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?

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

No, actually, I won't, because they're all intertwined and not really able to be separated. How we handle this will, or should, affect how we handle other situations where reasonable interpretation of the law has given in and taken the strict letter of the law approach.

And again, I don't think that everyone has, or will, agree on anti-spoilers until the above is dealt with.

Brenda's point is sound -- this is grandfathered bullshit, isn't it?

No, I don't think so. It wasn't ever discussed or talked about, and we have already amended the thing that happened with Cross Show discussion, so there's that p. word again.

I don't think this proposal is invalid under the grandfather clause, if we were able to create the Cross-Show Whitefont Rule, which *also* was a tightening of the spoiler definition.

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.

Huh. I've been in Spoilers since "Chosen," and I haven't noticed a culture of making fun of other Buffistas. Being relatively new to that thread, I think I would have noticed it.

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.

Wrod.

Just PRETEND the anti-spoilers are off the table.

What other spoiler concerns do you have?

DO you have any?