1. When I refer to the BCS, I'm referring to one specific actor, and not to the entire suite of possible change(s) to the AtS main cast. Is this also how other people are using it?

It's how I'm using it. But someone said that they can think of two BCS, so I honestly don't know if my BCS is your BCS.

2. My impression is that anti-spoiler refers to discussing the plans of actors who have not ever been in the AtS credits, but theoretically could--AtS recurring characters, and BtVS main and recurring characters. Is this correct?

Um... No. My understanding of anti-spoiler is, in fact, that I don't understand it at all. I thought it referred to people who may or may not be leaving the AtS cast.

3. If my understanding of the above is correct, how do the people who would be OK with a compromise allowing us to discuss the BCS in the Angel thread feel about including other possible additions/deletions to the main cast in that compromise?

I think that's the proposal on the table, Susan. I know one addition and one deletion. Any other additions/deletions would spoil me, and I would not be able to participate in the thread.

I feel Scrappy's pain. Big time.

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

Okay, I feel better now.

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

For the record, tt has been my policy to break down commercials (when I catch) them and post them, first (back in the WX and TT days) in the show thread, now in Mejiaville (when we went live on the Phoenix).

I don't think that violates spoiler policy in any of the definitions that we have used or practiced.

Cindy, sorry, I meant the post of yours before that. I forgot you'd split them. And I whited it out.

That's perceived climate.

I know it is the perception, but it is NOWHERE represented in this conversation.

I'm not saying that to be a bitch; I think that's our policy. So I actually don't know how one would get Lightbulbs closed, unless there was something definitely definite, and I think there are too many people who think there is NOT definite reason to close the thread right now.

And several people who think that there just may be a valid reason, and think that needs to be hammered out.

I see three basic positions represented:

You miss the main position, which is that when the network promotes its cast line-up for the new season, we agree it's not spoilery in TV promos, and so fail to see the logic behind calling it spoilery in their press releases and official cast list on their website.

ita - I don't get why you need search terms for this stuff. If they make an official release, you will hear they make an official release. I feel like idiot Jed here, I'm not trying to be obtuse, what's the problem with the official releases and why would anyone need to search it. "The WB announces it's new fall line up today blah blah Angel returning blah blah blah cast."

If your problem is how do we word that in the FAQ, can we wait and see if the proposal passes. We have a gazillion wordsmiths here. Someone will come up with an idea on how to word the faq entry.

Say, there seem to be a lot of people around. Does anyone feel like burning off some agression by killing quotes? I can authorise an emergency deathmatch...

you will hear they make an official release

Where will I hear that? If my best friend says "oh, did you hear that Michelle Trachtenberg's on Angel next fall?" how do I know if it's a leak, or a promoted addition to the regular cast? My best friend, I guarantee, will have no idea.

Or am I being obtuse too?

Until now unspoiled has been the default and spoilers had to go elsewhere (since people can't be UNspoiled once sullied).

I think though, that until recently, it wasn't a big deal because we allowed discussion of things that we don't now.