In case I was unclear (and it seems I was) I mean the Spoilers thread.

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.

You didn't slip in in the middle of the night, right. But you did demand a stompy in the middle of the night, instead of suggesting that you wait to continue, until people were around and could try to agree whether or not this was a grandfather issue.

Yep. I was following procedure as I saw it. And there were several stompies around.

Brenda pointed out the grandfather clause, since that point anti-spoilers, larger policy, etc. were being hashed again. The conversation, imho, needed to end and if people wanted to start a new one they could re-open the thread.

brenda and Plei's discussion about the underlying hostilities bothered me. I'm not saying they're not right. I am saying, I don't have that kind of clique identification here at b.org, personally. And any disagreement I have with you, or Elena, brenda or Jen over the spoiler policy

See, I don't THINK it's a clique identification issue. For me it's that, when I joined, and when a lot of people joined, there was a lot more wiggle room in terms of what you said and how. Things were relaxed (see Hec's drug law analogy), and now they aren't, and I'm baffled as the next person as to how that happened. I suppose I should re-read that damn article. So what's been building for me and a few other people I know of, and what I was referring to, is the gradual shift to letter-of-the-law interpretations of a number of things. Spoilers being one of them. It makes me feel uncomfortable, and I keep waiting for the next rule to tighten.

OK, besides the "anti-spoilers" (which have now been relinquished) and the current elephant, what other aspects of spoilerhood do you feel have been tightened, Plei?

Things were relaxed (see Hec's drug law analogy), and now they aren't, and I'm baffled as the next person as to how that happened. I suppose I should re-read that damn article. So what's been building for me and a few other people I know of, and what I was referring to, is the gradual shift to letter-of-the-law interpretations of a number of things.

Plei, we're (mostly) on opposite sides of the current issue, but your statement about I'm in full agreement with. I think the whole move to codify procedures got us started down this road, and none of us realized where it would lead. General growth might account for some of it as well. And I think we need to sit back and figure out why this happening and how to ease the situation. But I don't think the current proposal really addresses this.

OK, besides the "anti-spoilers" (which have now been relinquished) and the current elephant, what other aspects of spoilerhood do you feel have been tightened, Plei?

See: 'spoilers being one of them.'

See also: Cindy's statement that just because you, Trudy Booth, have relinquished the 'anti-spoiler', doesn't mean everyone will.

See also: the idea that the letter of the law trumps previous interpretation of the law.

The generally feeling I'm getting from the board is that people are a hell of a lot more uptight than we were back in the day. We're being more careful about language, more pissy about enforcing artifical courtesy, and ceding honesty to comfort.

Plei, we're (mostly) on opposite sides of the current issue, but your statement about I'm in full agreement with. I think the whole move to codify procedures got us started down this road, and none of us realized where it would lead. General growth might account for some of it as well. And I think we need to sit back and figure out why this happening and how to ease the situation. But I don't think the current proposal really addresses this.

I totally agree that we need to figure the why, and if there is a way to ease it, and that the current proposal doesn't address it. The current proposal just addresses what is, for some, a symptom of a greater ailment.

Cindy I was not one of the ones offended. I simply pointed out how it could be meant in an non-offensive way, but be taken in an offensive way. In short I pointed out that it could be a poor choice of words, made without offensive intent.

See: 'spoilers being one of them.'

Plei, I'm trying to address the spoiler issue, you'll have to take up the others elsewhere.

IF we can all agree to take anti-spoilers off the table and ONCE we address the elephant, what other spoiler concerns do you have?