It's possible the original FAQ was written by monks who scoured the Sacred Texts of the Buffistae for Divine Knowledge of what our spoiler policy should be, but more likely, they wrote it mid-season, and just didn't think about summer casting changes.

I decided to go have a look through the old threads on TT just to see what I could find on all this.

The FAQ was written in December 2000, with a bunch of individuals each adding bits and pieces. There was no formal review, but anybody was allowed to question anything. The question of what constitutes a spoiler was not discussed at all at that time, it's just that whoever added it to the FAQ (probably jengod) used what was the accepted definition for the board at the time. And not a single person complained about that definition. They may not have read it, but no one complained.

So yes, the FAQ was created mid-season.

However, the original TT spoiler thread was created in the middle of the summer (July 4, 2000 to be exact) specifically because people were getting tired of all the white font in the main Buffy thread regarding the casting for the upcoming season, specifically the addition of Michelle Trachtenberg, and the announcement that Marc Blucas might not be around for the whole season.

And just to prove that no Buffista discussion ever ends...

David S. - 10:17 am PST - Jun 22, 2000 - #6368 of 10021

Hmmm, maybe we need to making a list ruling on what constitutes spoiler info during the off-season...

the challenger needs something, or the clause can't apply

The challenger has a FAQ entry and the header of the NAFDA threads, both in place and well-used during the period protected.

Short of stone tablets, what else is there?

Okay, that's me still startled by the idea it all got written down with no discussion, and the silence didn't encompass lack of objection.

Are we having problems, or is it just me? I seem to be either timing out or getting threads realllllllly slooooooooow.

Or I *was...* It may have cleared up. *sigh* It took me so long to post that it got better.

I was having problems also Daniel.

ita - I dunno - I think grandfathering this in is getting too legalistic. And I don't think silence neccesarily gives consent. I think the point of the grandfather clause was to avoid refighting battles that had already been thought - not to freeze in place stuff we saw no problem with , and now having experienced it do.

Anyway if some of us think it is grandfathered and some don't how do we settle it? Do we have a vote on whether the grandfather clause applies? Do we have the stompies collectively act as supreme court? I think both of these will be more divisive than saying it applies.

I note that some of the people who orginally thought the GF clause applies now think that would be too narrow and legalistic an interpetation.

It's fair to say I have no idea what the grandfather clause applies to. I had thought it was the rules that we were working by (and if they're written down, even easier to find), but it seems that confusion reigns again.

FWIW, the earliest statement of the spoiler policy that I've been able to find was in TT Angel 1:

Jon B - 09:24 am PST - Oct 16, 2000 - #8234 of 10010

Trailers broadcast on the WB for an upcoming show are fair game. Plot synopses from TV Guide, etc., are not. At least, those are the rules we've been using in the year that I've been here.

I am beginning to wonder if we appropriated a policy that was in general use throughout the TT TV Forum. The reason I say this is that in the intro to the TT Farscape thread, Pinwiz specifically expanded the definition of a spoiler for that particular thread. (Note, the bold text is in the original):

Pinwiz - 11:46 am PDT - Jan 29, 2001

Season 3 starts in less than two months, and where are they going to go from here? Join in, talk it out, and relive past adventures!

NOTE: Please do not discuss spoilers here. That includes traditional spoilers, magazine or newspaper articles, and previews of upcoming episodes. Only broadcast episodes and other official fiction.

Just to make sure I understand everything, the possibilities at this point are as follows:

• Decide the Grandfather Clause applies, and maintain the status quo for now.
1. Decide the Grandfather Clause applies, but Spoilers Lite should be the de facto home of people who want to discuss the casting news.
2. Decide the Grandfather Clause *should* apply, but we feel like voting anyhow.
3. Decide the grandfather clause does not apply, but decide not to hold a vote for other reasons, maintaining the status quo
4. Decide the grandfather clause does not apply, but decide not to hold a vote for other reasons, going the Spoilage Lite route.
5. Decide the grandfather clause does not apply, hold the vote and abide by the outcome.

Did I miss anything?

I think Pin is expanding on ours, specifically, DX, but that certainly doesn't mean ours wasn't inherited from TT TV at large.

I have to go with #3, myself. For one thing, here we are talking about the issue, for 2-3 days now, many people weighing in. It's clearly a question of now, not a question for the future (except inasmuch as the now-situation will happen again). It's making people feel marginalized on more than one side. Not voting at this point comes across as not consulting the community on an issue that affects all of us.

And, as I said in Light Bulb, I've felt that way about spoiler-policy application for too long now. The community at large needs to weigh in, and legal rules will need to take a back seat in this instance.

Okay, that's me still startled by the idea it all got written down with no discussion, and the silence didn't encompass lack of objection.

Startling, but true. I remember FAQ creation, and I remember never questioning that spoiler definition, despite the fact that we had already -- and would continue to -- violate its letter. You know, I had forgotten it was in the FAQ at all till the true-to-letter interpretation became prevalent on the board (i.e. about 6 months ago).

We am dum.

(Actually, it's easy. We forget, we don't pay attention unless it's a big deal, we use vague language that people can and do interpret differently, we skip and skim. Reading the Bureaucracies for the Lawspeak document I worked up, I saw a lot, a lot of confused repetition. Hey Jon, is that document ready yet?)