Say we ignore the FAQ for a second.

The statement made in the headers of the NAFDA threads -- is that grandfathered in as a Buffista rule?

I have to admit I'm biased towards the letter of the law -- not because I agree with it (I think the spoiler definition should not include the casting news), but because it's there, spelled out. Because I pointed to it every time someone asked what a spoiler was, and because I didn't question it's validity then.

So I'm looking at this as a change, not as a codification of ad hoc into de jure. I accept the previous as de jure, and the exceptions we had to it beforehand, instead characterising everything as having been according to a rule no one ever discussed or explored the limits of.

Because that "understanding" is precisely what's failing us now.

1) OK, I think it has been establsihed that this has likely been our spoiler policy from the beginning as it is virtually identical to the TT Policy DXMachina "Bureaucracy 2: Like Sartre, Only Longer" Jul 27, 2003 2:43:21 pm PDT and our own earliest cite of it goes back quite a way. It certainly wasn't created by monks in the night and it certainly predates the creation of this board.

If a policy which has, in all likelyhood, existed from our genesis isn't grandfatherable I don't know what is.

2) It has also been establsished that there have been people not wishing to be spoiled by summer casting for at least three years and that a spoiler thread was created to deal with that. DXMachina "Bureaucracy 2: Like Sartre, Only Longer" Jul 27, 2003 1:34:52 pm PDT

So, while there periodically has been un-objected to casting news we have established that summers were not universally exempt from the spoiler policy.

But doesn't it also show that they weren't universally considered spoilers either?

So in this case, if the gfc is called into effect to stop this proposal, wouldn't we be looking not for the first spoiler policy discussions, but instead, the most recent (pre-vote) spoiler policy discussions that resulted in the FAQ as it is today? They may be one in the same. But all this digging at TT may not be looking for what is needed here.

This is the FAQ entry.

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.

The definition of what is a spoiler pretty much matches what Jon stated back in 2000. What hasn't been followed is that we've never enforced the "No white fonting. Spoilers should only be posted in the spoiler thread." part of it. Probably we shouldn't.

I do think we need to look at the discussion that created the Spoiler Lite threads at WX.

What appears to have happened in the Gunn case was that it started as a spoiler, but people started blurting things like "Who?" and then someone would explain in white font, and then it would be "Oh, I'm so glad he's joining the cast." so that pretty soon it was obvious who people were talking about, and people just gave up. At the same time, the Buffy thread was being much more strict about the casting news for Dawn and Riley.

(Wolfram, FWIW, my use of it is about 40% tongue-in-cheek. While I was working on the documentation of all our voting/consensus decisions, I was calling myself Cheese Butt Maimonides.)

because it's there, spelled out. Because I pointed to it every time someone asked what a spoiler was, and because I didn't question it.

Yeah, I can see how, coming from that perspective, the current yammering means change. Whereas, I too didn't question it -- but in a different sense. Where my Buffista experience differed from written rules, I went with my experience as a guide. This is perhaps a dumb approach.

The fact is, our NAFDA discussions have encompassed casting news before (although notably not all of it), despite the wording of thread headers and FAQ. The matter under consideration, to me, boils down to whether to keep the wording the same, and make people do what the words say (uneasily, this is the present sitch), or change the wording to reflect what we have tended historically to do.

Basically, to heal the gap between word and deed, so that it will be, again, all there spelled out.

It seems that, historically, we have erred on the side of the comfort of the unspoiled. (There was some leeway, but if the unspoiled wanted it stopped it stopped).

While this may seem unfair, it is logistically necessary as one cannot put toothpaste back into the tube.

The statement made in the headers of the NAFDA threads -- is that grandfathered in as a Buffista rule?

The purpose of the Firefly Spoilers thread was just co-opted and it's slug was changed, to reflect that the UK is going to finish up it's Firefly season in there, and that the Firefly spoiler denizens must refrain from discussing the episodes that have yet to air in UK. Jon just did this.

Do we haul out the grandfather clause and make the UK fans sing for their supper? Is that what we want to use this for? Was that the purpose of the gfc - to keep us from adapting when need arises?

When an issue rears its head, an issue that wasn't specifcally addressed, how can the gfc affect it? The gfc protects what is in the FAQ or slugs from being over thrown, but not from addressing something previously unspecified in the FAQ or slugs. (Like the UK's position of seeing 3 more FF episodes broadcast than NAFDA people.)

Cindy, should the gfc protect a policy that has existed from the beginning of the community?

Because, unless someone can establish othewise, that's pretty much what we have here regarding spoilers.

Trudy, I guess I don't feel like the feelings of the hardcore spoilerfree are more important than fairness. I do think we have worked hard to make the spoilerfree comfortable, but as DX's citations make clear, we haven't been 100% about it.

Being 100% about it now feels unfair, especially to those who don't already agree with you. I'd like to find a balance between fairness and spoilerfree-feelings, which is why (a) we really must vote and (b) some kind of compromise may be in the offing.

Nutty, they aren't more important they are simply more fragile.