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.

---

I was thinking one Spoilers Lite for just the "ONE" and the other for all, becuase it seems more people know one than the other two But it could work that there would be one spoilers light for "common knowledge a la Kristen" and one for the current definition of spoilers lite-- all casting spoilers.

---

"common knowledge a la Kristen"

I am now ice cream on the pie of casting spoiler knowledge.

---

I am now ice cream on the pie of casting spoiler knowledge

Mmmmmmm. Ice cream pieeeeeeeeee!

---

When come back, bring Kristen?

---

Forget the websearch, please.

Then stop bringing it up. My comment was to LJ, making note that she'd been off in her assumption. You went into more detail about it -- you wanted me to answer, I assumed.

---

What we need is for The WB to give Joss his own summer series. He can talk about whatever's on his mind, he'll give out the spoilers he doesn't consider spoilers, and, you know, fun all around.

Can we look into making these votes be binding on networks?

Caught up on 800 posts. Got angry at some people, then cooled off with a combination of reasoning and mind-numbing "how do we define 'printed interview'"-type discussions. Still going to vote affirmative, even if we end up with the post-in-French proposal.

Unrelated question (like almost every other Q in here, since we're supposed to be focusing on the vote, but we just can't, dammit, we suck): If BCS-type people start using Spoilage Lite, how do they avoid non-summer casting spoilers? Would we be able to successfully whitefont those meticulously at the same time we're freewheeling the BCS?

(removed unrelated-er comment--mustn't natter, mustn't)

---

Then stop bringing it up.

Want pie. Want pie?

---