I thought it was deemed not possible

I thought what was deemed not possible was creating a whole new thread, either for the BCS or for Virgins. I certainly saw a lot of people, myself among them, who were fine with only discussing cast changes in Angel itself, and there's certainly no reason I can see that it wouldn't be possible. All we'd have to do is say, "You can't talk about this in Bitches, Fic, Firefly, etc."

But until very recently it did include stuff like that

Not really, no.

I respectfully disagree. Buffy 1 only gives me the beginning of this past season, so I can't cite examples, but I did cite the musical as something we discussed in NAFDA, and I want to say we discussed Giles's status in S6.

We discussed that there would be a musical. This is true. We did not discuss the casting of the musical.

Or to generalize you can only talk about the particular type of casting spoiler we are legalizing on the NAFTA show thread for that show.

So as you say, Angel casting spoilers only on the angel nafta thread.

Firefly movie casting spoilers only in the NAFTA firefly thread.

(And I know that one of the points is that many of us (me included) don't consider these casting spoilers. But I'm going to save hourse of life and refer to them that way.)

Now, in the absence of Jim, is there any supporter of the general policy change who objects to this modifcation? That is Bitches and so forth remain NAFTA zones, but this particular policy (the allowing of a certain type of casting spoiler) is not allowed in Bitches and so forth, and is in fact allowed only in the NAFTA show thread for the particular show. Or is there anyone who could not live with it if it makes the virgins (while still unhappy with the change) more able to live with it if it passes?

Do you want to discuss [spoiler here] or do you want to broaden the term of non-spoiler to include press releases and the website?

Neither, actually. I want to be able to speculate on major, well-publicized changes to the regular cast over the summer, without risking being spoiled by *actual* plot spoilers, casting spoilers that I’ve been able to avoid so far, etc. See, I know it comes as a surprise, but peeps like me *also* actively avoid spoilers and yet still want to be able to discuss the few we happen to know. Spoilage Lite is a compromise, but a sad one because so little discussion takes place there and there’s such a high chance of getting spoiled further.

Ding ding ding - and many people have to compromise their own level of spoiledness in order to have a conversation about something that is casting news when the WB tells us on our TVs, but is treated as a spoiler when the WB makes its press release.

Thank you, Cindy. I have felt like this huge group of posters has been invisible for this entire discussion.

Isn't that what the Lite thread was created for. I still don't get why everything is whitefonted there since I thought it was for casting discussion.

I don’t get why everything is whitefonted either. As far as I can tell, it’s used to confirm casting spoilers, make links to more spoilly spoilers, and that’s about it. Woeful on the discussion front.

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.

Frankly, I feel uncomfortable using a specific poster as our bar for what is and is not too spoilly. I’d prefer to have a clear and straightforward policy.

the existing def is very verifiable.

Yes and no. I don’t watch WB apart from the series, so I personally would never be able to verify when and if the promos had started. It’s very verifiable for *some people*, I can see that, but for me, it’s always been a mystery and I’ve had to wait until some other Buffista told me it was okay to mention X now. So that’s *my* personal definition--wait until someone else tells me I can discuss it. Ironically, my problem with the current policy is precisely the one you speculate will be the problem with the proposed policy.

and I want to say we discussed Giles's status in S6.

His status? We discussed if he was alive/dead/Ethan(sigh)/evil/good. But if by status you mean the number of episodes in which he was contracted to appear - I don't think we did.

And, using my reading comprehension skills, I see that I'm talking about Season 7, and you're talking about season 6.

So, yeah, nevermind.

Heather, I do think that we discussed (during the summer?) how many episodes ASH was contracted for, but I also recall that people objected to that on the grounds that they'd be counting his appearances and therefore would know if he was going to appear in the finale, etc.

But, as I have so recently illustrated, my reading comprehension is sub-par. So I may very well be wrong.

Neither, actually. I want to be able to speculate on major, well-publicized changes to the regular cast over the summer, without risking being spoiled by *actual* plot spoilers, casting spoilers that I’ve been able to avoid so far, etc. See, I know it comes as a surprise, but peeps like me *also* actively avoid spoilers and yet still want to be able to discuss the few we happen to know.

Burrell, you and I want exactly the same thing. (except that I don't particularly feel a burning need to discuss it) Except my point from the beginning is this -

I want to be able to speculate on major, well-publicized changes to the regular cast over the summer, without risking being spoiled by *actual* plot spoilers, casting spoilers that I’ve been able to avoid so far, etc.

Who decides this? You're spoiled on 3 things, I'm spoiled on two. I've been able to successfully avoid one of your spoilers. Who decides which casting spoilers are permitted and which are not?

(edit - and I don't know if the BCS is common knowledge and I don't want to spoil people like Katie and Liese who I believe are entirely unspoiled)

No, Elena, you're right it's very confusing, and like I said, my memory could be faulty as far as the specifics go. But I still stand by my assertion that without discussion, the definition (unspoken) of what is a spoiler has gotten larger, and the scope of discussion smaller.

It doesn't come as a surprise to me, Burrell.

You want to be spoiled on a few things and I want to be spoiled on none. Some want a few more than you. Some want even more. If you make the no-spoiler place a teeny bit spoiled you ruin it for us.

You want to be spoiled on a few things and I want to be spoiled on none. Some want a few more than you. Some want even more. If you make the no-spoiler place a teeny bit spoiled you ruin it for us.

Yes. This. I'm willing to compromise on the BCS, because I've been assured that it is common knowledge, but I hate the thought of spoiling people.