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?

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

By that criterion (and you mean the show page, not the first page of the website, right?), we got nothing to discuss. None of the casting news to which I'm privy is reflected there.

Which is weird, because I've certainly seen it on thewb.com, but this time, just clicking on "Angel" from the front page? Nada. It's time warped to the beginning of S3.

I think the proposal is an attempt to clarify the spoiler definition, not change it.

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)

The policy is: information that has been broadcast on the network, either in episodes, promos, or commercials. The policy would be: information that has either been broadcast on the network, published on the network's website, or appeared in print advertisements. How is that not a change?

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

I find that really offensive. Please explain to me why citing the grandfather policy that we just ratified a couple of months ago is so out of line. Because I really don't get it. In what circumstances would it be appropriate? Any?

I've said it before. I do agree that there are serious issues here that need to be discussed. It's very clear that people are coming from very different places on this. But there are two separate issues here - one, the current casting related topics that people who know about them really want to discuss, and two, the broader issues of whether the spoiler policy is being observed in a way that's fair to everyone, and how we can clarify and revise it to both protect the unspoiled and allow for the fullest discussion among others. I understand better where the spoiled are coming from after a post of Plei's last night, and I'm much more sympathetic than I was. But so far, we haven't come up with many ideas that get beyone one side or the other getting its way. I think we can do better. But only with thoughtful, extended discussion.

The first issue, the casting spoilers, was the proximate cause for this proposal, and there is a certain urgency to it for its supporters. I agree with the need to come to some resolution on this in a timely manner. But the other issue goes beyond any one topic of discussion into the realm of board culture and relationships, and I think it deserves, even requires, fuller discussion without a vote hanging over our heads. Voting works very well for hammering out a final draft of a position, and for deciding yes/no issues. This issue is larger than that, and I think we're making a mistake by jumping on it without giving it fuller consideration. We need more discussion on this, not less, or we're never going to come out of this without bad feelings all around.

Which is weird, because I've certainly seen it on thewb.com, but this time, just clicking on "Angel" from the front page? Nada. It's time warped to the beginning of S3.

Yeah. They actually have two Angel pages. One on the Fall Schedule 2003 section, one on the shows section. They obviously have slow monkeys running the site. Which, come to think of it, explains a lot.

Please explain to me why citing the grandfather policy that we just ratified a couple of months ago is so out of line.

Probably because it's been applied only to the letter, and not to the past interpretations? And because some, but not all, of its proponants brought it up in a manner that felt highly offensive. Which, of course, is where your issue number two comes up. Casting information, at this point, is really just the catalyst for the second issue. You wouldn't be wrong to think that this has been brewing for a long time. It's been brewing for months, among spoiled, not really spoiled, and pretty much unspoiled alike. It seems symptomatic of a larger and distressing cutural shift on the board as a whole.