Can we define "main cast" to be "those whose names appear in the opening credits"?

Or even "changes that will affect the opening credits"?

Like "'Angel' is being renamed 'Queer Eye for the Vamp Guy'" or such.

Teppy, from the approved proposal ( msbelle "Sunnydale Press" Apr 19, 2003 12:02:50 am PDT ):

The following procedure will be in place for taking action for unacceptable behaviour.
1. A user-complainant will try to resolve the complaint on-thread. If unsuccessful,
2. A user-complainant (does not need to be same person) will post in-thread that it's time to meet in Bureaucracy. In Bureaucracy, user-complainant will outline the complaint with linky citations, and request an Action.
3. At least 10 other users in 48 hours second the need for an Action. If 10 other users do not complain within the 48 hour period, no complaint can be made again about that particular incident, unless it is being used to illustrate, with others, a pattern of demon-like behaviour.
4. As soon as the request for action receives 10 seconds, Stompy sets forth Action.

So you followed 1 and 2 to the letter.

Thanks, Nilly.

Except, w/r/t #2, I want to be clear I'm NOT requesting an Action. I just came over here to make sure what the procedure was.

I'm still on #1, seeing if it can be worked out in-thread.

The Main Cast are those characters who appear in the credits."

Propose it be changed to

The Main Cast are those characters who will or will no longer appear in the opening credits."

(I'm adding "opening" because recurring and guest stars' names appear in those credits after the first ad break).

"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."

Well, once it's on TV it's not a spoiler by our definition, right? So that doesn't need to be in there.

(I think it'll probably be useful to look at some actual examples - what would and wouldn't be a spoiler, and whether people would've been upset to not be surprised. For instance, Faith's return to Buffy and Angel this year was announced in the press last summer - was anyone surprised by her arrival?)

Thanks, Cindy. I don't want to be a rogue Buffista.

See, now my brain is all pirates, all the time, and I haven't even seen tBGPM. I can see you in a wench costume though, and perhaps with an eyepatch.

Well, I *do*, but not in matters of procedure.

Well yeah.

...

Except, w/r/t #2, I want to be clear I'm NOT requesting an Action. I just came over here to make sure what the procedure was.

I'm still on #1, seeing if it can be worked out in-thread.

Off of this, did we all say just dropping it - going to chill out - filled the definition of resolving the problem in thread? I think we did, but didn't we also say if there was a repeated pattern, that it was different? In other words, if Teppy and I get in a tiff, and we never have before and we just shut the hell up after a while, it's okay, right? But if every day, I start on Teppy and only shut the hell up when it gets ugly, shutting up clearly doesn't fit the definition of resolving any more because it can be considered a pattern of bad behavior?

(Sheesh. Still need more coffee. Are my questions clear?)

But if we limit it to opening credits/main cast, that means things like Faith coming back would still be spoilers, even though they're clearly things ME means for us to know.

Still, it may be the most workable compromise.

Jon - agreed. Katie - OK, let's drop "TV".

I think it was good that Faith's return stayed a spoiler. By Jim's proposal, it would remain so, since she never appeared in the opening credits.

Deleted becauase this post was premature.