# Discussion of rules in Game of Thrones threads **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [April 1, 2012, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-rules-in-game-of-thrones-threads/617448 "2012-04-01T05:54:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-rules-in-game-of-thrones-threads/617448/61 "2012-04-03T02:25:56Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Again, OP’s of Cafe Society threads have always been allowed to set spoiler rules for a particular thread. If you don’t like HIS RULES, the solution has already been offered — post ini one of the other threads. There is no hardship here. There is no censorship here. There is no muffling of information here. You can still post what you want to post — in another thread. It is a courtesy to respect the definitions of spoilers as set forth in an OP. No, they have been always been able to \*ask for that courtesy. \*Show me another thread where they got away with demanding not only no spoilers (as opposed to boxed spoilers only, which is part of the rules) but also they and only they get to define what is and is not a spoiler. The point is- this is the SDMB, and we love to bitch about new rules. This is a new rule. We’re bitching. It’s a courtesy to let us do so. ---
**Author:** ![Kamino\_Neko](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kamino_neko/32/34_2.png) [@Kamino\_Neko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kamino_Neko)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-rules-in-game-of-thrones-threads/617448/62 "2012-04-03T03:55:37Z")
‘Don’t spoil’ is a courtesy when a sane definition of ‘spoiler’ is adhered to. When you get to the point where _character names_ count, it moves from ‘courtesy’ to ‘joke’. There are a handful of cases where a character’s name is a spoiler…if you point to Kaiser Sose in his first scene in The Usual Suspects, or refer to Darth Vader as ‘Skywalker’ when talking to somebody who’s a complete Star Wars virgin, those would be spoilers. But Osha and Melisandre aren’t Kaiser Sose or Darth Vader. There is no mystery about their identities, there just wasn’t a reasonable way to bring their names up in their initial scenes. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-rules-in-game-of-thrones-threads/617448/63 "2012-04-03T05:36:16Z")
> [@quixotic78](#): > > You have said the following: > > If you want to argue that what you really _meant_ was that of course this doesn’t include speculation about future events, feel free, but by definition future events have not “happened in the show.” > > … > I obviously think you made the right call, because there’s no way in hell that’s any sort of a spoiler, but you’re also just as obviously inconsistent. Now not only is there an exception to the “On the show only!” rule for speculation, but also you’re willing to bend the rule for silly stuff like the slanty floor. Sometimes. Maybe. Or perhaps you’ve changed your mind. You are aware that you are deliberately spewing nonsense now. No reasonable person would ever forbid speculaton from a discussion about a show, if the speculation stems from what we’ve seen. You cannot seriously believe that because I have no problem with speculaton based on the presented material, I must therefore be a hypocrite when I don’t want to be spoiled. You are being disingenous. > [@](#): > > Well, point of fact, yes, I _do_ think that prison floor is an excellent example of people being oversensitive about spoilers. You disagree? That was an overreaction, but the best way to avoid the whole issue - overreactions, debates over what is or isn’t a spoiler, etc. is to simply not have any content from outside the TV show in the tv show threads. If no one is dropping hints, making refernece to background material in the books, whatever - there’s nothing to be oversensitive to. > [@](#): > > However, I disagree with your characterization of those of us who have read the books. Almost without exception, we’re not deliberately trying to spoil your fun; we’re trying to fight ignorance and answer questions (e.g., “Who is that witchy lady with Stannis?”). I think, with minimal exceptions, people who have posted what you deem a “spoiler” aren’t doing it to be jerks or trolls, they’re doing it because they disagree with you that it’s a spoiler. As **DrDeth** said, a “spoiler” isn’t cut and dried, and, protestations aside, you’re certainly acting like you’re the final arbiter of what is and what is not a spoiler. There are about 5-8 people who deliberately troll and try to trainwreck threads. That doesn’t mean all of you do, but if you go back and read the threads from last year, you can see people causing trainwrecks on purpose. And for the reasons I’ve already stated - it basically offends their sensitibilities that someone wants to have a spoiler free thread, and they’re going to teach you a lesson about what a delicate little snowflake you are. As far as what constitutes a spoiler - again, I’m not the arbiter of anything. Keep it all out. If your knowledge comes from the books, go to the threads where that’s appropriate. There should be no argument over what constitutes a spoiler because no content that could potentially be considered a spoiler belongs in the spoiler free threads. > [@](#): > > I assume you’re talking about **Boyo Jim** ’s post [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14923460&postcount=80). Yes, I do think he’s genuine. He says, “As much as I appreciate, and completely agree with, the rules of the thread” right off the bat, and I have no reason to disbelieve him. I don’t necessarily think he _agrees_ that budget talk is a spoiler, but I think (and this is a point I tried to make with you a while back, and you were insistent that I was trolling, but we were told to drop it before I could explain it) is that one need not _agree_ with the rules to read and follow them. As he read the OP – as you wrote it! – yes, talking about the show’s budget is a spoiler, because the only person who talks about budgets on the show is Littlefinger and he’s certainly not talking about the show’s budget. I believe **Boyo Jim** would consider such information absolutely not a spoiler, but according to your OP it is indeed defined as a spoiler. This is ridiculous. Boyo Jim was obviously not being serious. No reasonable person could possibly interpret “I hope they have bigger budgets next year” as a spoiler. He was obviously being inflammatory, trying to mock me by turning my own logic against me. What’s even more ridiculous is that his mocking didn’t even make sense. How in the world can you twist “I hope they have a bigger budget next year” into being a spoiler? It’s a complete non-sequitor. It’s as if I said “Ah, I got home from work late yesterday, I’ll have to catch up on the show tomorrow” and someone jumped on me and said YOU GETTING HOME FROM WORK LATE WASN’T PART OF THE SHOW AND DOESN’T BELONG IN THIS THREAD, HYPOCRITE!!!" I mean, come on. You’re being ridiculous. > [@](#): > > It is **absolutely** an exception to your words: “This thread will only cover things that have happened in the show.” I don’t even need to dig around in the threads from last year - you guys are displaying the same sort of petulant behavior right here in this thread. > [@](#): > > (Emphasis added) A lot, eh? :dubious: How many links of this type of behavior can you find? I know that “a lot” is a deliberately vague phrase, but hell, I’d consider three examples hinting at a character’s death to prove your point. Do you have three examples? No, I’m not digging through 50 pages of old threads to document examples. Would it change your mind? What would be the purpose? And I’ve already said that the minor spoilers and hinted spoilers weren’t even the worst part of those threads - it was all of the people who decided it was their mission in life to piss on everyone who didn’t want to be spoiled, who deliberately trainwrecked all of those threads. > [@](#): > > I find “But it worked so well!” to be an utterly terrible metric of how satisfactory a solution is. Seriously? “It works really well” isn’t a valid piece of evidence as to whether or not to continue a policy? Before the change, the episode thread looked like this thread looks now, only more vitriolic, drowning out discussion. After the change things went massively more smoothly. Why revert that change? Seriously - do any of you guys have any sort of valid reason outside of “I DON’T WANT THE SPECIAL SNOWFLAKES TO GET THEIR WAY!!!”? > [@](#): > > As yousay, death is only implied. It leaves enough ambiguity to avoid spoiler status. Is this really what you guys want to hang your hat on? The idea that saying “something bad is going to happen to character X” isn’t a spoiler? You make my point for me. > [@](#): > > It has been asked what my preferred system would be. I’d chime in with **DrDeth** and **Mtgman** and probably dozens of others: one thread – let’s say one thread per episode, as is customary for popular shows – with spoilers behind boxes. Allow the intelligent people on this board to use their best judgment to determine what is or is not a spoiler. If it seems someone is deliberately posting spoilers, either without hiding (or even posting unrelated, monumental spoilers behind spoiler boxes), mod action is appropriate (warning, banning, post editing, etc.). So yeah, like every other show on here ever. (And P.S. I couldn’t care less if subscribe makes spoiler boxes not work – fucking unsubscribe, for fuck’s sake). Hey, you know what, we tried that last year and it failed miserably. We amended the system, it worked. It worked for the book readers too, who had a place to talk more openly. We’re keeping the amended system. What’s your compelling reason to go back? > [@DrDeth](#): > > It is courtesy. We like courtesy. What we generally don’t like are NEW RULES. Everytime someone wants a new rule- like a reasonable one about no text-speak- the posters chime in that they don;t want a new rule, that the old rules of “don;t be a jerk” is just fine. Altho I would be tempted by a rule about “no text-speak” myself, I agreed- _no new rules._ > > **Senor Beef** is not _asking_ for courtesy- he’s _demanding_ that everyone follow HIS RULES. You gave no courtesy. You went through the threads last year and tried to start a fight over this issue over and over again, you were defiant and petulant, trying to enforce your way of doing things by trying to piss the rest of us off until we submitted. The idea that you’re asking for courtesy is absurd. It was asked as a courtesy last year, and failed miserably, due to people like you. It wasn’t until it stopped being a courtesy that things got on track. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-rules-in-game-of-thrones-threads/617448/64 "2012-04-03T13:08:44Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > That was an overreaction, but the best way to avoid the whole issue - overreactions, debates over what is or isn’t a spoiler, etc. is to simply not have any content from outside the TV show in the tv show threads. If no one is dropping hints, making refernece to background material in the books, whatever - there’s nothing to be oversensitive to. > > As far as what constitutes a spoiler - again, I’m not the arbiter of anything. Keep it all out. If your knowledge comes from the books, go to the threads where that’s appropriate. There should be no argument over what constitutes a spoiler because no content that could potentially be considered a spoiler belongs in the spoiler free threads. > > I don’t even need to dig around in the threads from last year - you guys are displaying the same sort of petulant behavior right here in this thread. > Hey, you know what, we tried that last year and it failed miserably. We amended the system, it worked. It worked for the book readers too, who had a place to talk more openly. We’re keeping the amended system. What’s your compelling reason to go back? > > You gave no courtesy. You went through the threads last year and tried to start a fight over this issue over and over again, you were defiant and petulant, trying to enforce your way of doing things by trying to piss the rest of us off until we submitted. The idea that you’re asking for courtesy is absurd. It was asked as a courtesy last year, and failed miserably, due to people like you. It wasn’t until it stopped being a courtesy that things got on track. I hope you read this again: _“As far as what constitutes a spoiler - again, I’m not the arbiter of anything”._ then you post _“Keep it all out. If your knowledge comes from the books, go to the threads where that’s appropriate. There should be no argument over what constitutes a spoiler because no content that could potentially be considered a spoiler belongs in the spoiler free threads”_ and before that “_is to simply not have any content from outside the TV show in the tv show threads. If no one is dropping hints, making refernece to background material in the books, whatever - there’s nothing to be oversensitive to._” If that’s not being a arbiter, I suggest you look up that word. We are debating the issue- in a forum just for that. We’re not coming in a ruining the thread, and in fact you created this thread just for this purpose, yet, you’re complaining and whining about our behavior. As far as :\* You gave no courtesy. You went through the threads last year and tried to start a fight over this issue over and over again, you were defiant and petulant, trying to enforce your way of doing things by trying to piss the rest of us off until we submitted. The idea that you’re asking for courtesy is absurd. It was asked as a courtesy last year, and failed miserably, due to people like you. It wasn’t until it stopped being a courtesy that things got on track"\* You directed this to \*me. \* For the third time I ask you to show us all where I was in there last year spoiling or arguing. Cause I wasn’t, dude. Your now simply making things up. ---
**Author:** ![quixotic78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3ab097/32.png) [@quixotic78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quixotic78)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-rules-in-game-of-thrones-threads/617448/65 "2012-04-03T13:53:27Z")
I’m done with you, **SenorBeef** , because you’re not arguing in good faith and you’re clearly not interested in having a discussion. Anyone who disagrees with you is lying, trolling, and cannot possibly believe what they say. You believe that those who disagree with you are deliberately causing havoc and trainwrecks, and couldn’t possibly be acting for benign reasons. You have no problem with pulling statistics from the farthest reaches of your ass (80% this, over 90% that). You say that a lot of people have hinted at a character’s death, but can’t be bothered to give a single example (not to mention a larger number that would justify your characterization of “a lot.”) You claim that there are 5-8 people who are acting maliciously, but you can’t be bothered to give any examples and you’re too cowardly to name them, as they might try to defend themselves. (Not that it’d matter – you’d simply use your psychic powers and say, “You don’t mean that.”) Honestly, you’re at **Starving Artist** level debate. “Nuh uh,” “I don’t need a cite,” “I won’t back my words up because it’s obvious.” * * * Here’s my parting words: I don’t think it’s a spoiler to say, “Huh, that cell was slanted in the book.” I don’t think it’s a spoiler to say, “That unnamed witch is Melisandre.” I don’t think it’s a spoiler to say, “Something bad will happen to Tyrion,” because something bad has happened to every protagonist ever. And I would certainly never make a thread with a rule that says, “This thread will only cover things that have happened in the show, up to and including the episode named in the thread title… so we’re going to have a zero tolerance policy. No spoilers, even in boxes, of things that occured from outside of the TV show.” But **you** did. As I read _your_ words, that means no speculation about future events, because they have not “happened in the show.” That means no talk about show budgets, however hypothetical, because budgetary information is something that “occurred from outside of the TV show.” I think this is a dumb rule, but it’s **your** dumb rule. Your words are right there. I didn’t change them, they’re not from the moderator’s portion. They’re from your keyboard. If you think they’re unreasonable, don’t go foaming at the mouth in my direction, calling me a liar, etc. It’s what your words say. Deal with it. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-rules-in-game-of-thrones-threads/617448/66 "2012-04-03T14:52:58Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > And you see, that’s the point. I don’t consider “don’t get too attached to him _wink_" to be a spoiler, that it is just a comment on GRRM’s overall style as a writer. I would think phrasing can make all the difference. “This is GRRM, don’t get too attached to him, as any character is fair game” vs “Character X? Yeah, don’t get attached to _him_, wink wink.” One of those says the author is malicious towards all his characters, the other is a strong hint about a specific character. The second most certainly is a spoiler. The first probably wouldn’t draw fire. Now, how was that specific situation? You keep trying to characterize it as the first, but I read it as the second. > [@](#): > > So, the whole “NOT POST SPOILERS AT ALL” still devolves upon a matter of opinion of what is a ‘spoiler”. But they went to effort to spell out a clear line to make it easy. Don’t post anything that is based in information that is not from the aired TV episodes. > [@](#): > > To answer what I want : “What would make me Happy? No Moderator enforcement of one poster’s personal rules.” Why does it matter who wrote it? Would you feel better if **CK Dexter Haven** wrote the thing, and said “These are the rules for this thread, per the SDMB Administration.” > [@DrDeth](#): > > Read Mtgmans (Stevens) thread. Both of us have been around for a while. Both of us seem to have gotten the impression that you are both asking for and getting special treatment. Gukumatz’s official “Mod” posting is special treatment. > > Neither of us can remember seeing this sort of special treatment being handed out before. Maybe that’s because something new happened that had not happened here before, so the moderators had to come up with a solution to a _new_ problem? > [@](#): > > Now look, we understand why you are making this request. We understand why Gukumatz made some stickies and such. But it seems like your request is now being specially backed by a Mod. This is what we object to. Mods have always been able to give directions in thread, and enforce those directions with punishment for violating moderator’s instructions. So why is it different for the Mods in this case to agree with a solution that was arrived at previously, and state up front they are enforcing the same arrangement? > [@](#): > > Why are you special? Why is your request as a poster being backed by a Mod? Because this exact situation caused a huge mess last year, and the point of having a moderated board is to prevent shit like that? Rather than wait for the mess and have to clean it up, preempt the mess. > [@quixotic78](#): > > As **DrDeth** said, a “spoiler” isn’t cut and dried, Which is why they tried to clarify what would be interpreted as a spoiler for the purposes of that one thread, and set the line pretty draconian. > [@](#): > > and, protestations aside, you’re certainly acting like you’re the final arbiter of what is and what is not a spoiler. I thought **Gukumatz** was moderating that thread? > [@](#): > > (Emphasis added) A lot, eh? :dubious: How many links of this type of behavior can you find? I know that “a lot” is a deliberately vague phrase, but hell, I’d consider three examples hinting at a character’s death to prove your point. Do you have three examples? I didn’t take his argument to be that there were many examples of someone hinting specific characters would die. I took that as one example of the _kind_ of spoilers that were dropping, strong hints of things to come. One might be “character X is likely to die soon”, another might be “Character Y is going to do something badass”, and another might be “I really hate what happens to Character Z”. Hints and implications based upon outside foreknowledge are spoilers. I haven’t read the threads, I haven’t watched the TV show, I only read the first book, so I don’t have specific examples. > [@](#): > > I find “But it worked so well!” to be an utterly terrible metric of how satisfactory a solution is. And yet the main argument against the thread rules seems to be, “We have a way that we’ve always done here that has worked so well before, why can’t we just use that?” > [@](#): > > As you say, death is only implied. It leaves enough ambiguity to avoid spoiler status. Maybe the character will disappear (e.g., Benjen Stark). Maybe the character will fundamentally change as a result of a maiming or torture. Maybe the character will devolve from an exciting persona into a bogged down, mundane bore. Maybe a witty character will have his tongue cut out, and so any reason to get attached to that character is gone. Maybe a magic spell will turn the character into a wolf, or a doorknob, or a zombie. Who knows? First off, the specific example does not read as that ambiguous. Second, any hint that a character is not going to progress as currently shown is potentially a spoiler, when backed up by foreknowledge. > [@](#): > > It has been asked what my preferred system would be. I’d chime in with **DrDeth** and **Mtgman** and probably dozens of others: one thread – let’s say one thread per episode, as is customary for popular shows – with spoilers behind boxes. Allow the intelligent people on this board to use their best judgment to determine what is or is not a spoiler. If it seems someone is deliberately posting spoilers, either without hiding (or even posting unrelated, monumental spoilers behind spoiler boxes), mod action is appropriate (warning, banning, post editing, etc.). So yeah, like every other show on here ever. (And P.S. I couldn’t care less if subscribe makes spoiler boxes not work – fucking unsubscribe, for fuck’s sake). “But it worked so well before!” ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-rules-in-game-of-thrones-threads/617448/67 "2012-04-03T15:18:06Z")
> [@quixotic78](#): > > You claim that there are 5-8 people who are acting maliciously, but you can’t be bothered to give any examples and you’re too cowardly to name them, as they might try to defend themselves. . Oddly he has named me, but I barely posted at all last year in the threads, mainly about IRL could a many fights for hours in armour and also IRL could a dark-haired man have blonde son by a blonde wife. In neither case were any spoilers committed as we were discussing what occurred that show. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-rules-in-game-of-thrones-threads/617448/68 "2012-04-03T15:20:32Z")
Senorbeef you’ve created an environment where people are afraid to post the names of main characters for fear of being labeled spoilers. There is courtesy, there is following the rules, there is not being a jerk, and then clear on the other side of the reasonable spectrum is what you and some others expect. The things some people have claimed are spoilers in last years threads in order to justify their paranoid behavior were beyond ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-rules-in-game-of-thrones-threads/617448/69 "2012-04-03T15:21:36Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > I > > Because this exact situation caused a huge mess last year, and the point of having a moderated board is to prevent shit like that? > > I haven’t read the threads, I haven’t watched the TV show, I only read the first book, so I don’t have specific examples. Read what you said “\*Because this exact situation caused a huge mess last year…” \*and “_I haven’t read the threads, I haven’t watched the TV show, I only read the first book, so I don’t have specific examples.”_ ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-rules-in-game-of-thrones-threads/617448/70 "2012-04-03T17:29:39Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Maybe that’s because something new happened that had not happened here before, so the moderators had to come up with a solution to a **new** problem? I agree the situation last year demanded some sort of mod action. I just disagree with where the burden of maintaining that solution has fallen. It’s a basic tenet of self defense that if you’re walking down a street at night in a bad area, and you see someone you don’t know coming the other direction, you give them a wider berth than usual. This protects you by giving you an insulating distance from someone whose actions you may not be able to control. It’s a proactive, positive step you take to safeguard yourself. It’s not reasonable to just keep walking in a straight line and to yell out to the other person, “You go way around me, I don’t want to run the risk you’re a serial killer. Better yet, go cross the street or go inside until I leave.” That would be an unreasonable burden to place on others for your sense of safety. People who don’t want to be spoiled on a decades old story should bear the burden of protecting themselves from the information. The cost to them is they may have to swerve a bit on the sidewalk to ensure they give those discussions a wide enough berth to avoid possible spoilers. Ok, they clearly value their unspoiled condition, let them put forth the effort to maintain it. The administration has a duty to keep jerkishness down and civility in place in a general sense. To continue the analogy, if someone is giving a stranger a wide berth when passing at night in a rough neighborhood, and that stranger jumps at them and shouts “boo” then the stranger was being a jerk, and should be subject to disciplinary action. Same deal if the stranger starts following the person around and shouting threats at them. These are actions which call for an authority to step in. But under ordinary circumstances city has a duty to keep streetlights working and streets flat and level to avoid trip hazards. Taking it a step further, how does the current policy map to our analogy? Right now the authorities are sweeping the streets ahead of people to ensure no one who might disturb our pedestrian’s sense of security is on the streets. Those who wish to remain on the streets must agree they’ll make every accommodation to prevent the pedestrian from feeling threatened or uncomfortable. I contend, and this has been my only contention all along, it is a positive duty on the part of the one who wants to be insulated from any risky situations, to provide for that insulation. It is not a societal duty to ensure that person never feels threatened. Society should not shift this duty for two reasons, because creates a cost to others, avoiding certain actions, which has no benefit to those others. They have to cross the street when they see the individual approaching, which takes time and effort, and it doesn’t add anything to their lives. Secondly, it is unsustainable. You’ve put the subjective feelings of some individual into the law. Suppose someone was walking down the street and the protected individual steps out of a doorway nearby, does the first person have a duty to retreat? How are they to judge if their presence is perceived as a threat? It might work in a society of telepaths, but it’s a poor policy for mere humans. Zero perceived threats is just unworkable, as are most zero tolerance policies. Taking the discussion out of the realm of analogy. I think those who don’t want to be spoiled should stay out of discussion threads or accept the risk of possible spoilers, ranging from mild innuendo to overt spoilers. The community in the past has voluntarily used spoiler tags pretty successfully, and when someone slipped up a mod might edit in a tag or edit out a slip. The zero tolerance for spoilers, boxed or otherwise, intentional or unintentional, which some have insisted on in the Game of Thrones threads is a standard which has never been in force before. I also contend it is unwise policy because it puts the burden of maintaining a spoiler free place on those who don’t benefit from it, c.f. **jayjay** , **NAF1138** et. al. and it puts the determination of what is and isn’t a spoiler into a subjective criteria of how the unspoiled feel about things which are said. It’s possible to innocently answer a question such as “What was the lady in red’s name?” and have it turn into a shitstorm because some people would consider that a spoiler and some wouldn’t. The “bright line” of “zero unaired content” is far too fuzzy, and the hypervigilance in enforcing it, mostly by the non-staff members of the community, is the major source of disruption, frustration, and anger. If people would accept personal responsibility for shielding themselves from content they may not wish to be exposed to, instead of demanding all such content be suppressed, this would shift the burden to where it belongs. Don’t want to have even the slightest possibility of being spoiled? Unilateral abstinence is guaranteed to produce the result you want. Don’t read the threads. Willing to accept the slight possibility of an unintentional spoiler, and the very slim possibility of someone being an ass and blurting out something? Then read the threads and accept the possible consequences. > [@Irishman](#): > > And yet the main argument against the thread rules seems to be, “We have a way that we’ve always done here that has worked so well before, why can’t we just use that?” That isn’t my argument. My argument is largely a “you can’t childproof the world, you have to worldproof the child” variant. Those who want to read online threads about unfolding stories should accept the risk of spoilers. Reasonable efforts to use spoiler tags or discretion are common courtesy, but they’re not a duty. No one else in the thread owes you anything, and you have no standing to demand they self censor. You can feel free to put someone on ignore if you think they’re an intentionally-spoileriffic ass, but again, the burden of responsibility for your exposure to spoilers is yours. Setting a zero tolerance policy that only benefits some small group is rarely done in the real world legal systems, and it should be rarely, if ever, done here. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-rules-in-game-of-thrones-threads/617448/71 "2012-04-03T17:34:24Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > It’s a basic tenet of self defense that if you’re walking down a street at night in a bad area, and you see someone you don’t know coming the other direction, you give them a wider berth than usual. This protects you by giving you an insulating distance from someone whose actions you may not be able to control. It seems to me that starting a zero spoiler thread is exactly what you’re describing. It’s giving a wide berth to people who might spoil. Those who have spoilers in their possession are, presumably, people of good faith when compared to potential muggers and will respect the lines as drawn by the OP. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-rules-in-game-of-thrones-threads/617448/72 "2012-04-03T18:07:59Z")
Once again, the problem has never been the spoiler free rules but the ridiculously unreasonable definitions of spoilers some people want to apply and the massive over reaction to completely harmless posts that plagued the earlier threads. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-rules-in-game-of-thrones-threads/617448/73 "2012-04-03T18:11:11Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > Once again, the problem has never been the spoiler free rules but the ridiculously unreasonable definitions of spoilers some people want to apply and the massive over reaction to completely harmless posts that plagued the earlier threads. Who cares if they’re “ridiculously unreasonable” and there are “massive over reactions”? Just let the ridiculously unreasonable people with their massive over reactions have their own thread. That way everyone gets what they want. Why are you trying to force the spoiler-phobes to accept your point of view? Having separate threads is a _good_ solution. Otherwise, what you seem to be saying is that people who don’t want to be spoiled just can’t participate in any discussions of the show on these boards. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-rules-in-game-of-thrones-threads/617448/74 "2012-04-03T18:11:33Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > …This is ridiculous. Boyo Jim was obviously not being serious. No reasonable person could possibly interpret “I hope they have bigger budgets next year” as a spoiler. He was obviously being inflammatory, trying to mock me by turning my own logic against me… I was dead serious. As to your post, I believed it was an answer, in direct response the question at the end the preceding post: > [@Game of Thrones 2.01 "The North Remembers" 4/1 - ZERO SPOILER Discussion Thread](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/game-of-thrones-2-01-the-north-remembers-4-1-zero-spoiler-discussion-thread/616885/55): > > Season 1 cost 60 mil apparently, which was less than other comparable HBO series (Rome cost 100-120 mil per season, a big factor in its cancellation). Season 2 got a bigger budget because of the massive success of season 1, but i have no idea how much bigger it actually is. And I didn’t read your answer all the way through, because I didn’t want to know. So I got it partly wrong because your response was not the answer that I expected. But still, by the very first rule, about nothing from other media, it was still a spoiler. As to my second quote in that post, by the same rule, Biggirl’s post was and is, unequivocally a spoiler. I think it’s reasonable to debate whether a post like that _should_ be a spoiler, but by the terms laid out, it was. And I didn’t appreciate being told to “shut up” by the guy who’s set the rules, already broken one of them and allowed someone else to break them without comment. Which is why I won’t be playing in that sandbox. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-rules-in-game-of-thrones-threads/617448/75 "2012-04-03T19:56:22Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Read what you said “\*Because this exact situation caused a huge mess last year…” \*and “_I haven’t read the threads, I haven’t watched the TV show, I only read the first book, so I don’t have specific examples.”_ :rolleyes: I don’t have to have seen those threads to know they caused a giant mess, just like I don’t have to have been to Europe to know it exists. Even you folks arguing against the no spoiler rules agree those threads last year were full of drama, you just attribute the blame a little differently. > [@Mtgman](#): > > I agree the situation last year demanded some sort of mod action. I just disagree with where the burden of maintaining that solution has fallen. It’s a basic tenet of self defense that if you’re walking down a street at night in a bad area, and you see someone you don’t know coming the other direction, you give them a wider berth than usual. This protects you by giving you an insulating distance from someone whose actions you may not be able to control. It’s a proactive, positive step you take to safeguard yourself. It’s not reasonable to just keep walking in a straight line and to yell out to the other person, “You go way around me, I don’t want to run the risk you’re a serial killer. Better yet, go cross the street or go inside until I leave.” That would be an unreasonable burden to place on others for your sense of safety. How about moving to a building with a doorman, to keep out the riffraff? That is taking a positive step to protect oneself. Or, creating a thread with rules for that thread that say “no spoilers”. > [@](#): > > People who don’t want to be spoiled on a decades old story should bear the burden of protecting themselves from the information. Like starting a thread with rules “NO SPOILERS”. > [@](#): > > Taking it a step further, how does the current policy map to our analogy? Right now the authorities are sweeping the streets ahead of people to ensure no one who might disturb our pedestrian’s sense of security is on the streets. Those who wish to remain on the streets must agree they’ll make every accommodation to prevent the pedestrian from feeling threatened or uncomfortable. Or, it’s more like resorts in places like Jamaica. They have these walled compounds with security staff that control access to keep the tourists safe and happy, so they can wander around without risk of getting jumped. So the tourists are told to stay in the walled compound, and not go outside where there are [del]spoilers[/del] potential criminals lurking. And the locals may want inside the compound to prey on the tourists, but the security keep them out. > [@](#): > > Taking the discussion out of the realm of analogy. I think those who don’t want to be spoiled should stay out of discussion threads or accept the risk of possible spoilers, ranging from mild innuendo to overt spoilers. Why can’t the people who wish to have a spoiler free discussion of the show they like get together and go in the other room and close the door. Then if someone in that room breaks the agreement and reveals a spoiler, they kick them out? Oh wait, board rules aren’t set up where members can police each other - that is Junior Modding. We have to let the Real Mods\* do the work. So they ask the Real Mods to agree to police the conversation for them. And the Real Mods agreed. > [@](#): > > The community in the past has voluntarily used spoiler tags pretty successfully, and when someone slipped up a mod might edit in a tag or edit out a slip. And yet that was apparently insufficient last year. > [@](#): > > The zero tolerance for spoilers, boxed or otherwise, intentional or unintentional, which some have insisted on in the Game of Thrones threads is a standard which has never been in force before. So? It was a solution reached to reduce board conflicts, and it mostly worked last year. Is it perfect? No. It’s a _compromise_. > [@](#): > > I also contend it is unwise policy because it puts the burden of maintaining a spoiler free place on those who don’t benefit from it, c.f. **jayjay** , **NAF1138** et. al. I don’t understand. The burden of maintaining a spoiler free place is always in effect in threads marked “no spoilers”. It inherently can’t be on anyone else, because nobody else can tell you are going to say a spoiler before you say it. Sure, the mods can help police it, and can help clean up spoilers to mitigate the damage, but the only person who can keep from saying a spoiler is the person who is speaking/writing. That’s why we have things like spoiler boxes and spoiler policies to guide the posters. And in **one** thread, that policy has been tightened very strictly. It may limit some discussion or cut off some irrelevant comments that aren’t really spoilers for anything, but it makes the line a lot easier to detect, for both the mods policing it _and_ the posters participating. Or is the concern not about what happens specifically in the GoT threads, but the concern that once the board accepts this definition of what constitutes a spoiler in one thread, that people will begin to expect that interpretation to apply in other threads? It will create a culture of expectation. > [@](#): > > and it puts the determination of what is and isn’t a spoiler into a subjective criteria of how the unspoiled feel about things which are said. But that’s the thing, spoilers are already inherently a subjective criteria based on how the unspoiled feels about those things which are said. That’s what a _spoiler_ is. At least this set of rules attempts to provide a clear guideline so posters can more easily judge where that determination is. “Nothing that hasn’t aired, nothing based on any outside sources.” > [@](#): > > It’s possible to innocently answer a question such as “What was the lady in red’s name?” and have it turn into a shitstorm because some people would consider that a spoiler and some wouldn’t. The “bright line” of “zero unaired content” is far too fuzzy, But that’s not the line being fuzzy, that’s someone deciding that something that wasn’t revealed in the TV show is not really a spoiler. The answer to that question complying with the spoiler rules is “Her name wasn’t stated”. And someone will probably start calling her “The Lady In Red” even after she changes outfits, because people tend to do that even when the person’s name is known and stated. See for example the Celebrity Apprentice thread and the way contestants get nicknames - especially early in the season when some of them are not well known. How relevant is her name? Does it matter? If it doesn’t matter because it isn’t a spoiler for anything, then it doesn’t matter enough to say it. > [@](#): > > and the hypervigilance in enforcing it, mostly by the non-staff members of the community, is the major source of disruption, frustration, and anger. It seems to me the major source of disruption, frustration, and anger is a disagreement over what kind of information is a spoiler, so exactly how much information from other sources should be allowed. This policy defines that pretty clearly. > [@](#): > > If people would accept personal responsibility for shielding themselves from content they may not wish to be exposed to, instead of demanding all such content be suppressed, this would shift the burden to where it belongs. Don’t want to have even the slightest possibility of being spoiled? Unilateral abstinence is guaranteed to produce the result you want. Don’t read the threads. Willing to accept the slight possibility of an unintentional spoiler, and the very slim possibility of someone being an ass and blurting out something? Then read the threads and accept the possible consequences. But they are accepting some risk - some risk that someone will post in the thread without paying attention to the clear rule, or unilaterally decide that their bit of info that is from reading the book isn’t really a spoiler. By stating the rules that the mods are enforcing in that thread, it sets up a reasonably clear line and tells people in advance what the standard is. And by stating the rules up front, it warns _most people_ so they can prefilter their own content, and reduce those events. They’re still running a risk. But they are trying to minimize that risk. So really, your argument is that you feel that they should face more risk. * * * - Yes, **Gukumatz** is not a full time mod, but he’s officially sanctioned for the GoT threads, so he’s a “Real Mod” in those threads. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-rules-in-game-of-thrones-threads/617448/76 "2012-04-03T20:07:26Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > I don’t understand. The burden of maintaining a spoiler free place is always in effect in threads marked “no spoilers”. It inherently can’t be on anyone else, because nobody else can tell you are going to say a spoiler before you say it. Sure, the mods can help police it, and can help clean up spoilers to mitigate the damage, but the only person who can keep from saying a spoiler is the person who is speaking/writing. I want to elaborate on what I said here. The only person who can judge a spoiler is the person being spoiled. But the person being spoiled cannot know what the other person is going to say before it is said, so they can’t know if it is a spoiler. This creates an inherent imbalance. The burden on the person who doesn’t want to be spoiled is to limit situations where they might be spoiled. But one way to do that is start a conversation with an up front agreement that spoilers will not be given. Except as you mention, spoilers are inherently subjective, so how do you get that up front agreement? By spelling out what constitutes a spoiler for that conversation. And how do you enforce that agreement? In the context of the board, enforcement is done by Moderators (or Acting Moderators). So for this conversation, it doesn’t matter if _you_ do not think this bit of info from the book could be a spoiler, the agreement is in place that it will be treated as such, because otherwise it is _harder_ to determine up front what will be judged a spoiler. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-rules-in-game-of-thrones-threads/617448/77 "2012-04-03T22:39:52Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > It seems to me that starting a zero spoiler thread is exactly what you’re describing. It’s giving a wide berth to people who might spoil. Those who have spoilers in their possession are, presumably, people of good faith when compared to potential muggers and will respect the lines as drawn by the OP. Seems more like setting up a gated community with private sidewalks in the middle of what was once a public area. > [@Irishman](#): > > Why can’t the people who wish to have a spoiler free discussion of the show they like get together and go in the other room and close the door. Then if someone in that room breaks the agreement and reveals a spoiler, they kick them out? Oh wait, board rules aren’t set up where members can police each other - that is Junior Modding. We have to let the Real Mods\* do the work. So they ask the Real Mods to agree to police the conversation for them. And the Real Mods agreed. Which is, of course, their prerogative. And it’s the prerogative of other members of the board to voice their disapproval for this approach and the precedent it sets. To allow a vocal minority to claim three sticky threads in Cafe Society for one tv series is completely new. About the most ever done in the past was the Harry Potter book 7 release where there was a board announcement and **Dex’s** “Shot across the bow” if I remember correctly. > [@Irishman](#): > > And yet that was apparently insufficient last year. Because their tolerance for spoilers was zero. Zero tolerance policies never work. Human tolerances aren’t that precise. > [@Irishman](#): > > Or is the concern not about what happens specifically in the GoT threads, but the concern that once the board accepts this definition of what constitutes a spoiler in one thread, that people will begin to expect that interpretation to apply in other threads? It will create a culture of expectation. It already has. The “zero tolerance for spoilers” threads have been repeated this year, with dire warnings and shots over the bow. I spoke out against the sanction of the multiple threads for GoT last year and said that the world is under no obligation to pretend the story as told in the books doesn’t exist for the benefit of those who only want to watch the TV series. After many trainwrecks, the mods apparently decided it was easier to enforce a zero-spoiler policy than to tell the anti-spoiler faction to get over it. I believed it was a bad choice then and now that it’s come back, I’m saying I still believe it’s a bad choice. > [@Irishman](#): > > It seems to me the major source of disruption, frustration, and anger is a disagreement over what kind of information is a spoiler, so exactly how much information from other sources should be allowed. This policy defines that pretty clearly. Zero tolerance policies always look good on paper. It’s what people like about them. They’re gloriously clear, with just the one tiny drawback. They don’t work, never have. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-rules-in-game-of-thrones-threads/617448/78 "2012-04-03T23:26:22Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Which of the twelve current _Game of Thrones_ threads is this about, again? 3, 5, 7-9, and 11, but only after post 138. ---
**Author:** ![quixotic78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3ab097/32.png) [@quixotic78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quixotic78)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2012, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-rules-in-game-of-thrones-threads/617448/79 "2012-04-05T02:08:18Z")
I notice that in the zero tolerance, no spoilers, no outside content thread, we currently have links to (or mention of): the budget (post [55](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14908970&postcount=55), [56](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14908974&postcount=56)), Entertainment Weekly (post [59](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14909211&postcount=59)), CNN (post [78](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14919619&postcount=78)), HBO (post [107](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14927236&postcount=107)), the Season 1 DVD commentary (post [121](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14928871&postcount=121)), IMDB (post [129](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14930653&postcount=129)), Hollywood Reporter (post [130](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14931110&postcount=130)), and Wikipedia (post [154](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14934723&postcount=154)). Amazingly, no comments have been made by the moderators, the OP, or the offenderati. The lack of enforcement of the OP’s rules leads me to believe that **Mtgman** is right: zero-tolerance policies just don’t work. No moderator has issued any warnings or even non-warning notices, obviously because few if any of these links are actual _spoilers_ and so they don’t want to appear needlessly heavy-handed, even if the OP’s rules are in fact being violated. It also makes me wonder if the hysterical types overreacting in previous threads have left the board, are no longer watching the series, or have now read the books and are thus no longer so paranoid – perhaps we’re at a point where three separate, stickied threads are overkill, and we can all go back to acting like adults, respecting one another’s judgment like in every other thread? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2012, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-rules-in-game-of-thrones-threads/617448/80 "2012-04-05T02:21:01Z")
No one is going to admit to being a “hysterical” type, so your question is pre-loaded with the answer you want. So far as I am concerned, the rules are working the way they are supposed to. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-rules-in-game-of-thrones-threads/617448.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/discussion-of-rules-in-game-of-thrones-threads/617448.md?page=5)