THREE!?!?!?

Yeah, er, that's why I thought maybe I should check in, because I just remembered that #3 was probably officially announced, and it looks like it was. I wouldn't want anyone wandering in, thinking "well, I wish I were unspoiled, but I know everything that would be discussed" and then discovering something they didn't want to know.

Okay, Kristen, thanks - I bow to your knowledge of what was officially released and what wasn't. I can never remember where I read stuff.

NAFDA became a virgin thread sometime this past season through squeezing.

NAFDA is a spoiler free zone. It always has been. The squeezing has been taken off the table REPEATEDLY. NOBODY is advocating further squeezing.

First, I know of two major casting spoilers, not three. I have no idea where you found that third, but it wasn't in my posts.

I'm sorry, Burrell, I must have either misread your posts or conflated them with someone elses. My point was, and remains, this proposal, if voted in, would allow for discussion of at least 3 pieces of casting information that I consider spoilery, and it seems that you would probably be spoiled by at least one of them.

Second, have never offered myself up as the person who decides what can and cannot be discussed. I am simply presenting arguments in favor of Jim's proposal.

Burrell, I never said anything of the sort, I don't think that I even implied it. If that is what you inferred from my posts, please do believe me when I say that was not my intent. I am simply trying to say that Jim's proposal would allow discussion of at least 3 casting 'spoilers'.

And an apology: I know it now kind of sucks to know "three" instead of "two." I didn't see any other way to make sure people who didn't want to know stayed out, you know?

Okay, Kristen, thanks - I bow to your knowledge of what was officially released and what wasn't. I can never remember where I read stuff.

Does this mean the third wasn't yet official? I didn't read your whitefont.

The squeeze already happened though. I want to unsqueeze.

Katie - I am going to do this without the benefit of whitefont, and edit out specifics. If you don't get your answers from my statements, let me know. I'm just scared to death I'll fuck up the white font and spoil someone more.

For instance, will it be allowable to say that Performer X is joining as Character Y?

I'm not the queen unfortunately, but I can't see hiding the characters name, if we allow the actors name to be discussed in the Angel thread. Usually, I think the WB's cast page lists the actor and his or her character name.

Will it be okay to say that there was a possibility floated that [you know what goes here]?

NO. According to the terms of the proposal, we cannot discuss recurrings and guests, only regular contracted actors status (as in are they added to the show, or taken off contract).

No we're not talking about changing board policy. We're talking about modifying the written FAQ, so that when it answers the question as to what is a spoiler, it acknowledges what we always have in practice, namely that we talk about contracted regulars over the summer, and casting news that applies to them.

Okay. I disagree. I think that modifying the written FAQ is changing board policy.

Does this mean the third wasn't yet official?

The third cast change was official and announced at the WB upfront. Katie's third question was based on something Tim said in an interview regarding said cast change.

And an apology: I know it now kind of sucks to know "three" instead of "two." I didn't see any other way to make sure people who didn't want to know stayed out, you know?

No apology needed, Katie. Other people have indicated that there were more - hell, you might not even know all of them. I think it's just important that everyone is aware of how much information will be discussed under the proposal.