(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.

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

But the toothpaste comes out when the promos do. It's allowable when the promos air. What is the substantive difference between the WB telling me on my TV who is on their show, and the WB telling me on my monitor who is on their show?

And you're ignoring the toothpaste of people who preferred to be unspoiled on plot spoilers, but since they're here to talk about the shows, but are not allowed to talk about the cast of the show in the show thread, but do not think the regular cast of a show is a spoiler, have no place to go except a spoiler thread.

The only difference? They placed posting on a posting board as a higher priortity than remaining unspoiled on a posting board. Their toothpaste is all over the counter.

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

You can't make that judgment. You're unwilling to either learn who is on a show you watch, or evade your eyes 'til the show starts, in a thread where the conversation is trickling on good days, and then, half the time it's not about the show. There are people that want to talk about the show, not spoilers, just who is in the regular cast and wonder aloud what will happen, and they have no place to do this without being spoiled.

Cindy, talking a little below your knowledge does not ruin your enjoyment of the show.

Talking above your knowledge (and thereby increasing it) does.

At the same time, the Buffy thread was being much more strict about the casting news for Dawn and Riley.

What does the proposal actually say about new characters? I was under the impression it only applied to characters who had been around as of the end of the season before.

If it doesn't apply to new characters, Dawn would still have been a spoiler. (And if it does apply to new characters, the fact she's Buffy's sister, the key, etc., would have all been spoilers as plot points, so about all we would have been able to do is to confirm that a teenaged female actress was joining the cast. She could've been Giles' illegitimate daughter or the vampire successor to the anointed one.)

Riley leaving the show would also still have been a spoiler, because he left in midseason and the consensus seems to be that if a change like that is announced during the summer, it's still a spoiler.