OT: Possible change to Spoiler rules? (Was "OT: 'I don't see why' ")

[danspector@xxxxxxxxx]

Well, it seems like we're having an excessive contretemps on this issue,
so perhaps we should change things from how they are now. First, let me
respond to a couple of comments, and then I'll throw out a few
suggestions for discussion.

In reply to Jenny (dap311), I'm certainly not trying to act as a parent
or as god by deleting posts. I explained my rationale behind the action
in my own reply to Kimber, but since you quoted Kimber's post and not
mine, let me quote myself. (Actually, I'm quoting Alnisa Allgood
quoting me here--and thank you for that, Alnisa, because you saved me a
bit of legwork, as it turns out.)

"Because the people who get daily digests would otherwise see the
(improperly-headed) spoiler post before they saw blinviz's warning not
to read it. Since allegedly it didn't use a proper heading and/or
spoiler space (I just deleted it sight unseen), the unspoiled wouldn't
have a chance to employ the "If you don't want to know, don't read"
rule."

I also went on to point out that our hundreds of "no mail" members may
contain many who check through the posts in chronological order, and
likewise would encounter the (allegedly) improper post without any
warning, were I to leave it place.

Deleting improper posts isn't censorship; it's the moderator's job. (I
deleted a post of my own yesterday, as a matter of fact.) We have
Spoiler rules for the protection of the list members; if someone has
violated the rules and I still have a chance to protect the "daily
digest" and "no mail" members, I would be lax if I did NOT delete the
post. After all, the poster can not do so.

Also, the poster is always welcome to repost within the proper format.
And, again, I apologize for not mentioning this in my initial message
about having deleted the post.

Now, on to Alnisa Allgood's own comments about her deleted post.

"Interesting since the message in question had tons of spoiler space.
Not only did it indicate spoiler in the title, but it used a fairly
large leader, then an excessively large quote of a prior message when I
only really needed two sentences of the original message to make my 
point." 

All good news, and thank you for it.

"I realize that a fair number of people don't want to be spoiled. But
the lengths people force others to accommodate them is excessive."

I hadn't thought so, but if it's a problem, we can always change it.

"I replied to a conversation that was almost entirely spoilers. "

Well, no, it wasn't. It was made up of posts labelled SPOILERS, but it
was only about the aired episode. A spoiler is information about
something you haven't seen. Posts on "Seeing Red" have to be labelled
as SPOILERS to accomodate those people in areas (like Kris's corner of
Indiana) where the ep is delayed for a few days, but they're not
spoilers to you and I, for we have seen the darn thing.

"In keeping with that reply I took great care to insure that my message
wouldn't be viewable to those using preview panes for messages."

Most excellent, and thank you again.

<snip>
"I really don't care that the message was deleted" 

Again, please feel free to repost with changes. Although I believe
you're quoted in Kevin Beckett's reply, but I don't know to what length.

"I believe the responsibility for those who wish to remain spoiler-free
should be on those who want to remain spoiler-free."
<snip>
"it's not my responsibility to make sure someone who reads a post
subjected SPOILERS, doesn't get spoiled."

No, I have to disagree. Spoiler-free is the standard, spoilerdom the
deviation. That's why special spoiler lists and spoiler boards are set
up, that's why spoiler articles are tagged "spoilers" rather than
tagging non-spoiler articles "no spoilers". And clearly, while producer
and networks throw the occasional tease to the spoiler audience, they
assume that the majority wishes to be spoiler-free, otherwise they'd
post shooting scripts and stills at every opportunity.

"Providing spoiler space and clearly labeled SPOILER headings in the
subject is a courtesy."

See, I feel that allowing Spoiler discussion is the courtesy. This is a
general list, and it is assumed that Spoiler posters will respect the
unspoiled. (After all, we can't UN-spoil you, but you can spoil us, so
peaceful coexistance depends on you.) Not asked, not requested, not "if
you feel like being extra-nice, please don't spoil us", but assumed. So
I'd go with "responsibility" and not "courtesy".

<snip>
"My post clearly indicated that spoilers would be contained within,"

But not the type of spoilers you posted.

"the post I responded to clearly indicated that spoilers would be
contained within, and the 
entire topic of conversation was about where the show would go after the
most current episode (obviously speculation and spoilers)."

No, the entire topic was based on what the correspondents had seen. It
wasn't a spoiler for me or Jolie or blinviz or Jason, we'd watched the
show. The spoiler headings on our posts were a courtesy to those who
hadn't had the opportunity to view the program yet. And all the other
speculation was either non-spoilery or the spoilers were kept separate,
as per request.

I really don't see why it's so strange for people to understand that,
say, if it's the night after "Hell's Bells" has aired (March 6th) and
Jason and I are saying "wow! I wonder if Anya will accept D'Hoffryn's
offer to become a Vengeance Demon again?" in posts marked SPOILERS out
of courtesy to Kris (who's waiting for Saturday) and Cas (whose airing
got bumped for a Flyers game), that our conversation on the
[then-]current ep does not mean that people saying "Ha-ha! She becomes a
demon and we see it in 'Entropy' on April 30th" is something we want to
hear. That is a SPOILER of a very different nature and deserves
different treatment.

To me it seems that the difference between the present and the future on
the show is obvious and differentiating between the two things in one's
posts is not exactly an impossible task. The unspoiled do not ask
speculative questions because we want to know the answers; we ask them
because we want to imagine the possibilities of what the answers will be
(when we see them, in context, in the episodes yet to come).

"[T]ake the responsibility of not reading messages with the subject
SPOILERS in them. Reading them, then being surprised and dismayed that
you were spoiled is.. well just [unflattering adjective]."

Let's leave the unflattering adjectives out of it, shall we? Likewise,
I won't form impolite sentences about those who don't seem to get that
discussing the episode of May 7th and that of May 21st are different
things, even if they're both called "SPOILERS".

Because that seems to be the problem, doesn't it? The word I use to
caution people about what I saw Tuesday night and the word Alnisa uses
to describe her tidbits for what's to come are the same word, and people
seem to confuse the two usages. (Or possibly ignore the difference.)

So since the idea of having rules to keep the two usages separate
doesn't seem to be working to everyone's satisfaction, let's consider
other options. Here are a few ideas:

1) Remove the rule that Spoiler Space must be provided for the current
episode. The tag SPOILERS and spoiler space would now be exclusively
for posts about information on future episodes.

Possible problem: those who live in delayed areas would run right into
information on the episode that the Pistons game (or whatever) had
pushed back. I'd really like to keep current episode information on a
separate footing from routine fics and such.

2) Use a DIFFERENT word (like ANALYSIS or DISCUSSION) to label posts
dealing only with the current ep, and use the 20 lines of "Analysis
Space" or whatever we're going to call it.

Possible problem: It's always tough to work in a new term, and people
may mislabel their posts. Particularly since we'd be the only lists
using this particular paradigm.

3) Adopt Alnisa's concept: Any current or futute episode discussion is
considered SPOILERS, and intermingling should be assumed.

Possible problem: It would keep the unspoiled from participating in any
discussion until a week had gone by. Speaking as one of them, I really
don't like this option.

4) Just ban SPOILERS for future eps, period. There are separate lists
and boards for that, after all.

Possible problem: seems unnecessarily harsh. While I haven't been in
them, I'm sure we've had some nice spoiler discussions. (Plus we'd
probably have to ban spoiler fics, too.) I don't think we need to lose
all that just because we're having trouble coming up with a set of
guidelines everybody can understand.

5) Leave things the way they are and enforce the rules. (After all, I'm
going to have to do that, no matter what they are.)

Possible problem: Just because rules have to be enforced doesn't mean
they can't be improved, too. And if we had a more workable paradigm,
it's possible I wouldn't have to do so much enforcing.

(OTOH, their is a certain evil allure for your moderator in the idea of
replying to a "why?" post like this with "because!" <EG>)

(I'm kidding, Alnisa. I welcome debate and contrary opinions and the
chance to reconsider things. I hope that this discussion will improve
the list, and make it easier for both my spoiler-free and your
spoilerifc conversations to prosper.)

Or, 6) Something I haven't considered yet.

So let's throw this open (and reward those who have read this far). How
should we change the rules (if at all). Personally, I'm leaning towards
option 2, where we adopt a different name for the tags and the spacing
that are used for posts on the current ep only. But I welcome all
opinions. (Well, except ones that center on the theme of "Go ____
Yourself.")

Dan

PS--to Mudrat--well, I relied on blinviz's judgement in deleting the
post because I trust her. And, in point of fact, Alnisa did in fact
apparently post in a manner other than I requested the posts to be,
because she had a different understanding of and/or disagreed with my
rationale for the rules. Hence deletion, offer to repost, rules
discussion, and possible rules change. None of this is intended to be a
punitive act, AT ALL.  

And thanks for delurking.