I also think this is a reasonable amendment.
Two steaming cups of chocolate goodness. Courtesy of whomever I swiped it from out of the cupboard.
Ben ,'The Killer In Me'
Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!
We open it up, we talks the talk, we votes, we shuts it down. This thread is to free up Bureaucracy for daily details as we hammer out the Big Issues towards a vote. Open only when a proposal has been made and seconded according to Buffista policy (Which we voted on!). If this thread is closed, hie thee to Bureaucracy instead!
aurelia - Jan 02, 2012 1:45:16 pm PST #9620 of 10289
All sorrows can be borne if you put them into a story. Tell me a story.
Cass - Jan 02, 2012 2:32:47 pm PST #9621 of 10289
Bob's learned to live with tragedy, but he knows that this tragedy is one that won't ever leave him or get better.
It will no longer be considered a spoiler to reveal guest stars in upcoming episodes of a new or existing show as long as the actor is new to the show.
This seems very reasonable. I shall think of it as the Mark Sheppard amendment. Him going to a new show is, "Hey, an actor we've discussed is working" and people might want to watch (or not) the show. Whereas him reappearing on a show where he's previously been a bastard is spoilery.
DebetEsse - Jan 02, 2012 3:09:07 pm PST #9622 of 10289
Woe to the fucking wicked.
Can we change "show" to "franchise" or something like that?
e.g.--Knowing that Matt Smith will appear on Torchwood, despite him never having been before, would be wicked spoily. Ditto RDA on SG:A. Not likely to often be an issue, but I'd rather be specific.
§ ita § - Jan 02, 2012 3:10:44 pm PST #9623 of 10289
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Yeah, that's solid. Though, sadly, not that many franchises in operation these days. Who/TW and Eureka/W13, eh?
DebetEsse - Jan 02, 2012 3:13:21 pm PST #9624 of 10289
Woe to the fucking wicked.
Apart from the Rainbow of CSIs, that's all I can come up with.
Cass - Jan 02, 2012 3:19:59 pm PST #9625 of 10289
Bob's learned to live with tragedy, but he knows that this tragedy is one that won't ever leave him or get better.
Not likely to often be an issue, but I'd rather be specific.
I am in agreement. Playing a character from another show in a related franchise feels very much "recurring" appearance.
If people are opposed to the proposal, I'd personally like to hear from them. Just because this information doesn't seem at all spoilery to me, it might to others.
billytea - Jan 02, 2012 3:31:26 pm PST #9626 of 10289
You were a wrong baby who grew up wrong. The wrong kind of wrong. It's better you hear it from a friend.
Apart from the Rainbow of CSIs, that's all I can come up with.
I am tempted to suggest on the same grounds that a guest appearance by Richard Belzer be automatically considered a spoiler, no matter what the show.
DebetEsse - Jan 02, 2012 3:34:43 pm PST #9627 of 10289
Woe to the fucking wicked.
I can think of situations where one might make "reasonable surmises" based on knowledge of the season, if an actor were high-profile enough (Let's say "Nimoy's going to be in the Season 1 Fringe Finale? With a name that big, I bet he's playing William Bell.") But that's the kind of situation that's likely to be kept under wraps or to be in promos.
Nora Deirdre - Jan 02, 2012 6:09:17 pm PST #9628 of 10289
I’m responsible for my own happiness? I can’t even be responsible for my own breakfast! (Bojack Horseman)
The Belzer exception is making me laugh.
aurelia - Jan 02, 2012 6:57:43 pm PST #9629 of 10289
All sorrows can be borne if you put them into a story. Tell me a story.
I am tempted to suggest on the same grounds that a guest appearance by Richard Belzer be automatically considered a spoiler, no matter what the show.
This is also reasonable. And funny.