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)

I think actually we pass Jims original proposal with this change - that it be for NAFTA only. After all Natter has always been an UnAmerican safe zone. There is no reason Bitches and such can't be extreme-spoilerphobe safe threads. After all it is not being able to discuss what I think of as non-spoilers in NAFTA show threads that drive me nuts. I don't mind more rigid spoiler standards in NAFTA non-show threads becasue there is seldom discussion where bringing that sort of thing up would make a useful contribution.

Gar - Bitches and Bitchy fic are designated NAFDA threads. And aside from that, say we one day have a NAFDA thread for both Angel and a still-active show? Let's call it Wonderfalls.

Can't it be show-news-thread specific? I get that someone might not care about getting spoiled for Angel, but would want to stay pure for Wonderfalls?

Cindy, you've hit my understanding of "anti-spoiler" on the head. An anti-spoiler as I understand it is facts external to the show-reality or production-reality of [show in question], which allow one to deduce that something is not going to happen on [show in question].

Because, if we upheld anti-spoilers as a form of spoiler, it would be not-cool to talk about, say, if an actor died! I want to be able to talk about it if an actor dies, and not have to say "But this in no way obviates his possible return to Spiffy the Wonder Dog for next season."

External reality happens. External reality sometimes gets in the way of pure show-reality. We're all going to have to live with that, and by "live" I mean "not leap away from like it's a hot griddle".

Yes I understand that Bitches and Bitchy fic are NAFDA zones. I"m not suggesting they stop being such. I'm suggesting that we might live with them continuing to be NAFTA zones but having stricter standards than NAFTA show threads - just as a compromise. I mean I'm personally find with the orginal proposal possibly with some minor language changes.

Put in this way: how often do you want to discuss the kind of the stuff Jim current proposal allows in Bitches or Bitchy fic as opposed to the show threads?

OK, I lied, but I was dead tired and way pissed off last night. I'm not going to get into arguments over this though (I hope). Anyway, apologies for getting bent WAY out of shape over this. I was partly pissed at myself because I hadn't planned on getting quite that involved in the issue.

The MAIN reason I am posting, is to say Cindy is wise and I personally do not have a problem with making the change thread specific by instantce (that is if it's an Angel casting change, it stays in Angel NAFDA and the spoiler threads, if it's Wonderfalls, it stays in the beagle/fluffy bunny thread and spoilers, etc.).

Again, sorry for losing my shit last night - it was late, I was buzzed, and that's about all I have for excuses.

Oh, one more thing from way back - if this goes to vote and passes, I do think Trudy should propose the Virgin thread if she still desires one. I'd vote for it.

When I went to bed 10 hours ago I had hope that you would solve this while I slept. Oh well, I have read many voices of reason and have nothing new to add. I will spend some time now catching up with the more entertaining threads I missed all week (2600 messages in Bitches!). I will leave the lightbulb screwing to those more passionate about the issue. I will adapt to whatever changes are or are not made to the board. If the show threads are too constrictive for me to freely discuss and speculate about the shows I will hang with the hos.

FWIW, and I only say this as my personal view and am not suggesting that anyone else should feel this way, if I wanted to view the episodes completely pure and virginal I would not be visiting "A community dedicated to discussions of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel and Firefly with humor, intelligence and obsessiveness."

what topics are added to the menu, ita?

The BCS and other changes to the regular cast. If it didn't affect the topics that were kosher to discuss, why would there be a point to it?

I can say, that as thing stands, there is no way I think it's tenable for Bitches to be made a haven to this information. It's just not. That's the most important clarification I see. The second most important is indicating how to verify news isn't a spoiler. For the record, Lyra Jane, I googled Charisma Carpenter Angel and it tells you in headline and blurb about other things in S5.

I'm curious -- this grandfathered vote doesn't apply to rules in the FAQ. What does it apply to, exactly, in the minds of people here?

I think the attempts to squelch this discussion via the grandfather proposal are on a par with gerrymandering.

I think the proposal is an attempt to clarify the spoiler definition, not change it. I have not yet seen a convincing argument that this is a substantial change. I have, however, seen convincing arguments that this proposal covers ground well-established by precedent.

Why I don’t think that allowing the one BCS (which leads me to ask, which BCS?, because I know of two, but whatever):

First, I think that agreeing to this *one* item, but not agreeing with the principle is going to guarantee that this issue is likely to arise again. Unless this discussion has been more fun for others than it has been for me, I don’t see why we’d court it a second time, much less a possible third.

Second, in saying that it is okay to discuss this *one* BCS but not adapt the FAQ to identify *why* this kind of “spoiler” is considered acceptable, we are abandoning what I think is a fairly specific set of criteria for identifying what is and is not acceptable (casting changes that have been advertized and promoted by the network and the production company in print, online, or on tv) for what ita rightly pointed out is the very vague and untennable claim that it is “widely known.”

I am fine with keeping this discussion to show threads, however, and not extending it to all NAFDA threads.

And with that, I think I have had my say.

The second most important is indicating how to verify news isn't a spoiler.

How about going to the front page of network website for the show and seeing whether or not the info is being actively promoted?