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?

---

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?

The thought was to repurpose one of the spoilage lite thread to be only BCS-type spoilers (the a la Kristen Press ones) and keep one the way it is. I would repurpose the Buffy thread for the a la Kristen as it doesn't currently contain Angel casting spoilers that don't fir Krsiten's definition.

In order to encourage conversation, we would really need to make an announcement and to make an effort to use the thread. I think it could becaome wuite active for the summer.

---

Trudy - insent to profile addy.

Plei - insent to one of your thousands. Not your profile addy, but close.

I have read nothing that would work to any degree better or worse than the set-up we have now, if people would use the Spoiler Light thread more efectively, preferably without the white font.

Victor - I love that you're proposing a compromise. I don't know that we have any way of knowing that it would satisfy any more people than the current state of affairs does (and I don't even know how many people are satisfied with the current state of affairs). I also don't know how we can know how many spoilers-lite folks would hate change to the thread they usually use.

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, I know brenda already encouraged you, but you're still seeming to decline the opportunity to vote. You may already know this, but in case you don't, we don't vote in a thread. Jon B has created an online ballot form. When you complete it and submit your ballot, it is emailed to the vote counter, and an automatic confirmation is emailed to you. I don't know if this would increase your comfort level in voting. I hope it does.

...

Sophia - I think it should be clear to me, but it's not; how are you using the term BCS? Are you using it to only stand for the first, single, biggest casting news, or are you using it in the plural, to refer to all of the official regulars' casting news? Because the number has been mentioned by the spoiled, the medium, and the unspoiled in this thread, I'm talking about all three changes to regular status news items. They were all released back in May, so I'm having a hard time indicating what I mean. I hope you know what I mean.

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.

I'm not sure which one is Kristen's news post. I'm sorry. Can you please somehow be more specific without revealing the who and what? If you want to do so in Spoilers, please just let me know.

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.

Even without understanding which things would be allowed where, I'm inclined to disagree with this. I do think for the people who desire to remain completely unspoiled, it would be the least angst-making solution. But I'm not certain how it would help people with higher levels of casting knowledge. They're still being ghettoized, which is only one part of the frustration. The frustration underlying that is that they are being ghettoized, because the WB has released this official news, released it two months ago, but because they showed it to us on our computer monitor screens instead of our tv screens, it somehow doesn't count, even though it counted in summers past. Maybe I'll feel differently once I understand how you're defining your terms. Thanks.

Nutty - in addition to your summary, it may be worth noting that another issue is that the hardcore spoiler-free posters don't want to have to choose between staying out of NAFDA or getting spoiled. Yet, the middle of the road posters have been more than pinched. They've been forced to make the sort of situation you mention the spoiler-free fear facing, in the reverse. If they wanted a place to talk about that which has historically been considered acceptable summertime news, they've had to choose to be spoiled, or not post (which is, to me - a similar situation to the spoiler-free having to avoid the thread).

---