# Proposed Forum Rule Change (please vote)



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

OK, actually this isn't a rule change really but more of a clarification. I would like to change the following rule:



> *Official Episode Threads:*
> When starting a discussion about a specific show episode, please put the air date and name of the program (and title if you know it) in the subject line. (ie: Lost, "Man of Science, Man of Faith," 11/16.)
> 
> This will be the "official" thread for that week, and anything within that thread may contain spoilers for that show. It is also okay to mention a plot point from any previous episode. If you are not caught up on this show, and do not wish to read spoilers, do not open this thread.


to read as follows (changes highlighted in red)



> *Official Episode Threads:*
> When starting a discussion about a specific show episode, please put the air date and name of the program (and title if you know it) in the subject line. (ie: Lost: "Man of Science, Man of Faith," OAD 11/16/09.)
> 
> This will be the "official" thread for that week. If a thread contains the phrase "OAD" and a date in it, anything that aired in that episode is fair game, including potential spoilers.
> ...


---------

Also change the following: 


> *Previews of Next Week and other spoilers:*
> Anything shown on the "previews of next week" is considered a spoiler on this forum, and must be tagged as such, using spoiler tags. (See below for instructions.) Any spoiler information from other sources, such as articles, websites, webisodes, personal friendships with producers, etc., must also be tagged.


to read:



> *Previews of Next Week and other spoilers:*
> Anything listed in the "previews of next week" is fair game for discussion provided that the same information can be seen in commercials or other broadcast previews for an upcoming episode. However, any spoiler information from other sources, such as articles, websites, webisodes, personal friendships with producers, etc., must be tagged with spoiler tags. (See below for instructions).
> 
> Spoiler Tags are not allowed in the first post, because the thread previews to do not honor the spoiler tags. Anyone browsing the forum listing can see anything in post #1 regardless of whether or not it is in spoiler tags. Please keep post #1 as unspoiled as possible.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I hope that we can all come to an agreement that will let us discuss the shows we like without spoiling the fun for others.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

I don't really watch any reality shows, but I would say this is a valid clarification.

- Merg


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Note, I made one more proposed rule change and edited item #1.


----------



## jazzyd971fm (Sep 1, 2007)

Voted yes, sounds reasonable


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Following has been added:



> Spoiler Tags are not allowed in the first post, because the thread previews to do not honor the spoiler tags. Anyone browsing the forum listing can see anything in post #1 regardless of whether or not it is in spoiler tags. Please keep post #1 as unspoiled as possible.


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

yeppers.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

Yes, that sounds good to me. I have no problem with discussing previews that can be seen on TV commercials - that's not really a spoiler.


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

sounds reasonable to me - but I also love spoilers


----------



## barryb (Aug 27, 2007)

Yes, but I am going to read the spoilers anyhow.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

> *Previews of Next Week and other spoilers:
> *Anything listed in the "previews of next week" is fair game for discussion provided that the same information can be seen in commercials or other broadcast previews for an upcoming episode. However, any spoiler information from other sources, such as articles, websites, webisodes, personal friendships with producers, etc., must be tagged with spoiler tags. (See below for instructions).




I have to disagree with the previews change. I specifically do not watch previews for many shows as I think they sometimes give too much away. And since I do not watch anything live (or rarely), I generally avoid commercials that contain previews for shows. I think discussions of previews should also be included in spoiler tags for this reason.

As I had voted before this new change, I would have to change my vote from Yes to No on these changes as a whole.

- Merg


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

Some of the "tv show" forums I belong to always insists on using the spoiler tags. I would go for that inclusion, some of us may not watch the show until days after the showing. By using the spoiler tags then the thread can be read by all, whether the show has been watched the night of the airing or days later.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## oldschoolecw (Jan 25, 2007)

Where is the option for Zombies?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I'm open to whatever we all decide as a group. My only goal here is to keep you all happy.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

"The Merg" has changed his vote from yes to no. Unfortunately the public poll system only lets me change the counts, not the names, so please ignore his name in the "yes" column. 

If it seems necessary, we can break the proposed changes up and discuss them individually.


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

BubblePuppy said:


> Some of the "tv show" forums I belong to always insists on using the spoiler tags. I would go for that inclusion, some of us may not watch the show until days after the showing. By using the spoiler tags then the thread can be read by all, whether the show has been watched the night of the airing or days later.
> 
> Just my 2 cents.


What could there possibly be to read in specific episode thread that wouldn't be considered a spoiler? The whole thread is a spoiler so just stay away from it if you don't want to know anything about the episode. Just my $.02


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

pfp said:


> What could there possibly be to read in specific episode thread that wouldn't be considered a spoiler? The whole thread is a spoiler so just stay away from it if you don't want to know anything about the episode. Just my $.02


Remarks about production values, bad hair days, who looked HOT in their outfits, all sorts of stuff. Spoiler tags wouldn't hurt.


----------



## cygnusloop (Jan 26, 2007)

I have to agree with The Merg. 

I do my best to avoid previews, as I like to see how shows unfold without the preconceptions that can result. As such, I appreciate that spoiler tags are around information contained in previews. So, to that I would vote "no".

As to keeping spoiler tags (and the info contained therein) out of the OP, I would vote a resounding "Yes".

So, I guess I abstain for now.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

The reason I proposed the change as far as previews is, if you watch network television, ABC especially lately, it's impossible to avoid commercials for upcoming programs that are essentially the same as the previews at the end of the episodes. 

As I said, I'd prefer to bow to the majority, and if necessary I can create two separate polls.


----------



## cygnusloop (Jan 26, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> The reason I proposed the change as far as previews is, if you watch network television, ABC especially lately, it's impossible to avoid commercials for upcoming programs that are essentially the same as the previews at the end of the episodes.
> 
> As I said, I'd prefer to bow to the majority, and if necessary I can create two separate polls.


You are right about that, especially with ABC. But, as I said, I do what I can to avoid the coming soon stuff.

As far as this particular sub-forum is concerned though, I think the larger point is that discussion of previews leads to further discussion of previews which leads to speculation about what was in the previews, etc..

All that is great, just not in the OAD thread, IMO.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

I think its a reasonable standard to expect, and consistent with other sites I've visited where proper credits are mandated.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

I voted "no" only because I would like to see spoiler tags used for all potential spoilers.
But that is my only wish, other than that....what ever the majority wants will be fine.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

At the risk of seeming a simpleton, I thought the rules were pretty clear. The only question I had was if the Wikipedia definition of a spoiler is the definition we're using:


> _*Spoiler*_ is slang for any element of any summary or description of any piece of fiction that reveals any plot element which will give away the outcome of a dramatic episode within the work of fiction, or the conclusion of the entire work.


As I read that, we can pretty well discuss in the open anything about an upcoming show except information which will give away the outcome.

If it is a murder detective story that doesn't reveal "who dunnit" before the end, you can't give information that will tell you "who dunnit."

If who hooksups with who during the future episode is irrelevant to the episode outcome, it can be discussed.

If, on the other hand, every character's psychological profile and nuanced relationship is defined as a sub-plot and making known matters related thereto are spoilers, then we have a different understanding of the word "spoiler."


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

I think the updated rules are good, but as a courtesy I would still use spoiler tags whenever in doubt.

As to what is a "spoiler", my personal definition is any fact not revealed in the show itself. (Dictionary.com has it's own definition: "A published piece of information that divulges a surprise, such as a plot twist in a movie.")

I consider casting news a spoiler regardless of how the character is introduced or what affect the character has on the plot. Here's an example:

A show starts and an old man we've never seen before is seen making a nuisance of himself and a series regular approaches and attempts to calm the man. We think the series regular is maybe being nice or kind but nothing more. The scene lasts 5 minutes and ends with the series regular referring to the old man as "dad". That's a surprise and an interesting plot development, simply because you were unaware of the casting.

Now let's say the old man is a famous or semi-famous actor and you read in an online forum that he's going to be playing the father. The second the scene starts and you see the old man, you KNOW he's the father. The nice surprise you'd get 5 minutes later is gone. 

That's why I tend to avoid casting news in general - I like surprises. I like stories to unfold naturally, the way the writers and director intended. That's why I think it's important to use spoiler tags, so all forum members can make their own choices whether to read the hidden text or not. You can't unring the bell ...


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

By the way, thank you to Stuart for starting formal discussion on rule changes, and for his kind words in the Rules Rule! thread. I'm sometimes subtle, but I'm not sure in this case I could be accused of it...


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Stuart,

If we are opening up for a rules change... I would offer up one more thought.

Some forums have at least an informal "rule" to not post spoilers on the current episode until it has aired on the West coast.

So... if a show airs at 8pn EST and is an hour-long program... we'd have to wait until 12-midnight EST before posting spoilers in the thread.

I think this is a nicety since there are folks on the west coast who might wander into a forum the night the show airs but still before they've had a chance to watch it since it hasn't aired there yet.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Hmmmm.... being a West Coaster I wouldn't have a problem with it, but would East Coasters feel like waiting until midnight is too much trouble?


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Stuart - good question. As an East-coaster I would not like this rule, because it would mean essentially I couldn't post until the next morning if I wanted to have any sleep. If implemented, this means I couldn't post about a 10 PM ET show until 2 AM, or 11 PM on the West Coast, but I need to be in bed at 2 AM if I plan to be up at 6:00 AM folks! 

Other forums I've been to had rules to not start discussion on a program until 1 hour before the East coast start time, and I believe that rule is present here. Other than that, I don't think there should be restrictions on timing as we are in land of DVRs here and someone will always be behind ... for those folks, simply don't look at the thread. (For example, I haven't opened the SG:U "Water" thread yet, as I still haven't watched the episode.)


----------



## Blurayfan (Nov 16, 2005)

Drew2k said:


> Stuart - good question. As an East-coaster I would not like this rule, because it would mean essentially I couldn't post until the next morning if I wanted to have any sleep. If implemented, this means I couldn't post about a 10 PM ET show until 2 AM, or 11 PM on the West Coast, but I need to be in bed at 2 AM if I plan to be up at 6:00 AM folks!
> 
> Other forums I've been to had rules to not start discussion on a program until 1 hour before the East coast start time, and I believe that rule is present here. Other than that, I don't think there should be restrictions on timing as we are in land of DVRs here and someone will always be behind ... for those folks, simply don't look at the thread. (For example, I haven't opened the SG:U "Water" thread yet, as I still haven't watched the episode.)


Good points. I also wouldn't like the time restriction preventing posting of a thread. IMO if the thread has the appropriate info in the title as Stuart posted in the OP that should be enough to warn of spoilers.


----------



## Supramom2000 (Jun 21, 2007)

I am on the West Coast, and I just don't open the threads of a show I have not watched yet, unless I want spoilers!! I don't think there should be a restriction on timing. The fact that the episode name and air date are in the thread title should be enough for people to make their own decision on whether or not to view a thread.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> I think the updated rules are good, but as a courtesy I would still use spoiler tags whenever in doubt.
> 
> As to what is a "spoiler", my personal definition is any fact not revealed in the show itself. (Dictionary.com has it's own definition: "A published piece of information that divulges a surprise, such as a plot twist in a movie.")
> 
> ...


So from your point of view, we should probably take the more conservative view of a spoiler being anything that would reveal any sub-plot point or guest star cast member.

Roger Ebert feels very strongly about this but some other critics don't agree with him. Even he isn't consistent.

I'm personally comfortable reading spoilers as for me outcomes are the result of a series of choices that make the story. So knowing other lesser details about a work of fiction I have not yet read or seen are not important either.

With that said, if we choose to utilize the more conservative view, then it would be logical to divide the rules into two divisions - one that involves information about shows or episodes that have aired and one that involves information about shows or episodes that have not aired. The former can be pretty well handled with the title as Stuart outlines. Stay out of a thread so titled if you don't want to see a spoiler. The latter is more complicated involving the use of spoiler tags.

Let's take ABC's "V" for instance. News about the remake appeared in January of this year. Should all discussion of the remake series prior to the pilot airing have been carried out between spoiler tags? Or at a minimum should all threads have been labeled with spoiler warnings? Once it was known that there was to be a remake, would that place spoiler constraints on discussion of the 1983 and 1984 two miniseries?

Should there have been a spoiler warning in the title of the thread "*V" starts in November*? It's where bicker1 and I discussed ABC's scheduling and management of "V" in advance of and subsequent to the pilot. But post #4 was:


Spoiler






HDG said:


> Didn't care for the first V - what with alien reptiles and cheesy special effects. Looking for better this time around.





 I put that in spoiler tags in case someone hasn't seen the new series pilot, which in at least two DMA's they haven't.

Which sort of makes moot the discussion of whether to allow discussion after the East Coast airing. Since the pilot of "V" is being aired late in two DMA's, one on Saturday, it is clear that there are some members out there who have not even had a chance to see it. It wasn't as if they recorded it and choose to watch it on Saturday.

Anyway, we need to have guidelines on the breadth of information constituting a spoiler and on how to handle the two types of discussions - aired programming and unaired programming.

Those are my thoughts.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

The west coast delay was just a thought. I'm an east-coaster who wouldn't mind waiting but also I don't mind reading spoilers.

I assume when I go to the Internet I might see something I didn't want to see. If I don't want spoilers I stay off the site until I've watched the show... but I try to be respectful of others and the rules when I post something myself since others don't share that view.


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Hmmmm.... being a West Coaster I wouldn't have a problem with it, but would East Coasters feel like waiting until midnight is too much trouble?


No trouble at all.... Shoot I hate spoilers, I haven't watched the premier of V yet, but since I've seen the original (when I was a kid) I can guess how it ends....


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

My thinking is that in a thread about a particular episode, anything that happened in that episode is fair game. If you haven't seen the episode and don't want to know what happened, then don't read the thread yet.

If any discussion is of the previews or what will happen in a future episode it should be placed in the spoiler tag with a lead-in so that readers know what kind of spoiler it is...

For example:



> I can't believe in the previews that
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


And while I sometimes will put things that occurred in the current episode in spoiler tags as a courtesy, I do not believe that is a necessary requirement.

- Merg


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Remakes are indeed a gray area ... 

The forum rule permits open discussion of anything that occurred previously in the episode or in the series itself as long as the episode air date and/or the keyword "spoiler" is in the title of thread, so in the episode thread for specific episode we can discuss anything that occurred since the series launched (as long as the information was presented on the series itself) without using spoiler tags. 

When it's a remake of a series, is the current series an extension of the original in regards to plot points? I think it almost makes sense that it would be, as comparisons are natural between the original and the remake, but you never know if a remake will be faithful to the original or deviate and go it's own way. (Consider Battlestar Galactica ... it deviated quite a lot from the original.)

I'm not sure which way to go on this rule, but phrelin is correct ... I do always try to err on the side of caution, because even if it's old news to me, it may be new to someone else and I'd rather give that someone else the choice to proceed or not.


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

I fully support the rule changes. I am sick of people (or person) whining about spoilers. It will actually force people to use common sense in that if you haven't watched the episode or don't want to know certain plot points then don't open the thread. It's sad that we even have to address something so trivial.


----------



## olguy (Jan 9, 2006)

I voted yes. I have avoided a number of episode threads with an OAD posted because I did not want to know what happened. How hard is that? I just don't think a thread about a specific episode should have spoiler tags around events from that episode. The episode has aired, it's in the ether and it should be fair game to discuss. I feel that way about the previews also. If it's been on air, it should be open for open discussion.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

The Merg said:


> My thinking is that in a thread about a particular episode, anything that happened in that episode is fair game. If you haven't seen the episode and don't want to know what happened, then don't read the thread yet.


I agree with this.

I also agree with The Merg that all previews should be spoilerized as well so I voted no.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

SPACEMAKER said:


> I fully support the rule changes. I am sick of people (or person) whining about spoilers. It will actually force people to use common sense in that if you haven't watched the episode or don't want to know certain plot points then don't open the thread. It's sad that we even have to address something so trivial.


I agree that people should not complain about seeing things about an episoide, but I also have to agree with The Merg about preview spoilers. Most shows I do watch them, but I know many people do not and I also know that for most shows, the marketing people who put together the previews and commercials have nothing to do with making the shows. They often emphasize points that are completely contrary to the direction of the show and against the directors wishes, hence why many avoid them.

So, IMo, the rules as proposed are fine, except that preview or commercial spoilers should be hidden. Usually, if I am talking about a preview, I will note that just above the actual spoiler so those that do not care, can feel like I am not giving some secret info away.

The other thing I would suggest is to do away with multiple episode threads. This is asking to get spoiled and most likely keeps posting down in those threads as people stay away not knowing what they will see. I know at other forums, every 5 or 6 episodes or at the end of the season, a Moderator would combine all the weekly threads into one to keep down on clutter, but that is not really necessary.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Lee L said:


> I agree that people should not complain about seeing things about an episoide, but I also have to agree with The Merg about preview spoilers.


My thoughts on previews are that, at least for "reality" shows like Survivor and TAR, the previews are going to basically become the commercials for the shows. Even though I don't watch commercials on a regular basis, you can't watch football on CBS without seeing something you might not have wanted to see.

For example, during CBS football last Sunday, the had a commercial for Survivor. Before anyone could have muted or changed the channel, it


Spoiler



was revealed there would be a merge.


----------



## dave29 (Feb 18, 2007)

I think all previews should be in Spoiler tags, I try not to watch the previews, unless they sneak up on me. But, as long as the rules are the same for every thread, that is fine by me. I voted No, but know that I think about it a little more, it doesn't really matter.


----------



## trainman (Jan 9, 2008)

BubblePuppy said:


> Remarks about production values, bad hair days, who looked HOT in their outfits, all sorts of stuff. Spoiler tags wouldn't hurt.


Production values could be considered a spoiler. ("That hospital set in tonight's episode definitely didn't look like a real hospital." _*Spoiled:* Scenes from tonight's episode take place in a hospital._)

Bad hair days and who looked hot in their outfits could be considered a spoiler. ("Julie was having a bad hair day in this episode, as opposed to Lisa, who really looked hot in her outfit." _*Spoiled:* The characters Julie and Lisa are in this episode enough that someone noticed their hair and/or clothes. In fact, they probably have at least one scene together, given that the poster specifically noticed a contrast between the two._)

I believe requiring the use of spoiler tags in specifically labeled episode threads _would_ hurt; since the threads would basically be nothing but spoiler tags, it would make such threads completely pointless for people who haven't seen the episode yet, and it would make the threads overly annoying and frustrating for people who _have_ seen the episode.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

Sure, I have no objection to the change


----------



## lucky13 (Nov 27, 2006)

I agree with Merg and the others who want to tag the preview references as spoilers.

I hate spoilers; I stopped reading TV Guide when it became a spoiler rag. 

Since I watch most shows behind real time, I usually don't watch previews, and rarely see the commercials or teasers.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Reading through all this, did I miss a note about not using spoiler tags? I mean can anyone still use spoiler tags in these threads willy nilly, or are they limited because of the new ruling. With post #1 excluded of course.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

My thought is, you're free to use spoiler tags if you want, but know that if you're reading an "OAD" thread, it's not necessary to put the events of that episode in spoiler tags.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Wow! You guys are making this _way_ too complicated. Put the responsibility on the reader where it belongs, not on the poster.


> *WARNING: This thread may contain plot information or outcomes. Do not read if you have not viewed this program and you do not want to know what happened.*


----------



## olguy (Jan 9, 2006)

Nick said:


> Wow! You guys are making this _way_ too complicated. Put the responsibility on the reader where it belongs, not on the poster.


What Nick said.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

Nick said:


> Wow! You guys are making this _way_ too complicated. Put the responsibility on the reader where it belongs, not on the poster.


Like I said, I'm fine with that. But if the thread is about a specific episode, I don't want to read about what's going to happen in a future episode, which would include previews.

- Merg


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

The Merg said:


> Like I said, I'm fine with that. But if the thread is about a specific episode, I don't want to read about what's going to happen in a future episode, which would include previews.
> 
> - Merg


Previews varely rarely give any significant plot details away. And everyone knows that Survivor merges every season so that's not a spoiler.

IMO if reading a post about a preview is distressing then perhaps just avoid the threads.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> My thought is, you're free to use spoiler tags if you want, but know that if you're reading an "OAD" thread, it's not necessary to put the events of that episode in spoiler tags.


Ok, thanks Stuart


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

SPACEMAKER said:


> Previews varely rarely give any significant plot details away. And everyone knows that Survivor merges every season so that's not a spoiler.
> 
> IMO if reading a post about a preview is distressing then perhaps just avoid the threads.


What I'm saying is that previews for the next episode don't belong in a thread about the current episode. If they are mentioned they should be in spoiler tags.

I read the episode threads to discuss what happened and see if I missed anything. I don't want to nor should I have to read about what is going to happen, especially for the serial shows.

And while it is not distressing, it does remove some of the excitement of watching the serial.

- Merg


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

FYI, I'm going to let the discussion continue over the weekend, and then I'll see if we have a consensus on what to do.


----------



## bdowell (Mar 4, 2003)

The Merg said:


> What I'm saying is that previews for the next episode don't belong in a thread about the current episode. If they are mentioned they should be in spoiler tags.
> 
> I read the episode threads to discuss what happened and see if I missed anything. I don't want to nor should I have to read about what is going to happen, especially for the serial shows.
> 
> ...


I'm gonna disagree. If it aired in the timeslot, it's fair game, including preview information, information that would be in ads for the show, etc.

If you don't like that, I know of another forum where some people seem to be adamant that they get it the way you are asking for.

Gee, imagine that, coming to a forum where the discussion threads are about shows where the discussion about the shows (including the 'coming next week' type blurbs) can be talked about openly.

As Spacemaker mentions several times, use common sense, if you don't want to know the water cooler talk, stay away from the water cooler (i.e., the threads about a particular episode where the preview information is highly likely to be provided. For example, threads about 24, Survivor, etc.)


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

bdowell said:


> As Spacemaker mentions several times, use common sense, if you don't want to know the water cooler talk, stay away from the water cooler (i.e., the threads about a particular episode where the preview information is highly likely to be provided. For example, threads about 24, Survivor, etc.)


That's really not fair though... Why should someone who watches 59 minutes of a program have to ignore a discussion thread because someone wants to openly discuss 30 seconds of a "up next" preview at the end of an episode? For one thing, I don't see all that many comments about the previews, and for another adding (spoiler)] tags is very easy to do, so on those rare occasions someone does want to talk about the previews, just use the spoiler tags and state you're talking about a preview. Those interested can see the post, those not interested are not spoiled. Remember ... you can't un-ring the bell!


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> That's really not fair though... Why should someone who watches 59 minutes of a program have to ignore a discussion thread because someone wants to openly discuss 30 seconds of a "up next" preview at the end of an episode? For one thing, I don't see all that many comments about the previews, and for another adding (spoiler)] tags is very easy to do, so on those rare occasions someone does want to talk about the previews, just use the spoiler tags and state you're talking about a preview. Those interested can see the post, those not interested are not spoiled. Remember ... you can't un-ring the bell!


My point exactly. Along with the fact that the previews for next week are not part of the show that aired. They're giving you insight into _next_ week's episode or in some cases insight into the plot line for the rest of the season.

- Merg


----------



## bdowell (Mar 4, 2003)

Drew2k said:


> That's really not fair though... Why should someone who watches 59 minutes of a program have to ignore a discussion thread because someone wants to openly discuss 30 seconds of a "up next" preview at the end of an episode? For one thing, I don't see all that many comments about the previews, and for another adding (spoiler)] tags is very easy to do, so on those rare occasions someone does want to talk about the previews, just use the spoiler tags and state you're talking about a preview. Those interested can see the post, those not interested are not spoiled. Remember ... you can't un-ring the bell!


The problem becomes that each and every time someone accidently (or on purpose) fails to use the spoiler tags to enclose the preview information -- informatoin which, as noted, will likely show up in promos throughout the week anyway, a fight can ensue because someone failed to SPOILER TAG THAT!!! .

The natural tendency is to think "hmm, I saw the information tonite as I watched the show, I should be able to talk freely about it...." Just because a bunch of people might not yet have seen the episode and might have decided of their own free will to skip the preview doesn't mean that the rest of the world marches to their drums.

You normally can't wake up the next day and not hear a DJ yammering on about what happened last night, or what will happen tonite, etc. You see that information in news papers, in magazines, etc. (Though the proposed rule changes specifically note that information from outside sources must remain in spoiler tags, and I concur completely with that stance. As well as concuring with the idea that the first post should remain spoiler free given the auto-preview function.)

As noted by some others here, if you go to just about any other site out there previews are fair game. It's expected that if you enter a show thread you should expect to see information up through that episode and the previews that followed it.

One other very particular site has different rules that are even now causing a great deal of consternation again as people b-tch and moan over the fact that someone let some spoiler/preview information out. The anti-spoiler/anti-preview self-appointed (wannabe) moderators take it upon themselves to dress down the offender and then a flame war ensues and any and all discussion of the original show is lost.

Additionally, the more [ spoiler ] tags are used, the more cluttered the material is when reading it. (Though if you thread subscribe you never see the tags anyway and see the spoiled information in clear text...) Where you would have easy to follow discussion the screen jumps around and over sections of hidden text, then replies are generated in hidden text, etc., until there's nothing to read without highlighting it all anyway.


----------



## bdowell (Mar 4, 2003)

The Merg said:


> My point exactly. Along with the fact that the previews for next week are not part of the show that aired. They're giving you insight into _next_ week's episode or in some cases insight into the plot line for the rest of the season.
> 
> - Merg


No one twists anyone's arm and tells them they have to read any show thread until after they've seen that episode or any future episode. The choice to try to avoid preview information is made by the reader/participant and yet those participants that desire it that way *force* that choice onto (or more appropriately force it away from) others.

Supposedly it's about respect for others, but that respect only works in favor of those that want to remain preview free. Never mind the participants that want to see uncluttered threads and never mind that some participants would like to be able to freely talk about what has been shown in the previews well before the next episode airs (but after the preview materials were shown).


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

bdowell said:


> No one twists anyone's arm and tells them they have to read any show thread until after they've seen that episode or any future episode. The choice to try to avoid preview information is made by the reader/participant and yet those participants that desire it that way *force* that choice onto (or more appropriately force it away from) others.
> 
> Supposedly it's about respect for others, but that respect only works in favor of those that want to remain preview free. Never mind the participants that want to see uncluttered threads and never mind that some participants would like to be able to freely talk about what has been shown in the previews well before the next episode airs (but after the preview materials were shown).


Obviously we disagree on this subject. I'll just simply say that if it did not happen in this week's episode, it shouldn't be discussed in this week's episode thread. I don't think that previews are considered part of an episode. In most cases, the lead in to the previews is something like "on next week's..." or "on the next..."

- Merg


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Nick said:


> Wow! You guys are making this _way_ too complicated. Put the responsibility on the reader where it belongs, not on the poster.


So how does the reader know that there be spoilers here for NEXT week? That responsibility lies with the poster not the reader...


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Previews are next week's show. Spoiler it or put it in next week's thread. Don't pollute this week's thread.

As in be kind to your neighbor. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

I have been sarcastic on many things in the last few years. On this topic I can be very direct. All of these rules are absolutely unnecessary and it just boils down to common sense and courtesy. 

#1 If you read a title, and it includes a specific show of which you have not viewed, and then you consciously click on it it, and begin to read its contents. You have absolved all those who are posting on it of responsibility of giving away information that would ruin your tv viewing pleasure.

#2 If you post future events or glimpses of the show in either said specific date threads or general threads, then you should put them in a spoiler tag. If you fail to do so then you will get noticed as a "tv spoiler" and most will learn to skip reading your posts all together. Too many complaints and moderator action can be taken.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Aren't most "rules" just codified common sense and courtesy?


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Aren't most "rules" just codified common sense and courtesy?


yes, but this has gotten down to a nick pick level that needs simplification. The new user does not need a terms of agreement statement like I get from my Citibank card.
If this is going to be in the agreement, its needs less details and more general statement.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

armophob said:


> I have been sarcastic on many things in the last few years. On this topic I can be very direct. All of these rules are absolutely unnecessary and it just boils down to common sense and courtesy.
> 
> #1 If you read a title, and it includes a specific show of which you have not viewed, and then you consciously click on it it, and begin to read its contents. You have absolved all those who are posting on it of responsibility of giving away information that would ruin your tv viewing pleasure.
> 
> #2 If you post future events or glimpses of the show in either said specific date threads or general threads, then you should put them in a spoiler tag. If you fail to do so then you will get noticed as a "tv spoiler" and most will learn to skip reading your posts all together. Too many complaints and moderator action can be taken.


Thank you.

- Merg


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

armophob pretty much has it right. Otherwise, why bother with spoilers at all.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I'm still back to the problem of what is a spoiler. At what level does information about an upcoming episode or show become a "spoiler?" Define that, and the problem is solved.

The problem I have is specific to a thread I started. I thought it was interesting that Robert Wagner will be playing Michael Weatherly's character Tony's dad on an upcoming episode of "NCIS" since Weatherly played a younger Robert Wagner in the 2004 TV movie "The Mystery of Natalie Wood."

What you learn from that post is that Tony's dad will appear in one future episode. You don't know if it's an episode subplot or key to the episode plot or will alter the series overall story arc. You don't know anything about the "Tony's dad" character. You might speculate in your mind what he might be like and you might speculate in your mind what the writers will do with him in that episode.

In my view that piece of information is not a "spoiler" because it really tells you nothing about _what's going to happen_ or, to use the Wikipedia definition, it is not information that constitutes an "element of any summary or description of any piece of fiction that reveals any plot element which will give away the _*outcome*_ of a dramatic episode."

The only clear alternative option is to define "spoiler" to mean "any element of or information about any upcoming series or episode of a series, or movie other than a recording reminder." That means that if it hasn't been aired, the thread has to be labeled with a spoiler warning or everything in the thread has to look like this:



Spoiler



test





Spoiler



test





Spoiler



test





Spoiler



test



Anything in between is either going to end up looking like your credit card agreement or will be too fuzzy. Perhaps I'm the only one here who thinks the basic problem is the unshared definition of "spoiler" and I'm just simply out of the "slang" loop.

Finally, would someone tell me if the following unmarked, untagged exchange in the general "Fringe" thread constitutes a spoiler:


RobertE said:


> armophob said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, those of you who have been watching since day 1, I have a theory I need to test. In the early days, on commercial breaks, they would show an image and tell us how long the break was going to be. Half apple, butterfly, and so on. Now that they no longer display the down time, does anyone remember if these images always corresponded with specific time periods? Is it possible these images still are linked to specific break times?
> ...


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

My things get complicated so quickly :lol: I don't post much in here and when I do post I try to say as little as possible about the plot for any show. I know many people tape my favorite show Dexter so I try to be very careful about what little I do say. But then that doesn't make for a very good post in a thread so what is a poster supposed
to do :shrug: I post here so little that I doubt whatever is decided will bother me one way or another. So I will let the rest of you fight it out


----------



## Guardian (Oct 30, 2009)

I am on the East Coast, and I just don't open the threads of a show I have not watched yet, unless I want spoilers. I don't think there should be a restriction on timing. The fact that the episode name and air date are in the thread title should be enough for people to make their own decision on whether or not to view a thread. The spoiler buton which allows spoilers to be hidden is a good addition because some ppl like to :read: a little about the episode but not the outcome or "surprises:eek2:"* I voted YES


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

phrelin said:


> Finally, would someone tell me if the following unmarked, untagged exchange in the general "Fringe" thread constitutes a spoiler:


:lol::lol:

Ok, being called on the carpet on this one I will defend myself. I was not speaking of show content. I was speaking of new season show format commercial break indication.

This is quite a reach to be included in this discussion. It does not run the risk of ruining anyone's viewing experience to read this in advance of the show itself.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

*Phrelin,*

My idea of a spoiler is anything information about a show when it has not aired yet or is not in the appropriate thread. In your example with NCIS, I would constitute that as a spoiler as someone might not know what character he is playing until it is sprung on them in the episode. While you might want to mention it in the current episode thread, I believe that spoiler tags would be a nice courtesy for that. You could even preface it with:

Did anyone see in the previews that


Spoiler



Robert Wagner is going to play Weatherly's character's father?



The lead in is there to let someone know what the spoiler is about so those that don't mind knowing can read it at their leisure.

*Armophob,*
I don't think your question is a spoiler at all, because you are asking specifically about something that is seen in every episode. I guess you can say that the answer might be a little bit of spoiler (and Robert even partially admits that), so it might be appropriate to put the answer in spoiler tags, such as...

Those symbols are mini-spoilers:


Spoiler



Apple = "Olivia in trouble"
Butterfly = "something else", along those lines



- Merg


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

Another perfect example of why it rteally is not that complicated.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I'm glad to see some spirited discussion here. To address what's been said, the idea is not to use the rules to restrict discussion, but to put things in a common sense way that is both usable and enforceable. As it stands, here's what I want to do:

(1) Settle on the convention of using "OAD" in threads that contain potential spoilers for those who haven't seen this week's episode

(2) Let everyone know that if you open an "OAD" thread, you're very likely to find out who shot JR or who got voted off the island, and *it's your own daing fault* if you look anyway.

(3) Change the rules so that it's ok to talk about stuff that you'd see on the average commercial, as long as everyone agrees to be polite and sensitive about it.

The wording is completely secondary, and I don't want to turn the forum rules into a 25-page manuscript, I just need something enforceable.

How do you all feel about that?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Mr. Sweet - those seem quite straightforward and make sense, based on all the feedback overall.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I'm also open to the idea that previews remain in spoiler tags if the preview seems to have something genuinely shocking or "spoilerific" in it. I'm especially interested in hearing your views on that.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

While I agree with #1 and #2, I would alter #3.

3) Discussions about previews or any content of the show that has not aired through the current episode should be discussed in spoiler tags.

- Merg


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Teasers often are enticing spoilers. Generally I avoid them and would hope to avoid them in a thread for the show a week early.

Should be fairly simple to add a spoiler tag or even better yet, create a new thread since it really is next week's show.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Movieman (May 9, 2009)

Completely fair request. Hopefully everyone will follow it.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

armophob said:


> :lol::lol:
> 
> Ok, being called on the carpet on this one I will defend myself. I was not speaking of show content. I was speaking of new season show format commercial break indication.
> 
> This is quite a reach to be included in this discussion. It does not run the risk of ruining anyone's viewing experience to read this in advance of the show itself.


Actually, I thought it was quite a reach even with the response which I don't think is a spoiler, but then I'm pretty narrow with what I think is a spoiler and wanted to get some clarity, which I think was provided.


Stuart Sweet said:


> I'm glad to see some spirited discussion here. To address what's been said, the idea is not to use the rules to restrict discussion, but to put things in a common sense way that is both usable and enforceable. As it stands, here's what I want to do:
> 
> (1) Settle on the convention of using "OAD" in threads that contain potential spoilers for those who haven't seen this week's episode
> 
> ...


It seems fine to me.

I will probably label any thread I start about a future show or episode for which no previews have been aired ****Possible Spoilers**** in order to allow someone to avoid getting information they don't want. That would tend to avoid problems related to shows like "V" (which is a remake that was announced in January and not aired until November)and avoid problems related to casting and similar advance information.

We also do need to have people understand that the first post in a spoiler thread probably should be a general post because of the "cursor hover" thing.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

I fall back to my post #62. Keep it simple stupid. No long dissertation, debate, or long winded text page agreement form.
User beware, personal responsible forums without today's politically correct attitude of protecting everyone's eyes who do not have the sense to turn away from information they do not wish to know at this time. If the title says sex and drugs, then that is what is going to in there. If a title says Dexter date/date/09, then expect conversation up to that point.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

Great discussions, posts, and rule changes......what rules changes am I agreeing to?


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Re: Previews



Tom Robertson said:


> Should be fairly simple to add a spoiler tag or even better yet, create a new thread since it really is next week's show.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


I think using spoiler tags in the current week's thread is the way to go for discussion of previews. As I mentioned earlier, there are not a lot of posts about previews and it's very simple to use a spoiler tag.

On top of that, threads for the next week's episode are not permitted until just prior to the start of the show.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

The Merg said:


> While I agree with #1 and #2, I would alter #3.
> 
> 3) Discussions about previews or any content of the show that has not aired through the current episode should be discussed in spoiler tags.
> 
> - Merg


I agree. Any discussions about future events advertised or not, requires spoiler tags. I myself, delete shows before the credits purposely to avoid the coming next week ads they show. I do not want hints.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Teasers often are enticing spoilers. Generally I avoid them and would hope to avoid them in a thread for the show a week early.
> 
> Should be fairly simple to add a spoiler tag or even better yet, create a new thread since it really is next week's show.
> 
> ...


And it could be called an anticipation thread for that particular episode and give it a date.


----------



## cygnusloop (Jan 26, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I'm also open to the idea that previews remain in spoiler tags if the preview seems to have something genuinely shocking or "spoilerific" in it. I'm especially interested in hearing your views on that.


I'm one that appreciates previews in spoiler tags as I *try* not to watch them, but I think the common sense approach to that is acceptable. Many, if not most, previews are not an issue but when something is in fact - _Spoilerific_© (Shadow Enterprises, LLC, used with as yet un-granted permission), that it be in spoiler tags.

Common courtesy and common sense....


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Regarding the "previews = unwanted spoilers"... while I understand that sentiment, I'm inclined to think the network already spoilered it.

This is kind of like when the movie Hancock came out, and people who had already seen the movie recognized the artwork for the cover as a major plot spoiler... and it kinda was.

So... when that came out, would you post cover art of the DVD in a thread discussing the release date? Or in a review that tells you the quality?

If you post the pic, it's a major plot spoiler for someone not having seen the movie yet... but it's all over the place on the shelves and frankly there was no way to buy it without seeing the cover unless you're really good! 

So I've decided that the network preview-next-week spoilers are just a necessary evil since it's hard to slap anyone on the forum for talking about it when the people who should care most approved it for the screen.


----------



## bdowell (Mar 4, 2003)

I don't mind the common sense and courtesy approach as long as threads aren't derailed by whining because someone failed to hide preview information. Let the moderators do their job, use the report button to ask that the spoiler be hidden, and move on past it. Don't type out a flaming response crying about the spoiler ruining your future viewing because when you do you're just ruining what was hopefully a lively conversation, or at least side tracking it.

Perhaps send a polite PM to the person that slipped that asks them to please put the materials inside of spoiler tags (just so they can learn to abide by the hide the preview information requests), but otherwise accept that slip ups might occur. Remember, it's just TV. It's not the end of the world if you find out that next week Jack Bauer is gonna do something bad to some bad guy, or that the bad guy is gonna do something bad to Jack. It ain't the end of the world to find out something happened to one of the tribes on Survivor, etc. There's still a heckuva lot of show to see to find out exactly what is going to happen, when it happens, why it happened, etc. Knowing a little bit of preview information isn't gonna 'ruin' it.

Finally, my thoughts are that the reason some people don't think there's much discussion about preview information is because it's been verbooten for so long in some places so no one says a peep about it because they fear getting their butt chewed out badly if they do. (Such is the case at atleast one other site.) If the conversation flowed without fear there'd probably a lot more discussion of "did you see what they're hinting at for next week!!! OMG!!!", but instead that conversation either takes place in tags, or it is left out completely.

There are many, and I do mean many, people that simply give up on even thinking of participating in the discussion because they don't want to get jumped on, and others that know the rules (even if they're unwritten or simply supposed courtesy) and find them to be cumbersome and counter productive for reasonable discussion and they just don't bother to join the discussions. Instead the threads sit dead and the participation that could be there isn't. I know it has happened here (by myself and a few others I recognize), and I know it's happened badly at another site or two for just those reasons.

If the idea is participation and discussion, then censoring or hiding part of the discussion really is counter to that, though that doesn't stop some people from begging/ pleading/ demanding that preview information not be discussed openly.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

bdowell, I like the way you think. You all know I don't tolerate rudeness at this site and I hope all of you feel comfortable using the report post button







. The person you are reporting will not know that it was you reporting it, and we try to deal with problems professionally and fairly.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> bdowell, I like the way you think.


+1


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

For me reading spoilers don't spoil the show. Like *bdowel* posted, there is a lot more to the show, and it is the leading up to whatever happened is really what I'm interested in. One time I read that so and so was killed, and when I finally watched that episode I thought "So that is how that happened". Sometimes spoilers can increase the anticipation.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

bdowell said:


> Remember, it's just TV. It's not the end of the world if you find out that next week Jack Bauer is gonna do something bad to some bad guy, or that the bad guy is gonna do something bad to Jack. It ain't the end of the world to find out something happened to one of the tribes on Survivor, etc. There's still a heckuva lot of show to see to find out exactly what is going to happen, when it happens, why it happened, etc. Knowing a little bit of preview information isn't gonna 'ruin' it.


But this is this whole core of the issue.
To you it is just passive entertainment. 
To some, this is water, air or religion. I understand your tone to it. But you have to also understand the fanatics side, sometimes it is the end of the world for those whos lives gravitate, circulate and orbit these shows.
I know that I have put more time in my life towards viewing these shows than any other single event in over 15 years. That is quite a commitment to be tossing around as "not the end of the world". 
Just sayin'


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

bdowell said:


> Remember, it's just TV. It's not the end of the world if you find out that next week Jack Bauer
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


I fixed your post for you. 



bdowell said:


> If the idea is participation and discussion, then censoring or hiding part of the discussion really is counter to that, though that doesn't stop some people from begging/ pleading/ demanding that preview information not be discussed openly.


And I do agree with most of what you said, especially the beginning of your post. I do slightly disagree with this last part though. I don't really look at it that the discussion is being censored. I look at it as if the discussion should be about the episode in question.

There are many threads out there as well that discuss a series in its whole where the previews and talk of what's supposed to happen can be discussed in. There is one currently for Fringe and another on-going one for Dexter. I don't read those particular threads since I don't want to know what _might_ or _will_ happen in those series. But, I do like to read the episode threads and discuss what _has_ happened.

- Merg


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

If it is a popular show, your going to hear about it the next day around the water cooler, read about it in the papers, or see about it on the entertainment portion of the news.
But using spoiler tags here just indicates respect for those that do take it more seriously. It is like telling someone how the detective novel they are reading ends.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Bah Humbug! 

Still, much ado about nothing, oh ye overly legalistic ones. Why do I have the
nagging suspicion that I will never post in a tv program thread again in fear of
violating some obscure rule that I didn't understand in the first place. :shrug:

(This, in no way should be taken as criticism of our illustrious leaders, their scribes or followers. :grin


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

bdowell said:


> Remember, it's just TV.


I didn't comment on that because in context I didn't find it offensive. But I posted an obnoxious rant about that kind of "value reduction" twice somewhere in these threads discussing Dish Network with which I have a love-hate relationship. Part of it reads:


> It's true. It's only TV. And I'm sending this on "it's only the internet". I lived fine without the internet or personal computers before 1980. I lived fine before we got TV in 1951. My grandparents lived fine without the automobile or electricity.


 In contrast to having enough food, clothing, shelter and health care, everything else is a "just" or "only." But that doesn't mean it's not important to someone's sense of well being. As I said in my rant:


> If you're elderly or disabled and except for an occasional outing, spend 24/7 at home, then TV may take on a completely different meaning in your life.


So even though in my mind I have a very narrow definition of what constitutes a spoiler, here I'll accept without a qualm a much broader take because it does seem important to someone. I really don't want to spoil someone's entertainment, even inadvertently.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Nick said:


> Bah Humbug!
> 
> Still, much ado about nothing, oh ye overly legalistic ones. Why do I have the
> nagging suspicion that I will never post in a tv program thread again in fear of
> ...


No fear, just 3 simple rules

1. If the thread is date or episode specific, expect spoilers of current or past episodes.

2. If the thread is general topic about a show or series, all spoilers should be tagged.

3. All upcoming info about a show that affects the viewers enjoyment of the show in either case should be tagged as a spoiler.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

I definitely do not equate using spoiler tags on preview discussions as censoring. No one is stopping the poster from posting and no one is stopping the reader from reading. It's one click to read a spoiler and very easy to add the tags in the first place.

To me this is akin to the discussion about DoublePlay in the DIRECTV software. Some people wanted the DVR to auto pause when switching tuners, while others wanted it to not be pause when switching tuners. If the DVR automatically paused, then those not wanting it have no choice - it's always paused. However, by making it an option, both sides can achieve what they ultimately desire. If you want it paused, press PAUSE before switching. If you don't want it paused, do nothing.

With the TV show talk, if you want to write about previews, add tags and write about them. If you want to read about previews click the button. If you don't want to read about previews, don't click the button. Both sides win. However, if the preview discussion is posted without using spoiler tags, the text is exposed to those who don't want to see it, so only one side wins.

I would hope that simple common courtesy would win over every one here, knowing that a couple of quick actions would end up ultimately serving everyone...


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> You all know I don't tolerate rudeness at this site


:eek2: Gosh, and I've always felt so welcome here! Oh, wait, you said _rudeness_ - that's my younger brother. Whew! :lol:

Seriously, and back on topic, I was against restricting discussion of future episode previews in OAD threads, but after reading the arguments, I must say I have been swayed and I have jumped the fence on this. It's really not that difficult to use the spoiler tags, and after all, we're only taking about using them for preview discussion. The bulk of the discussion in OAD threads is about that episode.

One thing I would suggest is that if there is some particularly intriguing preview that is going to generate a lot of discussion, that it be allowed to have its own clearly identified thread that does not require spoiler tags.


----------



## olguy (Jan 9, 2006)

A little food for thought regarding spoiler tags in posts that are in threads to which you subscribe. I have my options set so that I am automatically notified when a post is made in a thread in which I have posted. Yesterday I received the email with phrelin's spoiler tests in it. And there it was, the text within the spoiler tags. In broad daylight test, test, test and I wondered, what is he testing?

So, I guess I'm cautioning those who don't want to read anything that might be in a spoiler tag, don't have auto notification turned on if you are going to post in a thread which may contain spoiler tags around that which you may not want to read.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

That's a wrinkle I hadn't even thought of. I knew the thread-preview didn't honor spoiler tags, so we encourage folks to not put spoilers in a first post... but never even though about thread/post notifications. That pretty much negates the use of spoilers at all for those users.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

I'm spoilerphobic but still subscribe to TV discussion threads so I know when the thread has been updated, but I make a point not to read the email for those TV threads.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Well, as the issue has become moot (_not_ mute), I think we're done here.
As I said previously, this has become much ado about nothing.

In summary, if a user has not viewed a specific program and doesn't want
to risk seeing spoilers, do not open or read the thread. Just as one would
around the proverbial office watercooler, just walk away.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Someone on AVSForum opened up a whole new can of worms...

In a "V" thread, people were making comparisons to other SciFi like Battlestar Galactica... and some were complaining of the BSG spoilers and were asking people to not to do that. Some of the posts were probably off-topic anyway, but the ones that made comparison of both as being recent re-envisioning of old shows had merit.


----------



## Sackchamp56 (Nov 10, 2006)

phrelin said:


> At the risk of seeming a simpleton, I thought the rules were pretty clear. The only question I had was if the Wikipedia definition of a spoiler is the definition we're using: As I read that, we can pretty well discuss in the open anything about an upcoming show except information which will give away the outcome.
> 
> If it is a murder detective story that doesn't reveal "who dunnit" before the end, you can't give information that will tell you "who dunnit."
> 
> ...


you are the king of wikipedia!


----------



## Sackchamp56 (Nov 10, 2006)

Nick said:


> Wow! You guys are making this _way_ too complicated. Put the responsibility on the reader where it belongs, not on the poster.


I agree. Sometimes the simplest approch is still the best. Its getting way to hair splitty.


----------



## Sackchamp56 (Nov 10, 2006)

armophob said:


> :lol::lol:
> 
> Ok, being called on the carpet on this one I will defend myself. I was not speaking of show content. I was speaking of new season show format commercial break indication.
> 
> This is quite a reach to be included in this discussion. It does not run the risk of ruining anyone's viewing experience to read this in advance of the show itself.


agreed, thats not a spoiler at all.


----------



## Guardian (Oct 30, 2009)

How do you do the spoiler buttons


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

Guardian said:


> How do you do the spoiler buttons


Use spoiler tags around what you want inside the button...

[ spoiler ]
Spoiler text here.
[ /spoiler ]

Remove the spaces inside the brackets for it to work.

- Merg


----------



## olguy (Jan 9, 2006)

Nick said:


> Well, as the issue has become moot (_not_ mute), I think we're done here.
> As I said previously, this has become much ado about nothing.
> 
> In summary, if a user has not viewed a specific program and doesn't want
> ...


I agree completely. And Happy Birthday. From another 71 yr old. Wonder if we're the oldest here? Probably not.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

I voted yes, but only because I trust that Stuart has thought this out completely. I usually only come to this forum to read *Phrelin's* posts. I don't even read the email notifications from this forum unless they are his for fear of a spoiler.

By the way, has anyone gone to *Phrelin's* blog? His full name is listed there. Could he be any more Irish? :lol:

Rich


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Why, Rich, on behalf of myself and those others who post in this forum, thanks. 

I'm going to leave this poll open until tomorrow morning and will publish the new rules at that time. Thank you all for your help on this.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

So what is the current consensus right now? I think I've understood the group's responses and boiled it down, with the exception of the last one, so does the following capture it accurately?


*THREAD TITLE:* Put the Original Air Date in the episode discussion thread, and anything on the show prior to and including that episode is fair game without using spoiler tags. If you didn't see the show yet and don't want to be spoiled, don't open the thread.

*OUTSIDE INFORMATION:* Information obtained from sources other than the actual episodes that aired is to be placed in spoiler tags. To aid others, precede the spoiler tag with useful information. For example: "I just saw some casting news at TV Guide..."

*SPOILERS IN THE FIRST POST:* Do not put spoiler tags in the first post of a thread, as the forum preview feature will reveal the hidden text when hovering over the thread title in the forum list.

*SPOILERS IN EMAIL:* If you subscribe to instant email notification to a discussion thread be aware that any text in spoiler tags may be revealed in the email message. If you don't want to be spoiled, change your notification type for TV discussion threads or simply don't open email messages for TV discussion threads.

*PREVIEW DISCUSSIONS:* Previews [may|may not] be discussed without using spoiler tags in an episode discussion thread.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

Drew,

I think you hit it on the head. We just need to determine what the Previews rule will be. Nice wrap-up.

- Merg


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Why, Rich, on behalf of myself and those others who post in this forum, thanks.
> 
> I'm going to leave this poll open until tomorrow morning and will publish the new rules at that time. Thank you all for your help on this.


You're welcome, Stuart.

Rich


----------



## olguy (Jan 9, 2006)

Since Stuart was the OP and 110 have voted for his suggestions and 14 against, I think I'll just wait and see how he interprets all this.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

... and I will simply not start a thread. I'll just wait for you guys to start it. That way I won't get into trouble.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

If I don't want to see spoilers I simply don't click on the thread. 
After I've seen the episode I'll click and join the conversation.
It's just common sense.

There's really no need in censoring the discussion for the benefit of those who haven't watched the episode. How long do you give them to watch it?
I've got stuff I haven't watched that's over a month old. I may not watch some it until after Christmas, when the sucky season is upon us.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

olguy said:


> Since Stuart was the OP and 110 have voted for his suggestions and 14 against, I think I'll just wait and see how he interprets all this.


Don't forget the silent majority.
These forums have over 76,000 members.
Their silence could convey a certain amount of contentment with the status quo.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Marlin Guy said:


> If I don't want to see spoilers I simply don't click on the thread.
> After I've seen the episode I'll click and join the conversation.
> It's just common sense.
> 
> ...


We're still watching shows from last season. I rarely spend much time on this thread. A quick glance at the threads to see if there's any info about scheduling or ratings or cancellations. The last thing I want to see is something that should be a spoiler, but isn't.

Rich


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Marlin Guy said:


> Don't forget the silent majority.
> These forums have over 76,000 members.
> Their silence could convey a certain amount of contentment with the status quo.


The silent are likely not reading this forum more so than anything that might otherwise be read into the story.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Supramom2000 (Jun 21, 2007)

rich584 said:


> I voted yes, but only because I trust that Stuart has thought this out completely. I usually only come to this forum to read *Phrelin's* posts. I don't even read the email notifications from this forum unless they are his for fear of a spoiler.
> 
> By the way, has anyone gone to *Phrelin's* blog? His full name is listed there. Could he be any more Irish? :lol:
> 
> Rich


I have!! I actually read both his blogs almost every day (though they are not updated every day). He and I engage is some very lively debate thru the private message feature!!

And I agree with you. I LOVE reading his posts!!


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Thank you all for your participation. I've weighed it all and here are the final revised rules:



> *Official Episode Threads:*
> When starting a discussion about a specific show episode, please put the air date and name of the program (and title if you know it) in the subject line. (ie: Lost: "Man of Science, Man of Faith," OAD 11/16/09.)
> 
> This will be the "official" thread for that week. If a thread contains the phrase "OAD" and a date in it, anything that aired in that episode is fair game, including potential spoilers.
> ...


----------

