information in the policy as it is currently being interpreted.

And if so, if that's what we're protecting, I think it's frivolous.

Okay. I don't. I think it's important to not spoil people who wish to remain unspoiled - cast, plot, location, whatever - until the matter has become common knowledge, which the spoiler policy states is when the promo has been televised.

We differ on how common knowledge is defined. I know it mightn't sound like it right now, but I think it's important to not spoil people who wish to remain unspoiled, too. An official announcement of actors in the cast of regulars is common knowledge, whether it appears in a TV promo, or in a press release, or on the show's official cast list on its official website.

Common Knowledge Exhibit A: People who never spoil, and either avoid promos or don't get them, people who don't read interviews, don't go to other websites, and don't read spoilers of any kind have still managed to know this information since May. Hell, the elephant was in a TWoP finale recap. On, or about May 21st, Trudy knew about the elephant - said she had already heard it three times. I learned yesterday that you (Elena) found out some time ago from a Buffista dh - someone who isn't (as far as I know) part of an Angel message board, had found out and told you. You say that's not common knowledge. I say it is common knowledge. To me, the problem lies in that our definition isn't acknowledging all official sources of common knowledge.

...

• * In addition to my request in my last post, I would like to ask Jim, Plei, et al if they would make another consideration when drafting the final language for the proposal - another compromise.

Could we build in a safe period? I'm thinking of a month (or July 1, of a given year), but am open to alternate suggestions and input from the spoiler-averse as well as the less averse. As I mentioned somewhere, the WB officially announced this information during May. Now, had this proposal passed in April, and had Angel aired it's finale around its usual late-May time, anyone wanting to avoid casting news for the next season of Angel, would have felt unsafe using Angel NAFDA to discuss the Angel finale. That's not right, either. It's counter-intuitive to the purpose of the thread. Let's fin

(That would be - Let's find common ground)

Those were very articulate and well-reasoned posts, Cindy.

But I am now laughing my ass off at "Let's find a commo..."

Yay - laughter!!!

eta..

And now that I made it shorter, it's truncated more, and we have "Let's fin"

Could be dance, maybe?