Why are you basing "necessary" on the WB's random date of running the promo? You'll still know about the character before 9:01 October 8.

Because it is a long standing standard I have learned to live with.

Fair enough. I think it's arbitrary, but it's what you chose, and it's worked for you.

Now, some people -- well, only Pinwiz that I know of -- avoid promos. Again, honest question -- why don't you do that, if you don't want to know anything before you have to?

If Joss said he's human that would somehow stay out of the discussions?

Inasmuch as other spoilers are kept out of the discussions, sure. There have been spoiled people posting in the show threads since time immemorial. And sometimes folks slip, being human, but really ... do you think they'd be more likely to slip if the proposal passes?

Okay. And part of your argument is that you'd have nowhere to discuss the show. I'd propose the "Spoiler Virgins: Speculation Leads to Genital Warts and Hellfire" thread. That was supposed to be funny. The title, not the suggestion.

One of the reason why my suggestion for a thread called 'People who want to discuss the BCS come on over' was vetoed was thread proliferation. I assume the same would apply here.

And, also, we do have a non-spoiler thread - it says right in the header of the NAFDA threads that they are spoiler free. It's the definition of spoiler on this board that is under debate. I think.

I think that has to be a separate proposal.

I am back in the land of confusion. I thought this proposal was about amending/clarifying/changing how major in between season cast changes can be discussed. What's the second proposal?

What's the second proposal?

For a Virgins thread.

but it's what you chose,

Well, it's what the community chose.

Now, some people -- well, only Pinwiz that I know of -- avoid promos. Again, honest question -- why don't you do that, if you don't want to know anything before you have to?

Sometimes I do, but generally I'd rather participate in the discussions on the show threads.

Because it is a long standing standard I have learned to live with.

Fair enough. I think it's arbitrary, but it's what you chose, and it's worked for you.

Trudy (and I) have chosen to not seek out spoilers. But the standard of what is permissible in NAFDA threads was not chosen by us, it was chosen back on WX (I think, we can't go there to search) or perhaps even TT when our spoiler policy was formed.

And the divide between the various conceptions of the policy - There is a concrete written policy. What some people are arguing (and this wasn't entirely clear to me in the beginning) is that there is another, phantom policy. In their view, it's the phantom policy that needs changing, not the concrete one.

I think the divide in the conceptions is that the concrete written policy, is not the policy (perhaps this is the phantom policy?) we followed for ages. I want, and I think others do too, to get back to the looser phantom policy.

For a Virgins thread.

Oh. Okay. I'm less confused now. Thank you.

And what we do here is speculate. And discuss. And speculate some more.

Heh. For those who think the spoiler sensitity here is extreme - back at TT it was seriously discussed whether (unspoiled) speculation should be disallowed as spoilery. I can't imagine that anyone here is even remotely in that place anymore. The discussion's never gotten so heated before (that I've come across) but the ebb and flow of our tolerance levels seems fairly constant. That's one thing that gives me hope we'll come up with a brilliant solution.