Steph: snerk! Not at all.

And it's not that you're THAT new to spoilers. You've been in there off and on for a while.

I am so freaking confused.

Yes, we have made changes to the FAQ since March 20th. In fact, we made a small change to it [the addition of Doblerize] on March 21st. And there was talk in April about adding our voting procedures to it but I don't think that has happened yet.

When I voted for grandfathering, I did not vote to have it applied to the FAQ. It hadn't occurred to me that it was even a possiblity. The FAQ is not, and should not, be a legal document set in stone. It is an overview of information designed to help people navigate this place. Tying our hands by turning it into something we need to start voting on in order to change is a bureaucratic headache we don't need.

Yes, the FAQ does contain references to decisions and policies that we have made decisions on. But it doesn't contain every decision and it is a constantly evolving document.

At the heart of it all, I guess I just don't understand the viewpoint of extreme spoilerphobes. I don't get how knowing that NSYNC will be joining the AtS next fall as series regulars is a spoiler since we don't know how or why or when they will appear. If I heard news like that, I'd be too interested in speculating on it all. If it was announced that JAR would not be a regular next season because he's taken a second job as my pool boy, I don't see how that's a spoiler either.

But, you know, if we decide that both of those examples are spoilers, fine. It's not going to kill me to only talk about them in Spoilers. I am, however, going to propose an end to this anti-spoiler law once this current topic has been dealt with. Because yes. That one makes me insane.

I think the issue REALLY is in figuring out HOW spoilers got tighter without ever having a real discussion. I think there were seeral cases over the years of one person (many different one peoples) being upset in a show thread and everyone all saying "OK, I guess we won't talk about that. It is just that over several years the enforcement of the policy has migrated so that those incidents are now precedents.

My home comp is too slow for me to try and find any of these, although I do remember us talking about JM's contract status during Season 5, and Jen K objecting because she thought is was a spoiler and the thread at the time agreed not to talk about it.

OK, the FAQ isn't sufficient evidence that the spoiler policy is old. Fine.

Someone please show me an older one. Or even give me a vague recollection of an older one.

At the heart of it all, I guess I just don't understand the viewpoint of extreme spoilerphobes.

You know what? We've tried to answer this a jillion times and folks are going to understand or they aren't. Let's just say that we like the policy as it is written and if you don't grok our POV oh well.

People who like spoilers have a zillion places to pursue them, but once I'm spoiled it can't be undone. We are trying to protect our enjoyment of the show and your (used in a broad sense, not to the poster specifically) comprehension of that enjoyment dosen't matter to that fact.

Trudy, I don't appreciate your tone. I was simply saying that I'm just not in place where I can understand it but I would abide by whatever was decided.

And it occurred to me since I posted that that I can do that pretty easily. Why? Because I don't go into the show threads much anymore. I used to post in the show threads. When I first started posting, I was rarely in Spoilers. But as the spoiler policy gradually tightened, I just started going in there because I can never keep track of what is a spoiler and what isn't. And I don't really enjoy getting yelled at for inadvertently "spoiling" people.

I know I'm not the only one who feels that way. And yes, I see that as a problem for this community which is why, regardless of the outcome, I've wanted this conversation to continue. We need some clarification on this spoiler policy so that people will be less confused and stop feeling like they can't post in the show threads.

I have yet to get heated over this issue but, frankly, I feel like your last post to me was a slap in the face designed to provoke my anger and, no, I don't think I deserved it.

Let's just say that we like the policy as it is and if you don't grok our POV oh well.

Couldn't I say the same thing to you about casting spoilers, though? Why does your opinion weigh more?

People who like spoilers have a zillion places to pursue them, but once I'm spoiled it can't be undone.

unAmericans does exist, alongsdie Spoilers. Neither equal zillion, but there you have it.

Seems that for the handful of spoilerphobes (that seems to have a negative connotation, perhaps spoilerfree is better), it seems that they'd be better off with their own thread.

Agreeing with Trudy that in Spoilers, people have used the word insane to describe the hardcore spoilerfree.

Unreasonable might be better. Conversations are stifled when we can't discuss Nick's new show, or Emma's theatre aspirations. I think that's unreasonable, and I think my opinion on that weighs as much as anyone's.

I've seen many posts in here about how people don't see how x, y, or z can be a spoiler. Let me state now, for the record, you don't have have to see how I see x, y, and/or z as spoilers, just take me at my word that I do. Take Trudy at her word that she does. Take Katie and Liese at their words. And believe us when we say that it lessens our enjoyment of the show.

I presented my proposal as a way to allow the spoiled to discuss the BCS (which, now, I read may be 2 BCS, and that's great, because I only know one, and there is now no conceivable way that I can take part in discussion in any NAFDA thread if this vote goes Yay) not because I think it's the major issue, but because it is the most time sensitive issue. The end result is a clarification (to some) or change (to others) of the spoiler policy - and that is going to take longer, because we will have to sort out the grandfathering clause. We will, trust me, because I was under the impression that this is exactly the sort of thing it was put in place to prevent.

Cindy, you said that the very fact that Trudy and I got spoiled on the issues (me in May, Trudy I don't know when) means that it is common knowledge. I disagree. In the normal course of things I would not have gotten spoiled - someone who didn't know the rules spoiled me. On one of the smaller casting spoilers, I got spoiled - twice - in a NAFDA thread. Once by a cut-and-paste that contained a spoiler and the poster hadn't noticed it in time, and once by someone who apparently assumed it was common knowledge. It wasn't. And I wish I hadn't been spoiled.

Plei, you've taken offense at the bringing up of the grandfather clause and asking for action on it in Sartre. I'm sorry that you were offended. We are asking for a policy decision to be made according to the rules as we understand them.

People have mentioned that things said in the Spoiler Thread have been offensive - I personally have been greatly offended by them, though PMM has made me feel less so - others can say that they, themselves, were not offended, but please do not tell me that they are not offensive. My offense is genuine and I wish I would be accorded the respect that another Buffista's feelings should be accorded.

I've been trying to be as accomodating as I can be. I have suggested compromise after compromise - it obviously hasn't worked.

Kristen, I am sorry if the tone seemed harsh. I really am.

Couldn't I say the same thing to you about casting spoilers, though? Why does your opinion weigh more?

It doesn't weigh more, but if you spoil me I cannot be unspoiled. I, otoh, cannot irrevocably unspoil you.

Unreasonable might be better. Conversations are stifled when we can't discuss Nick's new show, or Emma's theatre aspirations. I think that's unreasonable, and I think my opinion on that weighs as much as anyone's.

Those come under "anti-spoilers". They are an admittedly recent corruption of the policy. I'm willing to give them up as they are not in the definition. I think everyone else is too.

Couldn't I say the same thing to you about casting spoilers, though? Why does your opinion weigh more?

Oh, look, Trudy just said what I was going to say.

(edit) It has been brought to my attention that this post might be considered snarky. That was in no way my intention, I just read Trudy's post while I was about to post literally the same response and it struck me terribly funny.