Deleted becauase this post was premature.

Still, it may be the most workable compromise

I think it is.

full-page ads in Variety saying "Angel is proud to welcome Shannon Doherty as the new Slayer in town!"

Bite your tongue!

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?

I think that dropping it --perhaps after some discussion -- counts as resolution, until a pattern emerges, as in your example. Basically, if it gets in the way of Natter being Natter (or whatever) and doesn't show signs of stopping, then it's time to head over here. Right now, this situation, I'm happy to stick with it being in Natter for some time yet.

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.

Ah, right, okay. Sorry, I forgot about the "opening credits" adjustment.

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.

Plus, Faith's return was "spoiled" anyway, by WB promos.

The main difference with over-the-summer changes to the regular cast is that, while the WB may be promoting the hell out of it on their website, they generally don't get around to airing AtS promos until early fall (the new season is currently scheduled to start in October). So under our current definition, things which clearly are being promoted by the network and ME remain spoilers far longer than their natural spoiler lifespan.

Do we have an official proposal yet? If so, then I second it.

"That major casting spoilers to the main cast only, not recurring or guest which are being advertised by Fox, the WB or ME in press advertising or their official website are no longer spoilers, and should be discussed in the show threads. The Main Cast are those characters who appear in the opening credits."

Any more amends?

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

Umm, how do we know prior to a season if someone will be in the opening credits?

The main difference with over-the-summer changes to the regular cast is that, while the WB may be promoting the hell out of it on their website, they generally don't get around to airing AtS promos until early fall (the new season is currently scheduled to start in October). So under our current definition, things which clearly are being promoted by the network and ME remain spoilers far longer than their natural spoiler lifespan.

These are the things I care about, and specifically, when someone has been let go from the cast over the off season. Since they will not be on the show, how does one decide when it's okay to talk about that. And if that actor has a new series, well, there's a chance the rest of us would be interested in at least knowing about it, but it seems we can't speak of it.

(edited the wrong post)

Instead of "main cast in credits" can we say "regular characters as opposed to recurring".

eta...

eta...

So in other words, we can talk about DB being on A:ts S5, but we can't discuss whether or not Stephanie Romanof (sp?) will be, because as a recurring, her appearance is supposed to, by nature, be a bit of a surprise (ditto Eliza).

I can think of 2 amendations, and I don't know how people feel about it.

1. Personally, I think this should be for between seasons only.

2. I think that we should make it clear that it is addition or absence of characters, as currently it is impossible to discuss actors other projects.