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.

Yes, we have. The point was (and I am still hoping someone will prove me wrong) is that the grandfather clause was enacted on May 22, 2003, and there haven't been substantial changes to the faq since then (that I can find).

Am packing up my basement - just want to say again, I'm sorry I've offended some of you. I don't think quashing this proposal is going to do anything to improve board relations.

I understand that, Elena, but the climate is such that we had to mull over whether or not we could say that this was the last season of Buffy, lest it ruin your surprise of turning on UPN at 8pm on Tuesday this Fall and seeing the new Dan Cortese show that's going to be canceled.

That was a spoiler in that no character would be returning to Buffy.

I get that if you're spoiled you can't be unspoiled, and I get the frustration about not discussing things in the show threads that are common knowledge.

Heather, part of what frustrates me is that I have been spoiled by people who thought what they were talking about was common knowledge... It's not.

Sometimes those with knowledge forget that others don't know it too. Lemme examplify. I am frequently amazed that people don't know the difference between acetaminophen, ASA, and ibuprofen - because how could you not know that? Oh, right. Because they are not pharmacists. How can I not know that Ed Asner is replacing DB as the title character? Oh, right. Because I'm not a spoiler-seeker.

deleted as it was confuse-ed

I understand that, Elena, but the climate is such that we had to mull over whether or not we could say that this was the last season of Buffy, lest it ruin your surprise of turning on UPN at 8pm on Tuesday this Fall and seeing the new Dan Cortese show that's going to be canceled.

That was a spoiler in that no character would be returning to Buffy.

Right. And it ended up getting "spilled" in the thread after the frustration over the elephant in the livingroom got too intense. (May I just add, parenthetically, that when people talked about the pink elephant in the threads I actually had no idea that this being Buffy's last season was said elephant because people had discussed that SMG was only contracted for 7 seasons way back on WX and - I think - on TT.) And did it actually end up spoiling anything? Because I think that the information was so widely spread that it was, in fact, common knowlege... The problem is that it's hard to determine what, in fact, is common knowledge and what is not.

I'm not sure I agree with your analogy though. I think it's more of a who doesn't know that Bayer's asprin. We used to accept some things as general knowledge. That's why I'm asking about the musical. I have the impression that that was general knowledge, in much the same way as the BCS is (ie promoted the hell out of even before a promo ever aired).

And did it actually end up spoiling anything? Because I think that the information was so widely spread that it was, in fact, common knowlege...

There were people in the Buffy thread who were *vehement* that it should not be posted that SMG was not coming back for an 8th season. So *they* seemed to feel it was a spoiler.

And, true, it was not in a promo. Because what a dull promo that would be.

Coming this fall: NOTHING.

I think everyone agrees that buffy not being permanantly dead and the show surviving was very much an acceptable exception.

Somewhere out there, is a someone who disagrees, Trudy. It'd be hyperbolic if it weren't true, but many of us didn't know if we could post that SMG did not sign on for eight. That's the current climate, and it appears (though it may be untrue), that we're vigilantly protecting a few people who get to arbitrarily decide what is a spoiler. The state of SMGs contract was never in any promo, and the end of Buffy not til the last five episodes.

I do think we need to try and change the tone of this conversation a bit - including ignoring provocations.

You don't have to understand a spoiler-virgins point of view to understandt that they do in fact want to stay spoiler virgins.

You don't have understand a not-quite-so-spoiler vigins (because this is not coming just from ho's) to understand that they do in fact find some of the suppression of conversation extremely frustrating.

I think we need to avoid the use of provactive language right now while emotions are high.

I think the supporters of this will have to assume (in the abscence of proof otherwise) that the asking the thread be closed at midnight on grounds that the grandfather clause mooted it was done in the sincere belief that the issue was settled.

I think those who asked that to close the thread at around midnight, have to understand that it was natural that their timing raise some eyebrows.

I think the orginal proposal was intended as a compromise. I think that Trudy's proposals have been intended as compromises. I think both sides will have to realize that the other side does not see them as compromises.

Kumbaya, my lord, Kumbaya
Kumbaya, my lord , Kumbaya,
Kumbaya, my lord, Kumbaya
Oh Lord, Kumbaya

The problem is that it's hard to determine what, in fact, is common knowledge and what is not.

Right now, it's you and Trudy who are determining what the rest of the people can and cannot say, because as outlined by the "SMG will not return" news, you've said that's okay. "Nick Brendon will not be on Angel" is not okay. This is puzzling. This is why I think it's important to hammer it out.