Re: Re: OT: Possible change to Spoiler rules?

["Adrienne Wright" <adrienne_wright@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

which post was that dan.. if it was the long one that was just me answeringsomeone elses post (Jolie;s i think) so i'm not sure which one you were talking about in here
----- Original Message ----- 
From: danspector@xxxxxxxxx 
To: buffywantswillow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: Re: OT: Possible change to Spoiler rules?


Okay, I slacked off from dealing with this yesterday, but let me hit a
few quick points.

Thanks to listmom for posting the welcome message, as a handy reference
to those who haven't seen it in a while. Please note Rule #12, the one
that deals with spoilers. While it talks of spoilers pertaining both to
the current episode (indeed, going by this, we're supposed to tag for
TWO weeks' worth of current eps, so the "Entropy" posts should still be
tagged, although I'm inclined to cut this to just one week) and of
spoilers for future eps, the two are never supposed to be intermixed.
You are simply supposed to label your posts properly, i.e., "Spoilers
for 'Seeing Red' " or "Spoilers for the Finale" or whatever.

The problem that comes up is that some people just aren't doing it.
Yes, Alnisa, I may have let a spoiler in Adrienne Wright's post slip by
(for obvious reasons, I don't feel inclined to check), but that in no
way should be taken as an indication that the rules have changed from
what they have always been and what I reiterate on every Tuesday when we
have a new episode: if you're posting Spoilers for future eps, you must
label it "Spoilers for future eps". The fact that you are responding to
a post that reads "Seeing Red-Spoilers" does NOT mean that you can post
spoilers for future episodes without fixing your tags; the two were
never meant to be interchangeable.

Likewise, that I was sloppy/lazy in not deleting a previous post from
the archive does not mean that any subsequent deletion was incorrect.
My failure to enforce the rules does not mean that the rules have
evaporated.

The "Two-tiered" spoiler space that I suggested and that Jolie, blinviz,
Cas and other posters have successfully used is not mandatory. If you
wish to both discuss the current episode and future spoilers, you can
either separate and use the two-tiered spoiler space, as many do, or you
can just mix it all together. (This will of course make it impossible
for the unspoiled to read even your non-spoiler thoughts, which is why I
suggest you use the two-tier system instead.)  

But if you don't separate the future spoilers with the separate spoiler
space, then you MUST tag the post "Spoilers for Future Eps", even though
you also discuss the current episode. To do this (mix ep discussion and
future spoilers) in response to a post that simply reads "Spoilers for
'Seeing Red' " is NOT permitted.

Put another way, the use of the word "Spoilers" in a tag was never
supposed to cover all possible types of spoilers and be a "read at your
own peril" warning; it is always supposed to be modified by a mention
of which episodes the spoilers are for. So to say "for people to read a
post that says 'Spoilers' and then complain that they were spoiled is
[insult]" is completely wrong; as defined by this list, "Spoilers" is
never the be-all and end-all, never the sum total of the definition the
poster is supposed to provide.

So yes, BP and gussi, you understood the rules properly, and yes,
blinviz, you were in fact using them correctly. But just because most
people are aware of how the rules are doesn't mean they can't be made
easier, which is why I put up the poll to see if people feel the current
system can be improved. I still feel that changing the name of the
current episode spoilers will be of use, because then we will have one
word to use for "Spoilers for Seeing Red" and another to use for
"Spoilers for future episodes". But we'll see what the poll has to say
about the general opinion of that.  

And yes, gussi, we are going to get a threaded board going again, soon,
so we'll put up a link to the spoiler section there, and then folks can
post there to their heart's content, without worrying about any of this.

Two final notes: first, I sometimes see posts labelled like this, "
'Seeing Red' and beyond-SPOILERS". This is no good, because the
reader doesn't know if the Spoilers are for future episodes, or if they
are only for "Seeing Red" and the "and beyond" refers to mere
speculation. This post would be better tagged as "Spoilers for 'Seeing
Red' and future episodes" or as "Future speculation-Spoilers for
'Seeing Red' " (depending on whether or not there were future spoilers,
obviously).

And lastly, I am going to be very upset if any Spoilers for the finale
(meaning both episodes 21 and 22) show up here unannounced. If it's
anything that you've read, heard or otherwise been informed about
regarding the episodes of May 21st, label it "Spoilers for Finale".
Period. The only discussion of the last two episodes that doesn't have
to have that label is stuff ENTIRELY based on your own imagination, or
(once it airs on Tuesday) the preview that follows "Villains". (And,
obviously, that preview requires a tag stating "Spoilers for Promo").
Yes, even what TV Guide says about the ep is a spoiler. Some of us
don't read TV Guide, you know.

Once again, thanks to listmom for giving us the data (and hey, did you
notice my name is in the welcome message? [[smile of inappropriate
glee]]), and I hope I didn't seem too imperious with my statements here.
It's a fine line to walk between "stressing hard enough for people to
understand" and "hammering a point home to the point of annoyance".
Apologies if I've crossed over.

Dan

trying not to give himself another headache.


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
ADVERTISEMENT
                   
Height: 4567 ft 01234567891011 in 
Weight:   
Sex: F M 
                         
                   
             
       
       

Community email addresses:
Post message: buffywantswillow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe: buffywantswillow-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Unsubscribe: buffywantswillow-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List owner: buffywantswillow-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Shortcut URL to this page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/buffywantswillow

Official archive for the list:
http://www.geocities.com/exquisitecoalescence/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.