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.

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 that for a lot of the folks who are in favor, it's not a change because they feel it will allow a return to the traditional spoiler policy on the board. They see the strict enforcement of the FAQ-included policy as the change. Is that a fair summary?

I think that for a lot of the folks who are in favor, it's not a change because they feel it will allow a return to the traditional spoiler policy on the board. They see the strict enforcement of the FAQ-included policy as the change. Is that a fair summary?

Yes, that's a fair summary, I think.

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?

As has been stated numerous times already, there is a well-established precedent for the looser interpretation. So although the wording would be changed slightly, I don’t think the actual policy is being changed *substantially,* instead, it is being changed to reflect what was the actual practice in previous seasons.

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?

Is this addressed to me or to Cindy? I didn’t use the word “gerrymandering,” I was simply using her words as an opener for why *I* don’t think this falls under the grandfather clause (see above). You disagree with my reasoning, but that is a separate issue.

[edited for unnecessary snippiness]

It seems symptomatic of a larger and distressing cutural shift on the board as a whole.

That's the issue that seems to me to need more consideration.

You wouldn't be wrong to think that this has been brewing for a long time.

Can you understand that this is part of why some of the people who weren't in on these discussion are reacting so strongly and defensively? On the one side, the issues have been discussed and hashed out and vented on. But we weren't a part of that, and it feels like being hit with a sudden attack.

Is this addressed to me or to Cindy?

Sorry for not being clear. It was the statement you quoted, along with some other nastiness thrown my way last night, that bothers me. We disagree on what the "policy" is, that's fine, and can probably worked out. But I don't like being accused of trying to subvert the process by referring back to a decision made by this board that seemed to me to apply.