We haven't allowed news like 'Tom Lenk will be returning as Andrew in episode X,' - and aren't trying to get it allowed now, but we've never defined the regular cast of actors as a spoiler - so how could it be covered by the spoiler policy?

OK, now I'm thinking that the spoiler I thought we were talking about isn't the one we're actually talking about, and I'm confused. (I'd only heard one spoiler for this season, so I assumed that's the one everybody else heard, too, but this makes me think that it's something else.) So I guess I'm not sure what my opinion is, since I'm not even sure what we're discussing anymore.

Hil, although it's nigh impossible, I don't think we should be thinking (so much) of a specific spoiler -- just of the principle of cast of the upcoming season.

Trying to synthesize all the Tim thread ideas.

Fluffy Bunny Minearverse: Wonder Falls 1, Body Count 0

I'm all about the fluffy bunnies.

Please, someone. Show me where we defined the cast of regulars on any series we watch as spoilers.

When we set up Spoilers Lite in order for people to discuss casting. Yes, there have been exceptions made in the past. Those went one of two ways - either there was discussion allowed or we designated another space. But I think that saying we never considered casting to be spoilery, even over the summer, is as much hyperbole as saying we always did, no exceptions. The issue of casting, even summer casting, has come up before. Aside from that, the wording of the spoiler policy has been revised at least twice since we left TT.

We're hampered in this discussion by not having full access to our threads at WX, which complicates matters. I don't know, for instance, what specific issues prompted the establishment of the Spoilers Lite threads, or what matters were specifically discussed at that time.

You can say that the current case ought to be an exception. At this point, seeing how important it is to people on the board, I'm inclined to agree. But please don't say none of us ever had any input into how the spoiler policy was devised, or that this subject has never come up before, because it's not true.

ETA:

My understanding is that we decided on two threads - one Wonder Falls and one All Tim, All the Time.

My understanding is that we decided on two threads - one Wonder Falls and one All Tim, All the Time.

I think the proposal was pretty specifically about A thread not two threads. It should be in Lightbulbs just before this issue came up.

My understanding is that we decided on two threads - one Wonder Falls and one All Tim, All the Time.

I think the proposal was pretty specifically about A thread not two threads. It should be in Lightbulbs just before this issue came up.

See voting results here.

Also, hasn't it been four days of discussion already? When is the ballot scheduled to be up for the spoiler issue?

But I think that saying we never considered casting to be spoilery, even over the summer, is as much hyperbole as saying we always did, no exceptions.

Brenda, I think you're right. I was relatively clue-free about Dawn, but knew all about the addition of Gunn and the subtraction of Giles. Mostly, I think that it was murkily "decided" on a case-by-case basis.

Right. One Minear thread. If there's to be a Wonder Falls thread, we'll need to propose it. Till then, the Minear thread (once created) can be a home base.

Right. One Minear thread. If there's to be a Wonder Falls thread, we'll need to propose it. Till then, the Minear thread (once created) can be a home base.

Okey-doke. My memory was faulty on this one but looking back at the posts just got me more confused. Sigh.

When we set up Spoilers Lite in order for people to discuss casting.

My understanding (and it could be wrong) is that spoilers lite (@ WXing) was set up to discuss Spike's soul/human/vampire status, not spoilers. Then, casting spoilers went in there. And there are some things that have always been considered casting spoilers. The cast of regulars, of major characters though - I don't see where that has been.

But I think that saying we never considered casting to be spoilery, even over the summer, is as much hyperbole as saying we always did, no exceptions.

But I'm not saying that, or if/where I am, I'm expressing myself poorly. I didn't (certainly never meant to say) "we never considered casting to be spoilery" - we did. It's in the FAQ. But there's a difference between learning someone is coming and going while in the midst of a season (all agree that's a casting spoiler, even if not all feel spoiled by it), than there is going into a season knowing who the regulars (the title credited regular actors and the characters they play).

Do people go to films purposefully not knowing who is in the film? Did we not openly discuss the Firefly cast (this is a sincere question, not just a rhetorical one) before Firefly aired? Is it a spoiler that Eliza has a new series, Tru Calling? In the Tim/Wonderfalls thread, are we not going to be allowed to discuss who is in the cast until it comes to air. How are people going to know if they're interested in it?

And again, this information I'm talking about - the major, regular actors/characters is allowable when the WB tells us on TV, but apparently not when they renew the series. And I do not get why. If it's a matter of time, I certainly hope that (and will argue in favor of) Buffistas would compromise and give plenty of time for a post-mortem in NAFDA prior to making the cast news NAFDA-legal.

The issue of casting, even summer casting, has come up before. Aside from that, the wording of the spoiler policy has been revised at least twice since we left TT.

But the guy who wrote our currently accepted FAQ and slug said the issues weren't thought of when he wrote them.

But I think that saying we never considered casting to be spoilery, even over the summer, is as much hyperbole as saying we always did, no exceptions. The issue of casting, even summer casting, has come up before.

Which, to me, is an argument against applying the granpappy claws. If our policy hasn't been consistant, then I don't think it's fair to point to one spot of writing and claim that it encompasses this specific issue.