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.

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?

Okay, I see what you mean. I was reading topic in a broader sense, to discuss kinds of information. We allow casting news when the WB reveals it in a televised promo.

Regarding Spoilers, our FAQ Q&A state:

Q. What do you guys consider a spoiler?

A. Anything that hasn't been broadcast. So anything from the show and the preview trailers is okay, anything from TV Guide or anywhere else is a spoiler, including casting news, episode titles and plot twists. No white fonting. Spoilers should only be posted in the spoiler thread.

In practice, this season, people are including summertime casting announcements under the including casting news condition in the FAQ. Historically, they have not.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say summertime casting announcements aren't casting news. I'm not even trying to say they're not casting spoilers. I am saying that historically, discussion of this information has been allowed, despite the FAQ wording, and it's the FAQ that hasn't correctly reflected the enforcement of the rules. Secondly, I am saying that since it's okay to discuss when the WB makes an official announcement of their cast via the use of a TV promo, I don't see a substantive difference in the information in question when it's revealed, instead, in API and Reuters press releases, The NYT, USA TODAY, and their own cast listing page on their official show page.

The Lorne's head spoiler doesn't meet the same standards, because there is a substantive difference in the information being revealed. Andy Hallet on the show? Not a spoiler. I can say it here without fear of reprisal. Headless Lorne? If show or I tell you Lorne's lost his head, your spoiled on part of the plot, right there.

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?

Despite the incomplete wording in the FAQ, the policy in practice has been that during summers, we talk about the regulars coming and leaving the series in the upcoming season and are free to speculate on the upcoming season. The request is to change the language of the FAQ to represent what actually how we actually treat cast announcements.

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?

Why is it offensive? Also? I did explain. I don't know how to say more about it than I already did. I posted 3 huge posts, one of which focused specifically on grandfathering, and was X-posted in bureaucracy.

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.

Why? Why can't we limit approved cast news to its specific show thread?

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.

Did the news come from an official source? If so, it's verified. If it came from SPIKEISDREAMY.ORG, it's not.

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?

Well, since it was inspired when people tried to re-open the possibilities of a war thread, I'm tempted to say I think it was primarily instituted to not have to revote on a bunch of threads that people are unhappy were approved or denied. But I admit, I'm not the best person to respond to this, because I chose not to vote on the grandfather proposal, because, in part, it was too ambiguous. I get there are negative and positive decisions. But how do we tell when the inclusion of an item was literally decided against (i.e. WB Press Releases and WB Official Cast Lists Don't Count, Only Promos Do), as opposed to not thought of, during discussion process (i.e. How about we say, "Only if it's airs in a promo?" "Yeah, that sounds good.")

Still, I've Nillied Betsy's final language on her grandfather clause. It can be found here:

Betsy HP "Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!" May 19, 2003 3:51:06 pm PDT

And is copied here:

All decisions made before March 20, 2003 are subject to a moratorium before being reopened for discussion and voting. During the moratorium, changes to the decision cannot be proposed, discussed, or voted on. The moratorium lasts 6 months beginning March 20, 2003.

If an issue is proposed and a Buffista believes the issue should fall under the moratorium, the Buffista must challenge the proposal. To challenge a proposal, you link to the pre-March proposal of the issue. If at least five distinct people replied to the proposal and no action was taken, this counts as a negative decision and falls under the moratorium. If the action was implemented, this counts as a positive decision and falls under the moratorium.

If you vote "Yes", then issues decided before March 20,2003 cannot be reopened for discussion until September 20, 2003. After September 20th, 2003, they can be reopened exactly like any voted-on decision.

If you vote "No", then issues decided before March 20, 2003 can be reopened at any time, beginning immediately.

It does not specify which sorts of changes can be made, and which cannot. So for that level of detail, we have to examine precedent. I threadsucked bureaucracy and then did a control+F on the word faq from May 22, 2003, (at 11:58pm, in post #2311 - Laura announced the results) on, to see if/how the FAQ changed since that time. For the hell of it, I also threadsucked BBaBB. Guess what, we're shit out of luck wrt precedent.

because as Cindy pointed out last time the FAQ has changed since the Grandfather clause was passed

Nah. Either I can't find it, or it the FAQ hasn't had a substantive change since prior to May 22, 2003.

I did not hit on anything of substance, save Nilly's reminder (in May) that we should have included Timelies in the FAQ, back in March. So I would like to apologize for stating (I think in bold font) that we've made changes to the faq since grandfathering was enacted.

I think the way to proceed now, is either to agree we can continue to discuss this, because this specific change was never before decided upon (either positively or negatively - or make that actively or passively) because it didn't come up.

Or...

The people who want to challenge this proposal based on Betsy's grandfather clause, need to seek the remedy provided in that clause. That means they have to find us a pre-March citation, where it was proposed that all official casting announcement that come from anywhere but TV promos are out of bounds as NAFDA acceptable sources for casting news.

Saying, "We decided promos are the standard," doesn't tell whether the WB's official cast announcements were considered and either dropped (which is what is meant by 'negative' decision in the clause) or that it was suggested but shot down (which is what is meant by 'positive' decision in the clause).

If the challenge is going to continue, the challengers need to Nilly the original proposal for our spoiler policy (or perhaps the most recent one before March, 2003) and see if this was addressed or not.

because as Cindy pointed out last time the FAQ has changed since the Grandfather clause was passed

The FAQ may have changed, but the spoiler policy is longstanding. It is grandfatherable. Someone show me when it wasn't the policy.

As far as anti-spoilers I relinquished them yesterday, took them off the table. So far, all the other Virgins have agreed with me. I wish people would stop bringing them up.

And, as far as the howls of "the supreme court" "gerrymandering" and the like-- they're nasty and need to stop. We aren't a bunch of teetotaling prigs trying to ruin your fun. We are long standing community members who would like to continue to enjoy the show as we have.

In practice, this season, people are including summertime casting announcements under the including casting news condition in the FAQ. Historically, they have not.

Ok, this is clear. Can we try to figure out why this is so? From my perspective, the HSQ level of the BCS seems to take it to a different level than say, the AH-is-only-part-time news. Obviously some don't agree. OTOH, there is also the inevitability question. The others that I'm aware of don't seem as major, but do seem less likely to become known through saturation. Do any of these factors matter? I think they do, but it seems that many of us do not. Can we find some middle ground here?

For all the talk about spoilerphobes having to be babied and mollycoddled, it's the fact that no one had raised an issue with the prior instances that got us to this place.

Why is it offensive? Also? I did explain. I don't know how to say more about it than I already did. I posted 3 huge posts, one of which focused specifically on grandfathering, and was X-posted in bureaucracy.

Cindy, I saw your posts, but I still disagree. And that's where I take offense. I think a reasonable person can look at the grandfathering policy and believe that it would apply. I think the opposite is also true. And I think that as reasonable people, we can discuss whether or not it should in fact apply.

What I'm upset about is the implication that it's so clear that grandfathering would not apply that any mention of it must be an attempt to undemocratically subvert the process. Neither of those things are true.

The FAQ may have changed, but the spoiler policy is longstanding. It is grandfatherable. Someone show me when it wasn't the policy.

See my post above. I can't find any proof it did. Unless someone else finds it, I was wrong.

As far as anti-spoilers I relinquished them yesterday, took them off the table. So far, all the other Virgins have agreed with me. I wish people would stop bringing them up.

See my earlier post on this to you. I believe you will relinquish this. I do not believe that because you will, others will. In fact, we've been repeatedly reminded we can't guess how spoiled other people are, or what their opinions of spoilers are.

I am sorry to Trudy, brenda, Gar and whomever else my use of gerrymandering offended. I was offended to see this in Bureaucracy:

Trudy Booth "Bureaucracy 2: Like Sartre, Only Longer" Jul 25, 2003 11:12:04 pm PDT

I need a stompie. Do I need a second and a third?

I move we close the lightbulb thread. The current topic, which proposes to change grandfathered policy, is (due to the preference of 84% of the voters) invalid for discussion until September 20th (or until such time as it's determined that this issue is not protected under the grandfather clause).

I was offended that you would make a middle of the night run to shut down a discussion. I might have been more open to the suggestion that this was done in the spirit of the grandfather clause, if it didn't come in the middle of the night after a whole day of discussion, and if it didn't come with a demand for stompy action.

Still, offending you (and anyone else) right back is no way to solve that, and I am sorry for the offense I've caused.

(edited to add a comma)

and to add...

brenda - that was a crosspost. I felt the way in which the grandfathering clause was brought to bureaucracy was dirty dealing in the middle of the night, like that.

It has been something of a shock to find that a thread full of people I am fond of has developed a culture where they sit around and rag on a group (including myself and many other long standing sorts) of Buffistas.

That means they have to find us a pre-March citation, where it was proposed that all official casting announcement that come from anywhere but TV promos are out of bounds as NAFDA acceptable sources for casting news.

I asked before, but I think it got lost in the flurry of posts. Do we have accessible archives other than at WX? Because I have vague memories of spoiler policy discussion, but I frankly don't know what all they contained. Either way, I'd like to be able to know for sure.

But in the meantime, I at least cannot get into our stuff at WX, and I think we need to if we're to get an answer to this question.

I was offended that you would make a middle of the night run to shut down a discussion.

We didn't slip in in the middle of the night to shut down a discussion. We had been discussing it for some time and it seemed to have reached a conclusion-- we'd hit the grandfather clause, it was time to close the thread.