Doesn't seem so reasonable to me, either. To me, it's kind of a special case, since it's the INTERPRETATION of the rule that's become stricter over time, without discussion or consensus.
'Out Of Gas'
Bureaucracy 2: Like Sartre, Only Longer
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
Then forget about interpretation. Consider it grandfathered it as written.
Q. What do you guys consider a spoiler?
A. Anything that hasn't been broadcast. So anything from the show and the preview trailers is okay, anything from TV Guide or anywhere else is a spoiler, including casting news, episode titles and plot twists. No white fonting. Spoilers should only be posted in the spoiler thread.
No drifting or anit-spoilers to one side, no casting news to the other.
I don't want to forget about interpretation. Interpretation matters as much as the letter of the law itself.
But what about board precedent? One could argue that precedents previously set have as much right to grandfathering protection as the FAQ.
This spoiler has FAR more HSQ than any before. I don't think it is precedented.
If the current wording was something that was discussed in Bureaucracy before being implemented, then yes.
Pretty sure it was.
And this is just what we're trying to figure out.
This spoiler has FAR more HSQ than any before. I don't think it is precedented.
Not really.
PMM, I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with Trudy's statement.
PMM, I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with Trudy's statement.
Disagreeing. (I was going to edit, but this is easier.)
There have been casting issues with as much HSQ in the past.
The only one I can think of was spoiled in order to confirm the continued existance of the show.