'Shells'
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
A vote is a great idea, since the spoiler in question will necessarily color ALL speculation on Angel in all three AtS threads pretty soon. However, I would have no problem with asking people to delay the revelation until a chosen date, like one month before the premiere or something.
We might also want to make sure what the criteria for "being aired" is--a promo? A Joss interview? An actor interview? I'm still confused on that one.
I'm sure I don't know what you mean. {whistles and walks away}
I'd vote for that change. In fact, I'd propose it:
"That major casting spoilers which are being advertised by Fow, the WB or ME on TV, press or their official website are no longer spoilers, and should be discussed in the show threads."
if that's the official proposal, seconded.
When is the Minear thread being made?
And Jim, I like Candy's suggestion of limiting it to only major characters.
Sorry to interrupt this spoiler thing, but I have a question about procedure.
I'm unclear on the steps of warning someone whose behavior is a disturbance to several people.
I did, in fact, issue an in-thread warning to Caroma, here: Steph L. "Natter 14: What number are we on?" Jul 24, 2003 7:25:19 am PDT
She thinks, based on a past experience of hers, that I should suck it up or take it backchannel, as she said here: Caroma "Natter 14: What number are we on?" Jul 24, 2003 7:39:49 am PDT
I'm NOT asking for someone to intervene or mediate; I want to know if, based on what I said in my warning, I was proceding according to our established policy, or if I missed a step.
JIm, I think that proposal is overbroad; I like the principle but not that instantiation. I think we could hash it out in a little more detail -- here, not in Spoilers -- so that everyone's on the same page, before we get all official-proposally.
Isn't the policy propose, second, *then* hash out specifics in Lightbulb? I seconded it with that understanding.
Isn't the policy propose, second, *then* hash out specifics in Lightbulb? I seconded it with that understanding.
The proposer is in charge of the proposal wording.
If you want to propose something, get seconds, and run with the proposal as originally worded, great. If you want to propose, get seconds, and revise, that works too. If you want to go for bullshit consensus on the original proposal before officially asking for seconds, you can do that too.
Well, but I like to do more of the general hashing out in advance, because that makes the initial proposal not very different from the one that goes to vote -- most of its kinks have been worked out already.
Because, like I said, I can already see kinks in the text of what Jim is proposing.