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?

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.

There is a list of links if you'd like to see it. Posting them here has seemed inflamatory and has been avoided.

Trudy, I have said several times, and in several ways, what my concerns are.

As you seem to have not paid any attention to them, or think they're invalid, I'm through restating my arguments, because it's just extra typing that my damaged wrists no longer need.

What other spoiler concerns do you have?

There was the whole Cross-Show Whitefont Rule, which tightened the definition of spoilers considerably.

True, it's moot now, because only Buffy and Angel were related shows, and Firefly is dead (and even if it weren't, I'd be shocked to see, for instance, Clem show up on Serenity), and I doubt Wonderfalls is at all related to the Jossverse.

Still. That's an example of the spoiler policy getting tightened beyond the much-touted FAQ limits.

I am very much paying attention.

I am also trying to clarify the problem. I primarily see your spoiler concerns as anti-spoilers and the elephant.

Thank you Steph!

We have:

the elephant
anti-spoilers
cross-show whitefont

Any others?