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?)

I remember FAQ creation

Did it predate Jon's mention of the very same policy on TT, though?

Did it predate Jon's mention of the very same policy on TT, though?

Nope. As noted, the FAQ was created in December 2000, a couple of months after Jon's post.

Another reason I think it was probably the policy for the TV Forum at large was that right from pretty much the beginning of Buffy 1, everyone seemed to know what a spoiler was. There were occasionally questions about whether a preview was, but it was always answered that previews were not considered spoilers. Most of the questions, up until the spoiler thread was created, were how to handle them in thread. White-fonting really didn't start to happen much until Buffy 2, and then became law (and it was discussed) in Buffy 3.

I don't have a clear timeline in my mind, ita. I do know that I read it -- skimmed it anyway -- when it first went live (or maybe the first time it was revised?), and did not object to the spoiler policy wording, although by then we'd already talked about Gunn getting a contract.

IOW, nobody noticed (or nobody cared) that word and deed were not the same thing. To a certain extent, I think that everybody said, "Oh nice, it's a FAQ!" but didn't take it as seriously as we would have, if we'd known it would end up having the force of law.

Actually, that's a question. Is the FAQ our law? Where Bureaucracy precendent (consenses) and votes differ from the FAQ, which one gets precedence? As I was compiling the Lawspeak thingie, I put together a detailed section on spoilers, and then Jon said to take it out, since spoilers are already covered in the FAQ. But the Lawspeak spoilers section was much more detailed than the FAQ spoilers section, and (IMHO) acknowledged a lot more ambiguity or flexibility or difference among threads and spoiler-types.

If the FAQ now has force of Buffista Law, I think we should all look at it very carefully. I wouldn't be surprised if large chunks of it no longer reflect Buffista practice, or haven't been updated, or have the potential to be interpreted in mutually exclusive ways, etc. etc.

You know, I think (and have always thought) that the spoiler definition is in the FAQ as a convenience, not as a way of scribing it in stone.

If it weren't there ... would there still be this kerfuffle? Would Jon's cite and the thread headers suffice as a citation that was grandfathered in?

If it wasn't written down at all, would that be better?

I don't see why people are caught up on the idea that the FAQ is at risk of being made law.

edit: or that it was put in the FAQ by silent mistake, or something ...