No, what I want is for your thread to be just exactly like any other Café Society thread where the OP has requested “No spoilers please”. No more and no less.
Never has a Mod come in and put his Mod seal of approval on having a special thread.
And look how useless your special thread has become. People are pussyfooting around mentioning Melisandre by name. Realy? Really, REALLY?? That’s a fucking spoiler? How is saying her name going to spoil anything? Is her name a important plot point? No, it’s simply a character’s name.
This is not “Senor Beef gets his own private thread with his own private rules” message board. This is the fucking Straight Dope Message Board, dedicated to the fight against ignorance, not keeping people in the dark. Her name is Melisandre. Keeping that out of the thread is perpetuating ignorance, not helping people enjoy things.
Like I said, you have every right to request no spoilers. And is posters get too obnoxious, the Mods can & should step in. But your precious little thread should not get special rules.
I’ve asked for no special thread. I’ve asked for a continuation on the rules of the threads that were in place last year that were very effective at improving the quality of the threads. This “SenorBeef’s special thread” is something entirely of your own creation. This system was worked out last year and was a massive improvement - no reason not to continue it.
I have no idea why you yearn for the clusterfuck of the early threads without this implementation, unless you actually like stirring up trouble.
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.
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.
You have every right to make any request you want to. But even tho I once asked for “no joke answers please” I got plenty of them. No Mod stepped in.
Why are you special? Why is your request as a poster being backed by a Mod?
The mods want the same system of threads that worked last year - episodic threads without spoilers, season long spread with open spoilers, and an in between friend with selective spoilers. I just happened to be the first guy who started one of the threads asking that we keep using the same rule in that thread that we used last year. The mods also agreed that was a good idea, and codified that into the rules of the several threads.
Again, the gensis of these rules is not me, but the fact that we had a clusterfuck last year, and then came up with a successful solution. The rules are to carry that solution into this year.
Nearly all the episode by episode threads for TV shows are no spoiler threads. Why is this suddenly controversial?
And BTW, a statement like "don’t get used to any characters because Martin has a tendency etc. might be a spoiler depending on the context in which it’s said. And if someone said that at the very beginning of the first season, I would have considered it a spoiler. Why not let me have the pleasure of discovering that the same way you did – by watching the story unfold before my eyes.
Now that we’ve all seen what happened at the end of season 1, I would not consider it a spoiler for someone to say, “You’ve all seen what happened in season 1. You can’t get too attached to any character” is less likely to be a spoiler, but again it depends on the context.
Would it be ok to make “Christians only - no other faiths or atheists” threads? Or “Whites only, no other races” threads? Why do the preferences of some subset of board members bind the remainder? I’m not sure the segregation of spoiler versus non-spoiler threads is a good solution either, ignoring for the moment the historical lessons of Apartheid and “separate but equal” movements. One thing segregating spoiler versus non-spoiler threads means we have tons of threads on this one topic. For another, it means we get endless arguments about what constitutes a spoiler and what doesn’t. For a moment pretend someone who read the books wanders in and starts chatting, they get engrossed in the discussion, and they let something slip, a bit of foreshadowing, or somesuch, which was not in the screen version, but they thought it had been. It was an honest mistake, but now Gokumatz has to go and sort it out, possibly editing the post, but unable to erase the anger and trainwreckiness. I’ve seen exactly that happen in past threads. A rule which makes a villain out of someone who makes an honest mistake is a bad rule.
But my issue is still the shifting of the burden of protecting the unspoiled from themselves onto others. In the world it’s generally accepted the right to swing a fist ends where someone else’s nose begins. In these threads it seems people are required to keep their noses away from anyone who might feel like swinging a fist. Both accomplish the same goal, avoiding fist-nose contact, but they go about it in different ways and they’re not interchangeable.
I’m not aware of any precedent for this type of restriction on threads about stories changing mediums. It’s not been done for the Bourne series, Dexter, Twilight, True Blood, The Hunger Games, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, pretty much any of the books which have become big franchises in other media. I’ve been perusing SDMB threads with “no spoilers” as tagged by google. I discovered this fun thread where they’re discussing a statute of limitations for spoilers about ten years ago. In fact this very question was asked, about books that may become films, and was met with resounding indifference. Anyway, threads with no spoiler rules are pretty much all about the first release of a story, regardless of medium(with the notable exception of last year’s GoT threads). Harry Potter was one the mods said not to spoil in thread titles, but that was for the book release. No such command was issued for the film releases. The others I can find were for original series or films, or occasionally people watching old series and requesting no spoilers, or progressive spoilers.
Because in other threads about films/shows based on books the discussion of the books is perfectly normal. Harry Potter, Twilight, True Blood, Dexter. Sometimes people use spoiler boxes, sometimes not. But there is ample precedent that a story changing mediums doesn’t get spoiler deference the way discussions about the first release of a story(in any medium) does.
So just to be clear - in your world - someone starts a “let’s discuss this movie thread, no unboxed spoilers” and someone charges in with the first post spoiling big plot twist - no mod would ever do anything here? That the SDMB is completely clear of any history of attempting to enforce spoiler rules, and only through the mind control I have exerted over the moderation with my special snowflake request has this changed?
You want to be sure that you can ignore the requests of the OP and the participants of the thread without mod intervention seems to be what you’re saying. In other words, you plan to do things that contradict the wishes of the thread participants, and you’re bitter that the mods will be watching.
Out of curiosity, do any of you deny that the quality of the game of thrones threads got a whole lot better - more content, less trolling and argument - in the second half of the year? For everyone - for people who didn’t want to be spoiled, there were fewer spoilers and less argument over it, and the people who did want to talk openly about the books got to do so.
Is the fact that we worked out a superior system completely irrelevant to you? Or do you actually want to return to trainwreck alley?
What I expect Mods to do in your special thread is exactly what I expect them to do in any thread- squelch people who are being a jerk. Posters have been warned for getting carried away with spoilers, and they should be- when it’s obvious they are being jerks about it. Not when it’s unintentional or questionable.
Yes, I can say that with my example right there. Posters are afraid to write “Melisandre” in your thread. That’s not a spoiler by any reasonable reach, but still your thread propagates ignorance by making people afraid to post common knowledge, stuff that will do no harm. Or do you think that “Melisandre” is a spoiler and will hurt things?
So, no, your system is not superior. It does not fight Ignorance, it spreads it.
The behavior in the threads early last year by yourself and some others was overwhelmingly jerkish, and it derailed the entire thread to the point where it wasn’t really practical to moderate. Things got better when ground rules were laid out. Enforcement of “don’t be a jerk” rules would not be favorable to you.
And please don’t go all faux high-minded by pretending that this is somehow about propogating ignorance. We’re discussing spoilers on a TV show, not debating creationism.
Gah! The no spoiler policy is part of the fucking rules. If a thread says no spoilers the mods have in the past enforced this by going in and spoiler tagging stuff. And, yes, if you did it multiple times, you were first barred from the thread, and then warned if you didn’t listen.
And, sorry, if you don’t understand that telling people that a character is going to die is a spoiler, then you don’t understand the concept of spoilers. Spoilers are any future information that the person may not want to know. In other words, if someone tells you they didn’t want to know what you just told them, you by definition spoiled them. Thus, obviously, the way to avoid spoilers is to not give future information.
And if anyone is trying to make everyone do things a certain way, it’s DrDeth, who insists that everyone should have to write in the same fucking thread. It’s he that insists that the long standing tradition that an OP can declare what type of spoilers are acceptable should be removed. It is his insistence that he should accept everyone else’s definition of a spoiler. It’s his insistence that people who have not read the books must be illiterate.
In summation, there’s nothing new here other than the stickies. If you’d thought well enough to make three different threads for your favorite series, you’d have been able to do it, too, by the same spoiler policy we’ve always had. And if you want to be mad at people, be mad at the people that made this solution the only viable way to deal with it. Unless, of course, you want them to just toughen up and start giving out warnings for violating spoiler policy. (Based on your understanding of the concept of spoilers, you’d temporarily not be posting here.)
This isn’t about me. I don’t plan on even reading the GoT threads. I think I may have answered one or two general questions about the world of Westeros in one of the early threads last year, but the spoiler paranoia turned me off and my interest was never particularly strong. The biggest impression this debate has made on me was the way it affected jayjay, NAF1138, JSexton, and others who were simply trying to share some of the lore of a world they’ve come to know and love, but were driven off as if they had dropped a turd into the punchbowl. It was uncalled for and out of line with reasonable expectations based on how stories changing mediums have been handled for years on this board, and indeed are handled for other stories today. Dexter is still around.
I’ve consistently taken a stand against individuals or small groups imposing their will on everyone else. I’ve done it with things that affect me and things that don’t affect me. When Liberal wanted the board font changed to Verdana, I said it should be his responsibility to ensure he has the font he wants, not everyone else’s, even though I personally like Verdana just fine. When lissener wanted to ban swearwords from thread titles, I said OPs should have the freedom to choose their own titles, even though I’ve never used a swearword in a title and rarely in a post at all. Now it seems people want to demand others censor themselves in another way, and here I am again.
Let’s get the facts straight. I did not ask what the character’s name was. I asked if we knew her name yet. Do I consider finding out her name, before the series tells us, a spoiler? No, not at all - I would have liked to be able to ask what her name was and have it answered in that thread. BUT, because some people inexplicably have a problem determining what is spoilerific and what is not, the easiest and least ambiguous way of structuring that thread to avoid trainwreckage is to make it a “No Book Knowledge” thread.
So, you see, as someone who completely endorses every opinion SenorBeef has stated here and in the other thread, IMO the current arrangement is not perfect. What it is is a compromise, and it’s the nature of compromises that nobody gets exactly what they want.
People who want to voice their displeasure with the compromise like to portray the people who support the compromise as delicate snowflakes that consider the tiniest thing such as a character’s name a huge spoiler, but that’s a complete misrepresentation, AFAICT. The current guidelines are in place not because we are all a bunch of militant spoiler-Nazis who can’t tolerate even the tiniest shred of insignificant book-based knowledge, but because certain people have demonstrated their inability to judge what book-based knowledge can reasonably be considered “insignificant.”
In summary, if the current state of the “no spoilers” thread seems excessive to you, this supporter of that methodology agrees with you. I wish it weren’t necessary, but it obviously is. I wish I could ask the name of an unnamed character, and get my question answered out in the open. But I know that the easiest way to avoid constant issues and trainwrecks is if we all follow a quite simple (but perhaps, unfortunate) rule.
It couldn’t be any more simple, really. Yet, there are some who seemingly enjoy the opportunity to create a trainwreck where none need exist. It’s because of those people that we have to resort to the unfortunate compromise, not because of anyone who would freak out about merely knowing the name of an as-of-yet unnamed character.
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 do apologize for my error. As you may have guessed, I did not dig through the old threads and make a list of the people who were offended by the non-spoilery spoiler about Tyrion’s prison. I just assumed that you were one of those because you’ve been such an outspoken advocate of “Only things on the show, period, zero tolerance.” 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.
Well, point of fact, yes, I do think that prison floor is an excellent example of people being oversensitive about spoilers. You disagree?
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.
I suppose this is true, if useless. Conversely, if people wouldn’t complain about trivial book knowledge, the issue also wouldn’t have popped up either. It takes two to tango.
I assume you’re talking about Boyo Jim’s post here. 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.
As said above, no, I think the disagreement was more along the lines of, “I disagree with you, a slanty floor is most certainly not a spoiler, so you know what? I absolutely feel well within my rights to post it.” If you want to point a finger at the fanatics in that debate, I think you’ll need to point one at each side.
It is absolutely an exception to your words: “This thread will only cover things that have happened in the show.”
(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 find “But it worked so well!” to be an utterly terrible metric of how satisfactory a solution is. I suppose that if each GoT-related post had to be screened for spoilers by a panel of five GOT-savvy experts before it was allowed to be posted, that’d pretty much eliminate spoilers. But that’d be a godawful system.
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? If you haven’t read the books, not you, so how is that a spoiler? Or, if it is, it’s about the level of spoiler as “Something horrific is going to happen in this Stephen King novel.”
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).
Umm, no. Here are the rules*"Now, on the other hand, suppose you’re on the other side. You want to discuss or ask a question about a story, and you are unable to do so without revealing a vital piece of information that might ruin a surprise for those who haven’t yet experienced it, please use a spoiler warning or spoiler tags.
When do you need to warn of spoilers?
Obviously, if the material is new, some people will want to experience it for themselves without knowing the plot. A TV show you see on the U.S. east coast will not be seen for several hours later on the west coast. And perhaps not for weeks or months in a different country. Also, many people record shows to watch later, so just because the show have been aired doesn’t mean everyone has seen it.
Although a work may have been well known for quite a while, some folks may still be unaware of particular plot points. Agatha Christie has been dead a long time, but there are still new students and others coming to her mysteries for the first time, who don’t want to know that the butler did it. On the other hand, anyone who doesn’t know that Dorothy could have gone home anytime by clicking her heels, well, the hell with ‘em.
It should be evident from these examples that we can’t give hard-and-fast rules about when to use spoilers. Instead, we have guidelines that involve common sense and courtesy: if you’re revealing a major plot element that could ruin the first-timer’s experience, then please DON’T. If it’s a brand new work, be careful about revealing minor plot elements, as well.
Also, please don’t put a spoiler in a thread title. “This week’s episode: Raymond dies!” is NOT a nice thing to do. *"
No where in those rules does it say that a poster can declare his thread “spoiler free” and/or be the arbiter of what a spoiler is. Dex does say use common sense. I agree.
Nor do I have a problem with a couple threads. Nor do I have a problem with a reasonable* request *by a OP. Has anyone seen me post spoilers?
Telling someone that a particular character is going to die is one thing. Alluding to it’s possibility, in a thread devoted to GRRM’s works is not.
There is a long standing tradition that Ops can make requests. OTOH, dudes ignore those all the time- especially if they think it’s funny.
My definition of a spoiler? “use common sense” and “we can’t give hard-and-fast rules about when to use spoilers”.
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.
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.