Show me where I posted a spoiler last year. I barely even participated.
Indeed, we are raging, but note we are doing so in the manner in which you ASKED us to do. So, what’s wrong with having a discussion about the rules in the thread which you started just for that very reason?
I’m sorry Senor, but Boyo is kinda right. Both of us brought in information not from the HBO series, which is verboten (which, in turn, is a pretty stupid rule. Not as stupid as “no speculation”, but dumb nonetheless. Leading to things like people being afraid to post Melisandre’s name because it may not have been spoken in the first episode) according to the paranoid rules.
If you can explain how our posts weren’t against the rules, I’d be most happy. Not that I want a warning or anything for breaking them. Just that. . .seriously-- those rules are crazy paranoid.
Thank you!
I never said you did post a spoiler. As I’ve said before, the actual posting of spoilers wasn’t the biggest problem - it was the sort of bickering as seen in this thread dominated the discussions of the early episodes.
I very much appreciate that you’ve taken these discussions to this thread. It’s not the objection to the policy that I’m discussing - it’s the childish nature of it. “You said you wanted a bigger budget next season! Spoiler! Hypocrite! Shut it all down!”
Stuff that you all must know is ridiculous, and therefore say just to be inflammatory.
When a thread normally has a no spoiler policy, that means, for example, if one of the rumor/spoiler websites says “my cousin was an extra during the filming, and he said there was a scene where does [y]” is a spoiler. So Gukamatz was trying to say spoilers from the books aren’t allowed, and spoilers from other sources other than the books (spoiler websites, DVD commentary tracks, whatever) were also off the list. Ironically, he was trying to prevent people from saying “but my spoiler comes from [spoiler website], not the books, so it’s allowed!” and those rules were turned around to demonstrate the opposite ridiculous point.
If you literally interpret “nothing outside the tv show”, then saying “I watched the show on my awesome new 50” tv" would be a spoiler because hey, that TV wasn’t in the show! - we all know that’s ridiculous, just as much as talking about the budget or ratings is not a spoiler.
A spoiler necesarily has to reveal future informaton about the story, so things that aren’t about the story aren’t spoilers. And any reasonable interpretation of the rules would clearly acknowledge that.
The problem is that we don’t have reasonable interpretations - we have people who want to mock the rules interpreting them in the most stretched, legalistic sort of way. They know that no one is going to think of budget or ratings information as spoilers, but hey, the way the rules were worded, if interpreted in the ridiculous extreme, could be construed in that way, so let’s act as if we’re arguing in good faith over the details of the rules.
I would say that maybe Gukamatz could clarify that spoilers are things that reveal part of the story before they’re shown, but… let’s be realistic, no one actually doesn’t understand what a spoiler is, and if he clarifies that rule, I’m sure they’ll find some other ridiculous interpretation of some rule to use to attack with.
So… comparisons to the book aren’t spoilers if they avoid future information and only deal with the past?
Wish you’d make up your goddamned mind already…
We’re back to “write a 400 page rulebook and have lawyers triple check it” territory, because no matter what I say, you will disingenuously invent nits to pick with it.
No, it’s been made entirely clear that book discussion is for the other threads. How would you even know what might constitute a spoiler? “Oh, by this time in the book, they revealed the story that in the past character X did Y, and they haven’t on the TV show, so I guess they won’t… oh wait, they ended up deciding to reveal that information 2 episodes later because it flowed better dramatically with the way they wrote the television series. Woops”
The supposed arbitrary wavering is something entirely of your own invention. This is pathetic and disingenuous. Do you think you’re winning over converts by continuing along these lines? Do you think you’re doing anything but convincing the people who were concerned about your behavior that they were right all along?
For all of your feigned victimization, no one is attempting to silence you or prevent you from talking openly about the books. There are official, mod sanctioned threads and everything. The irony is that while pretending to be oppressed, you are actually the attempted oppressors - you won’t be happy until we don’t have a place to discuss the show.
Come one, come all, see the incredible dancing SenorBeef! Just two bits to watch him dance! First he does the amazing Book Stuff Needn’t Be Spoilerific Dance!
And now, watch in amazement as he perfects the It’s Been Made Entirely Clear that Book Discussion is Spoilerific Dance!
If consistency were muscles, you’d be Woody Allen.
And… then you selectively quite, cutting off the very point that would refute your point.
And I continue…
So no, no inconsistency on my part. I’ve been clear from the beginning that hashing out what a spoiler is, people who make poor decisions about what constitutes a spoiler, etc. detracts from threads. The easiest, most consistent, and safest way to handle the situation is to keep the book discussions to the spoiler threads and leave them out of the non-spoiler threads.
You couldn’t have not read the very thing you snipped out of my post, so you knew what you were saying was a mischaracterization since I answered it in the part you decided to delete. Do you know what that makes you?
Okay, enough already.
Got argument with one another? Take it to the Pit.
This is not the place to be slapping one another.