"That major casting spoilers (to the main cast only, not recurring or guest), which are being advertised by Fox or the WB at their annual upfront presentation to advertisers, are no longer considered spoilers and may be discussed, within their respective show threads. This only includes cast additions or departures that occur over summer hiatus. Any plot points related to the character's (not the actor's) arrival or departure are to be treated as spoilers. The Main Cast are those characters who appear in the opening credits."
Okay, I could agree to this.
if people would use the Spoiler Light thread more efectively, preferably without the white font. That way, those who only want to know the casting spoilers and hypothesize about the rest could go there, the hardcore can stay in hardcore, and the virgins can stay in NAFDA. If this means there's only two people chatting in the Angel thread, then there's only two people chatting in the Angel thread.
And this...
But it is a question of how the boards are used and respected. I know one casting spoiler and I don't think there is any way besides serious determination that I, personally, don't have to avoid it. But I want to remain as spoiler-free as I can this season for Angel.
And I won't probably vote cause this isn't a thread I have been in enough to feel comfortable doing that, but my .02 for the reading...
Cass, if you hang out at the show threads, the NAFTA threads, the spoiler threads, or really any others, you're welcome to cast your vote. You don't have to jump into this discussion to have input - that's part of why we established voting in the first place.
Thanks brenda but I only delurked after this season of Angel ended so it is really that I haven't been in the Angel thread long enough to feel right voting.
New name for a Bitches or Natter thread (so far in B'cy as far as I have seen) and I am there...
The spoiler vs. nearly common knowledge and where to post, NSM yet...
t off-topic
love your tag: "I am gonna
catch
that bastard or my name isn't--FUCK!" for posterity...
t move along, only topical discussions here...
So far I am just watching how this plays out...
I said how I felt and also that being very new, that is about as far as I feel comfortable going on a policy change... But thanks... Like it here...
I agree with Victor.
I would also like to point out how I feel that not discussing the BCS is detrimental to discussion on the whole board.
1. As far as I can tell, everyone currently posting in this thread knows BCS.
2. Once you know BCS it is hard to make any speculation on next season without including that, therefore almost no discussion can take place in the Angel thread.
3. If you are a person who does not want to be further spoiled, there is no place for you to talk about Angel at all.
Personally, I made the decision to say fuck it and get spoiled so I had somewhere to talk about the show, but not everyone wants to do that. Also, as is pointed out, the Spoiler thread is a culture, and it is not really a culture in which I fit.
Perhaps a compromise would be (as others have suggested
1. Repurpose Buffy, Spoilers Lite to be talk for those spoiled about BCS
2. Use Angel, spoilers Lite for other casting news
3. Resolve that talking about actor's other projects is not a spoiler unless specifically phrased as such,
Do you mean discuss BCS in spoilage lite? Or do you mean stuff that wouldn't be covered in officialstuffwhatKristensaid?
Right now I mean to keep the NAFDA threads as they are, except with the cavat that actor's projects can be discussed, and make the Spoilers Lite into viable threads where people could discuss BCS (in one) and Other News (like Kristens news) in the other.
That way no one is disenfranchised (I don't think).
I think the anger is coming from a sense that people don't have a place to talk. Regardless of who is spoiled or not, it seems no matter what we do, someone is dsenfranchised. This is just a combo of ideas I've seen bandied about that I think will give everyone a place to talk. Perhaps it will make no one ecstatic, but it will make no one really, really unhappy. We are here to talk, and right now little talking re: Angel is happening.
I just want everyone to be happy-- or the least number of people to be unhappy.
1. Repurpose Buffy, Spoilers Lite to be talk for those spoiled about BCS
Sophia, when you say, "BCS" - are you talking about the one big performer spoiler, or about the combination of the three? Because if you've been in spoilers, I think you might know what the three regular cast members changes are. Are you only proposing we can talk about the one performer, but not the other two there? I'm confused.
But the BCS would fall under Kristen's def of common knowledge.
However people feel about spoilers, it's clear whatever we do have is not a consensus. Therefore, automatically,
we need to bring this to a vote.
I don't care about rules of procedure (despite having been one of the big people in creating them!) because it's clear we have a problem, and fixing the problem is far more important than procedure.
All must vote! All!
"That major casting spoilers (to the main cast only, not recurring or guest), which are being advertised by Fox or the
WB at their annual upfront presentation to advertisers, are no longer considered spoilers and may be discussed, within their respective show threads
only
. This only includes cast additions or departures that occur over summer hiatus
only (not midseason)
. Any plot points related to the character's (not the actor's) arrival or departure are to be treated as spoilers. The Main Cast are those characters who appear in the opening credits."
I can get behind this as a proposal. I have added the onlies above to make it more specific. I like onlies, and clarity, because those voting for and against have a clear idea what's being voted.
Here is my attempt at a summary of the last 700 posts:
- hardcore spoilerists are feeling ghettoized into Spoilers, and are creating their own subcommunity there complete with natter. This denotes a serious problem with the current enforcement of spoiler policy.
- middle-of-the-road spoiler-whatevers are starting to feel pinched, unable to talk about certain topics, although those topics used to be allowable. (**)
- the hardcore spoilerfree are afraid that a relaxation of current spoiler policy will ghettoize
them
into some other place not yet specified, but that place will not be Bitches or any other NAFDA thread.
** I speak frankly as a whateverist. I have felt very pinched, on something totally unrelated to
Angel,
so it may shed light on the global nature of spoiler-strictness being a problem. I became wary of the strict interpretation of spoiler policy when I got a post stompy-altered for spoiling the Tolkien novels in Natter -- novels that have been in print continuously since 18 years before I was born. No discussion (till after the fact, when I asked why), no debate -- just alteration.
I was hurt that the action was so peremptory, and genuinely puzzled that what would not be a spoiler 2 years ago, and would not be a spoiler 2 years from now, and is not a spoiler in the thread devoted to the topic, was a spoiler in Natter. And who decided that it was a spoiler? One person complained in Bureaucracy, and that complaint was acted upon by stompies -- that quickly.
The post having been altered, there was hardly any point in my bringing it up in Bureaucracy. But I did complain, and was very unsatisfied with the answers I got -- it was a done deal, and nobody was going to undo the alteration, even though nobody could explain how the spoiler policy had come to formally encompass my post.
I think that spoilerists and spoilerfree are going to have their answer legislated by this referendum -- hopefully, it will come out a compromise. It's us whateverists that are going to need to be the topic of a broader conversation, one that should continue after the vote.
I feel disenfranchised,
as a run-of-the-mill Buffista, when one person or a very few people can make policy for all. I have felt extremely disenfranchised where general application of spoiler policy is involved.
Actually, what I'd like to see is a cultural default negative: a thing is not a spoiler unless we have already decided it is, specifically.
