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.

You know, saying that Leonard Nimoy will not be on AtS is not a spoiler. Saying that he will be is. Saying that AA will be returning is not a spoiler (because, IMO, status quo is the expected); saying that AA will not be returning is. Saying NB will not be on AtS is not a spoiler - unlesss (and I believe this was the case in the oft mentioned kerfluffle) it has first been mentioned that someone from BtVS will be on AtS.

Maybe it's a fine distinction, but the difference, to me, is that the assumption that the regular cast will be returning is pretty typical. Learning who is added or leaving changes the way people think of the upcoming season. For some people that increases the pleasure, for others, not so much.

(edit) You know what? I am kind of expecting that my definition of casting spoiler is the norm - What? You don't know how a COX-II inhibitor differs from an NSAID? How bizarre! - and I'm certainly not expecting people to wrap me in cotton wool. I will not winge about things, I will simply not be able to actively participate in any threads that have a looser spoiler policy than the one currently stated in our FAC.

I am, however, going to propose an end to this anti-spoiler law once this current topic has been dealt with.

I don't think this is really a problem, and I'm happy to agree to dispose of it. The most recent time it came up it wasn't the post that brought up an ME actor's new series that was the problem - it was that, in the days leading up to that, spoiled people (and I was one of them, and may very well have contributed) were careless about leaving references to the BCS in non-spoiled threads. If that information hadn't already been floated, the question of NB (or any Buffy alum) having a series would never have been an issue. It's unfortunate that it played out this way, because it caused some bad feeling and IMO distracts from the really substantive issues that have arisen since.

Also, note that I said "most recent." I've been looking through old threads for some guidance - I can't get into WX but I've looked as some of the old TT stuff. This "anti-spoiler" issue has indeed risen before, though never to such a degree. A post about Manchild was directed to spoilers, until it was spelled out that in British series it wouldn't necessarily affect ASH's presence on Buffy. Angel getting his own show, and later the network change, both came up in terms of what they told you about the future of B/A. Most relevantly, mention of the proposed Ripper series in the weeks leading up to The Gift was sternly chided because it ruled Giles out of the characters likely to die in that ep. Some of that went on during the season, which might or might not make them less relevant.

None of this is meant as a defense of an anti-spoiler rule, by any means. I think we'll do just fine without that. Just a little perspective, maybe.

Since you've been looking stuff up, brenda, can you answer my musical question?

Trudy, a quite a few of the "Spoiled" have left the thread so they can enjoy the show.

I used to be a spoilerphobe, but the more I wedged myself into more involved fandom, well, I can't avoid them.

Me: "What time is it?" Random writer, assistant, other fan: "It's half past the return of Doyle."

I gave up.

I understand your desire to be unspoiled, Trudy, but you don't seem to get that just as you would leave the thread to avoid the castings, others have left the thread in order to have discussions. That doesn't seem to affect you in the same way your leaving does affect me. Have you not thought about it, or does it not matter as much? Sure, I can go to Spoilers to discuss casting, but I'm also going to suffer sides, which is stuff I don't want to know. Weighed risks. Go Spoilers. Chose Spoilers.

Varying degrees. Right now, the far right wing of unspoiled rules the thread.

Also, do commericals on the network count? This is just promos that appear on the show the night it airs, correct?

Also, do commericals on the network count? This is just promos that appear on the show the night it airs, correct?

It is my understanding that commercials that air count.

I understand your desire to be unspoiled, Trudy, but you don't seem to get that just as you would leave the thread to avoid the castings, others have left the thread in order to have discussions. That doesn't seem to affect you in the same way your leaving does affect me. Have you not thought about it, or does it not matter as much?

Allyson, I'd love it if everyone could stay in the same thread to have a spirited discussion. But if I have to leave a NAFDA thread to avoid spoilers, I have nowhere to go to discuss.

Sure, I can go to Spoilers to discuss casting, but I'm also going to suffer sides, which is stuff I don't want to know.

I'm afraid I don't know what 'suffer sides' means.

(edit - oh, do you mean you'll be spoiled for stuff you don't already know? Because that's the exact spot that the mostly and/or entirely unspoiled will be in if these casting discussion are discussed freely in NAFDA threads. Except we have no safe place to retreat to.)

We are asking for a policy decision to be made according to the rules as we understand them.

Uh, no. That's not even close to what happened. Nobody walked into Bureau last night and "asked for a poilcy decision to be made."

Trudy came in and demanded that Lightbulbs be closed.

I was not around to object to that, and I would have.

Also, do commericals on the network count? This is just promos that appear on the show the night it airs, correct?

Nope, commercials on the network are fair game.

Since you've been looking stuff up, brenda, can you answer my musical question?

Haven't gotten there yet, but your recollection jibes with mine. I'm pretty sure we knew (and began discussing) sometime in the spring of that year, if not earlier.

brenda, thanks for that clarification earlier. I appreciate it.

I don't think the current conversation is going anywhere useful at all, so I'm going back to cleaning out the back room.

I see three basic positions represented:

1) We want to discuss the elephant. We feel previous elephants have been discussed, that this exception to the stated policy has precedence. Please, please, please let us discuss the elephant in the main thread.

2) The spoiler-phobes have gotten out of control. We're afraid to post anymore. We want the website and offical ME press releases considered non-spoilery.

3) We enjoy watching the show unfold. We like the policy the way it is, the less we know the better. We'd prefer if you'd whitefont questionable matters but we don't think it should be policy.

There is a fourth position that has been referenced but I don't see represented at all which is: Don't tell us any thing about any actor past, present or future who may be on the show.