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.

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.

Yes, exactly.

And I'd be entirely in favor of the casting changes only being kosher for discussion in the specific show's thread, and not in Bitches, other show threads, etc.

And I'm sorry again for losing it last night.

I think the problem here is the use of the word "Gerrymander". Actual gerrymandering is always done deliberately. where I'm sure the atempt to use the grandfather clause was made in good faith. But to most of us the attempted use of the grandfather clause makes no sense in this context - because as Cindy pointed out last time the FAQ has changed since the Grandfather clause was passed - and thus the FAQ are not frozen in stone. So it as invalid an application of the rules as gerrymandering, even though the intent is not same.

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.

The funny part is, both sides feel this way. And it really doesn't have anything to do with things you might have read in spoilers recently.

If WX is ever up again, or you feel like reading the spoiler archives from way back, you'll find that griping and flipping shit is a deep, deep part of the culture. Shocked the fuck out of me to read the WX spoilers after season six to find what appeared to be hitherto unknown seething resentment towards the virtuous unspoiled (and I had been one of them, so it felt like a slap to read). Eventually, though, I realized that it was just the way of their people, and when I was assimilated (there was vodka involved), I came to learn and love the language.

Do NOT, I stress, take things said there without a bottle of salt.

because as Cindy pointed out last time the FAQ has changed since the Grandfather clause was passed - and thus the FAQ are not frozen in stone.

How?

(I'm not contesting this, I just don't remember. Frankly, I couldn't remember if the grandfathering thing had ever even gone through until Ken said something last night that reminded me of it. I don't think I've followed bureaucracy much this summer.)

It was the statement you quoted, along with some other nastiness thrown my way last night, that bothers me.

I'm sorry. Did *I* throw nastiness your way? I certainly have no memory of being intentionally nasty. In fact, I was trying to keep my tone evenhanded. I'm a bit taken aback at being accused of being nasty.

Agh. Unclear again. I wasn't taking issue with you at all, Burrell. You quoted a statement that I'd missed in it's original form. I sorry if it seemed I was throwing shit your way.