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.

Guys, one show ending and in some or whatever way being incorporated into the other show is huge and spoiley in an unprecedented fashion.

Thanks Kristen. Info from interviews is still considered verbotten, right?

No apology necessary, Katie.

It makes me more likely, however, to leave NAFDA (including ::gulp:: Bitches) if we can't work something out.

Info from interviews is still considered verbotten, right?

I think so. I wouldn't have previously thought that but Jeff Bell schooled me otherwise.

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

Looks like the third is official but an element of that spoiler that I happen to know wasn't. Or anyway, that's what Kristen says.

Cindy, I'm going back to whitefont:

Well but he is a regular... oh, right, you're saying that in the act of becoming not-a-regular his potential return would be as a recurring/one-shot character and thus not allowable. That makes sense, though I don't know if people would manage to hold to it. (Not that I don't think people would try - I don't want to imply that I think the spoiler folks here want to mess with the spoiler-free.) Looks like it's a moot point anyway, according to Kristen.

NAFDA is a spoiler free zone.

I agree.

We don't agree on the definition of a spoiler with regards to officially announced casting news, and how it can be handled in that zone.

I used the term 'virgin' - specifically to set aside the people who don't want to know a single thing, not even the regular cast.

The regular cast is what is in contention here. Anti-proposal people mostly say it's a spoiler until the WB tells us via a TV promo. Pro-proposal people are saying we never treated it as a spoiler until this past year. That was also a squeeze. That the squeeze was represented by an answer in the FAQ is not so much at issue as whether the FAQ was written taking board culture into consideration.

Since we previously discussed regulars and if they were returning or not, if this news broke over the summer, pro-proposal people believe it wasn't taken into consideration.

DB is Angel is no more a piece of valid news because I see a promo on my TV, than it is when I read a press release from the WB, officially confirming it renewed Angel and which cast members will be regulars. It's been artificially validated by a FAQ answer, that didn't truly answer the question with regards to Buffista spoiler/casting news treatment.

We didn't see in a promo that ASH wouldn't be a regular. We talked about SMG coming back as Buffy long before the season 6 pre-season promos aired.

Info from interviews is still considered verbotten, right?

If it's a printed interview I thought it was okay?

So if, say, Joss Whedon gives an August interview to the New York Times in which he says "great news! Elvis Presley is going to rise from the dead and become a regular on Angel!" we'd be able to talk about that under this proposal.