I find it upsetting that not one person in favor of the change is willing to entertain the possiblity that it might.

Untrue, I'm in favor of change, and before I shut down to get ready for dinner, I said that there were two issues on the table, 1) change, and 2) whether we could even vote on change without discussing whether or not we could have the vote re: grandpappy, and that we had to talk about grandpappy, first.

Allyson--Did you get my email? And did you see what Joss wrote in Firefly?

You're right, Allyson, I'm sorry I missed that.

Can I ask why Jim would be pissed? I mean, beyond the fact that at times in this discussion we've all gotten a little upset, probably (on all sides) more than was warranted?

Also, as to voting, what's our timeline on this again? It seems like a lot of folks haven't been around this weekend, so I hope we'll at least give it through Monday.

No Scrappy, when did you send it? Is it the script? BOUNCE!

Allyson, go here: joss "Firefly 3: Too Damned Pretty to Die" Jul 27, 2003 8:57:57 am PDT

I sent it to your profile addy--whihc I think is a Fury address?

Last post from me on grandfathering, I swear.

At this point, I'm more than convinced that even if it did apply, it would do far more harm than good in this situation. I just bristled at the implication that bringing it up in the first place was somehow out of line. And I do understand that the unfortunate timing had something to do with the reactions.

Addressing Brenda's point here. I disliked it because it looked like a parliamentary end-run on necessary discussion.

But, I'm compelled to say mostly because I find it amusing, isn't that the whole point of the thing? I wasn't a supporter when it passed for that very reason. I'm not quite sure how I got here from there.

When we started making and enacting rules here we very consciously avoided to-the-letter prescriptions because we wanted common sense to have sway over thread-Lawyering.

Thank you for the reminder. I do think this is key to how we (should) function. Spoilers are indeed a tough case to apply this to, but it's a good thing to keep in the forefront of our minds.

Catching up...

2) We want the website and offical press releases considered not spoilers

During the summer, yes. During the season, I'll cede to precedent/current policy, because I agree that there have been episode screenshots in the past that have revealed plot points.

I see you repeatedly bringing this up, this idea of using a search engine, when that's never been part of a proposal, but rather was just an idea tossed at you, when you asked how people could verify.

Yes, this. ita asked how to tell where something came from. She clearly thinks this is an important point; I don't, because a)so few casting changes will fall under this rule; b) anything official will be linked to within a few nanoseconds anyhow; and c) (bluntly) I think that if you can't figure out how to verify something you hear secondhand, you're probably not smart enough for this board.

Anyhow, I gave a snotty answer, and it was being treated as a serious amendment to the proposal, when it was really an "It's after 5 on a Friday and this discussion is giving me a headache" answer.

If Joss said he's human that would somehow stay out of the discussions?

It would have to. We kept the Faith news out of the show threads last year until she showed up.

(As a side note, isn't it funny that the people who have actually posted casting news have all been people who claim to be mostly anti-spoiler?)

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.

Cindy is smart.

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.

Eh. This strikes me as a bad compromise, because it's not a natural division of the discussion, it will hamper use of spoilage light, and it wouldn't be clear to a new person that the real discussion is in "spoilage light." But if the proposal fails, this would be my second choice.

I disliked it because it looked like a parliamentary end-run on necessary discussion.

This is how I felt about it, too, reading it after the fact.

In our efforts to compromise please let me point out, once more, that once spoiled one cannot be un-spoiled.

Please please PLEASE let's have a place on the board where people who don't want to know can converse.

In our efforts to compromise please let me point out, once more, that once spoiled one cannot be un-spoiled.

This is as true for the people who end up choosing to be spoiled on plot points, so that they can discuss items they consider casting news, as it is for the people who chose to shut themselves out of a thread to avoid being spoiled.

Please please PLEASE let's have a place on the board where people who don't want to know can converse.

This is the crux of it all, Trudy. The people who don't want to spoil (not the very unspoiled, the people who will read between season casting news) don't have that place either. Like Plei said, the hardcore spoiler people will be fine in the spoilers thread. But the people who do read news, (sometimes because they know they'll eventually see it in a promo anyhow, sometimes for other reasons), have to choose between totally spoiled, or losing their avenue for conversation over the summer, too. Spoilers lite doesn't generally (there have been exceptions) work well for conversation, because there is very much a feeling that although I came here to find out if casting news item A is true, the other people may only want to know about item B, and not A.

The people who wish to remain completely unspoiled are not the only ones who risk disenfranchisement. The regular posters either have to get way more spoiled than they want, or not have a place to talk about things, either.