Seriously, I think it would be helpful for the pro-spoiler folk to define themselves as ones or twos as they are very different positions.
Do you want to discuss
Spike
or do you want to broaden the term of non-spoiler to include press releases and the website?
Well, yes, it does Kristen.
But it's also a change to our current spoiler policy. And changing policy may be a problem.
I'm sitting in the upfront corner with Kristen.
I don't think they are that different though. I think we used to discuss common knowledge/official press release/whatever things. BCS is one of those.
So, like I said I'm a blend of 1 and 2.
But it's also a change to our current spoiler policy. And changing policy may be a problem.
That is what the proposal is about, though -- changing the spoiler policy.
It sounds good, Kristen. (It also sounds like there is something besides
Spikes Back!
and I really don't want to know that.)
That looks like a good definition for position one.
I do believe, however, that there is a contingent of position two who want to expand the definition in general.
Trudy makes a good point... I would personally prefer to be unspoiled and not get spoiled by discussion in the NAFDA threads.
But, since I am spoiled, I have no objection to people discussing Trudy's whitefont in the NAFDA threads assuming that this is something that is easily found/not easily avoided and we don't run the risk of spoiling people who do not know.
I do not want the spoiler definition changed to suit my personal spoiler tolerances (because that would include no discussion of promos, and that's just not fair to most of the posters in the NAFDA threads). I am not trying to dictate policy, I am stating my preferences, as are we all.
I think it's more about clarifying spoiler policy than changing it Steph.
Cindy, I understand that the information comes out there. What I'm asking -- is the suggestion for me to verify
after
the info's out -- to track down those releases? Not particularly helpful. New season page for Angel looks reasonably unspoilery (using the proposed re-def) now that I've found it -- that's what I'd suggest as the resource.
So, like I said I'm a blend of 1 and 2.
Do you want a change just for this topic (1) or for future discussions (2)?