OK, as a point of interest, this is some of what was discussed on WX (Bureaucracy, March 2002) - the part I had copied down at the point I could still get in.

Lyra Jane: FWIW, i like the idea that a spoiler has to be 1)a plot point and 2)specific. But I'm the freak who doesn't think actor's contracts are spoilery, so I know I'll be shouted down on this issue yet again.

And no, Buffy being miserable is not a spoiler - it's pretty much the show's premise. If, say, I posted that Buffy's been miserable since she broke up with Anya, that would be a spoiler.

DavidS - It's worth noting where your tolerance is, but I think the lowest threshold rules for Spoilers.

Lyra Jane - Definitely, Hec.

John H -

I'm the freak who doesn't think actor's contracts are spoilery

Their contracts might not be spoilery, but the absence of a contract could be the spoileriest of all...

Lyra Jane -

the absence of a contract could be the spoileriest of all...

I agree that it woud be a spoiler on one level if, say, we learned that NB wasn't signed for next season. But OTOH, it doesn't mean much specific for the plot -- Xander could die, or he could be moving to New York.

John H -

it doesn't mean much specific for the plot

I think the sudden absence of Xander, for whatever reason, is something people would not want to be told about in advance.

Lyra Jane - But what about our discussion of ASH's moving back to England ans plans for his own show last summer? IIRC, that was pretty much seen as non-spoilery, perhaps because it was so widely known.

DavidS -

But what about our discussion of ASH's moving back to England ans plans for his own show last summer? IIRC, that was pretty much seen as non-spoilery, perhaps because it was so widely known.

It's true. Maybe because it happened in the off season - felt different than Seth Green leaving. We knew they were going to write him out of the show. It wasn't inevitable with SG.

Sophia Brooks - Didn't Joss announce it? I know he announced Buffy coming back from the dead, which also would technically have been a spoiler-- but I remember both of thoe things being white-fonted for awhile and then us just sort of agreeing that everyone knew both of those things. However, this year when a good deal of us got accidently spoiled by the Tores spoiler, we didn't let the others know.

Angus G - I'm reading the show threads in time delay...just wondering, is the infamous "Torez spoiler" still lurking on one of them, ready to claim yet another victim, or has it been deleted?

Sophia Brooks - ita deleted it or perhaps whitefonted it, as far as I know.

s.a. - I think she sucked it, then deleted it. do NOT interpret that literally.

have we made any concrete decisions regarding spoilery? because we seem to have managed fairly well with our semi-lax spoiler policy so far: if you think it's a spoiler, whitefront it. otherwise post in nafda or the spoiler thread.

Lyra Jane - The decision as I understand it is the same as always, that it's a spoiler if it hasn't been broadcast on UPN/the WB, with some exceptions on a case-by-case basis -- e.g., no one seriously thought Buffy was gonna stay dead.

If nothing else, David's prescience is confirmed.

Right now, we need to vote for the sole purpose of making people feel like they are contributing to their own community, and not left out.

I feel like this is a matter of enfranchisement also. I'm highly willing to take this to a vote, and abide by the results of that vote. If the vote determines that we enact an even higher standard of spoiler avoidance, then I will gladly abide by that because I want what the community as a whole wants.

I will be extraordinarily pissed if the grandfathering clause is used to prevent a vote on this issue. The rules are in place only to serve the community. Using them to stop a vote - that is, find out what the commuity wants - is an assertion of the parliamentary over enfranchisement.

The FAQ is not our constitution and was certainly not subject to even the kind of discussion that created consensus decisions. The FAQ articulated board culture at the time and was understood to be subject to change whenever it was necessary. In short, it changed as the culture changed, it didn't codify the culture. It merely reflected it.

Again, FAQ entries were not consensus decisions that the grandfather clause was created to address.

This is an interesting post from Angel 3 by PMoon. FTR, It was posted on May 17th, and Tim first mentioned that Fred would be in S3 on the thread on May 20th.

Since Tim already confirmed Fred's addition to the cast, what I just whited out really isn't a spoiler anymore. But for people who want proof above Tim's word, check out IMDB's "Angel" page which has the cast list, including Amy Acker now second billed!

I've been suffering under the delusion that once joss mentions something, it's not a spoiler, for if the PTB want us to know, it can be widely known. That seems to be true previously, as above, but the spoiler def. on the ettiquette page says that Joss and Tim interviews go in spoilage lite.

So I created the spoiler policy? Huh. Who knew?

I feel safe saying that I was just summing up the "common law" I'd seen applied on the threads up til then. I wasn't thinking about every possible type of spoiler, or about if Joss was announcing a casting change that got printed on the front page of the New York Times, would that count? It was just a general statement.

So count me in with those who are disturbed that we might not vote on this issue because of a post I made over three years ago.

And for the record: to those who were saying that everyone for the proposal was against using the GFC in this case and vice versa, I'm not sure yet which way I'll vote. I didn't know Angel was coming back in S3 of Buffy, and I'm glad I didn't know. OTOH, he didn't show up until Ep.3 of that season. Do we know for sure that the casting spoilers for Angel 5 will be made clear before Ep 1 airs?

Do we know for sure that the casting spoilers for Angel 5 will be made clear before Ep 1 airs?

We've seen the official posters that are going to be released, so I think it is certain that the media blitz will go into effect before Ep 1 airs.

I can answer that question, Jon, but it would be spoilery ;)

Do we know for sure that the casting spoilers for Angel 5 will be made clear before Ep 1 airs?

Given that one of them was a requirement for renewing the show, and the promo posters they've been circulating as a result (ass-ugly, BTW), I would have to say that additive casting spoilers will, at the very least, be made so clear as to be understood by naked mole rats.

Good point about the official posters. And you're right Sue -- I don't want to be spoiled about that.

Anyway, I didn't want to make a big post about why I'm uncertain about how I'll vote. That belongs in Lightbulbs. I just wanted to make the point that not everyone who's against using the GFC is also for the proposal.

So, to clarify what is messed up in my head, if Joss showed up in the Angel thread and said, "I am SO stoked about Orlando Bloom joining the cast of Angel," would it be deleted, whitefonted, or accepted by all and speculated upon with ruthless passion?

Dude, we'd issue the man a warning.

He's too good for rules? We don't need him.