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?

Thank you, Cindy.

Nutty is the voice of reason.

I am?? Jilli, my sistah!

Common ground can be found, on the elephant issue. But the "anti-spoiler" thing strikes me as too much policy drift to bear without a corrective in the other direction.

Common ground can be found, on the elephant issue. But the "anti-spoiler" thing strikes me as too much policy drift to bear without a corrective in the other direction.

Meaning what and which kind of anti-spoiler, Nutty?

From now on, I'm going to feel free to talk about all actors non-ME projects. I'll say NB's series wasn't picked up and I wish he'd be on Angel, even though he's said he doesn't fit. I'll say Alyson is doing American Wedding, but I hope it doesn't prevent her from showing her face on Angel. I'll say I hope SMG comes around and does a spot on Angel. I think the less-averse can take back some of the drift by themselves.

Along with confining the news of cast additions to the NAFDA show thread in question, our treatment of the news that people have departed from a cast during the off-season is a place where I am hoping to we can find common ground. Can't we agree to confine those comments to the NAFDA thread of the cast change in question? Can't we agree we won't mention it in the Bitch, or Bitchy Fic, or BtVS or Firefly threads, if it is announced over the summer that DB has left Angel? Is that (sincerely) is that still too much drift? It's not for me, but I understand YdriftMV.

(typo edit)