To Read or not to Read, that is the question; GoT

About This Message Board
1

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=754326&page=2

I responded to a couple posts about mentions of the Books in the weekly GoT "non-spoiler’ threads.

First of all, let us all agree- Spoilers are bad (except in a SPOILER! Thread). No one wants spoilers in a spoiler-free thread.

And, we can all agree that in the first Season of GoT, the threads got a little out of control. As is common with first seasons, emotions ran high, and many things were posted that were best left unsaid. Particularly annoying were the "Well, I have read the books, and I can tell you- dont get too attached to that character! " type of posts.:rolleyes: That’s not only being a spoiler, that’s being a jerk. So, some posters over-reacted. Jerks will bring out some knee jerk reactions, of course!:stuck_out_tongue:

MaxTheVool brought up some well thought out points about the books, and why mentions of them can be both bad and good. Idle Thoughts seconded my motion that such conversations are best done here in ATMB, and was totally correct suggesting it be moved here. Thanks!
But the extreme over-reaction and the “special treatment” is what annoys me. For example, I almost never post in the spoiler-free GoT threads. But one time, I did, and I mentioned that I thought HBO was going for ratings with gratuitous torture porn scenes. Now this was entirely talking about the HBO show, right? but in order to exhibit that the torture scenes truly were gratuitous, I pointed out that they werent shown in the books (they were alluded to, but not described in detail) . No spoiler there.

However that made the thread erupt in pages of angry posts, name calling, junior modding and a couple posters wore their fingers bloody hitting the Report Post button.

The Junior Modding is especially egregious. Whilst say Skald or Czarcasm will try to gently get their thread back on track, and while the Mods sometimes stop the worst kind of hijacks, no-one else is allowed to set and enforce their very own special rules and Mod their own thread. If Skald told posters off like SenorBeef does, the Mods would scold him for Jr Modding or personal attacks rather quickly.

I notice the Sticky about the “Rules” for GoT threads is gone, but that doesnt mean we should jump in with book mentions or especially spoilers- since spoilers are still against the rules, and in general, one should try to be polite and go by the* guidelines* that the OP has set forth.

So, maybe this post and thread is pointless*. Maybe by getting rid of the sticky, the Mods are quietly trying to say “No special rules for just their one thread anymore- but dont be a jerk” .

In any case- *don’t *be a jerk. *Dont post spoilers where they are not welcome. *

  • I seem to excel at that!
2

First off, let me start out by saying I don’t watch Game of Thrones. I’ve never seen it, I haven’t read the books, I know literally nothing about it nor would I know what constituted a book spoiler or not. So I’m the last person you want to be a judge of those types of things, if needed. In the past, we’ve had mods who are fans/watchers of the show to moderate those threads (Fluiddruid and Gukumatz), but I will be the first to freely admit I know nothing about the show. Furthermore, I’m not really sure I ever will know much, as that’s just not a show I’d be interested in watching or a book series I’d be interested in reading. I can’t speak for the other Cafe Society mods, however. If another of them knows the GoT universe well and wants to step up in handling them, they can.

That all being said, however, some basic logic applies here. Not just with this show, but pretty much any show or movie that also has a book version, so here is how I see it:
I can understand (a little bit) those who question why multiple topics must be made for the same show. I can see why someone might think “Well, just put all things into one topic and spoil any show/books spoilers and for those people who don’t want to read it, they don’t have to click on the spoiler.”

However, I understand more so the other side of it, and here’s a prime example of what I mean…

Say you’re watching a show that has a book series about it as well (not just GoT, this can be ANY show) and you come here and make a topic about what happened in the show. Well, then it can kind of be daunting to read many, many posts that are not about the show, but rather, a type of media about it that you’ve never seen. Especially if it’s the amount of people who know about the GoT universe.
Picture this…

Poster A: Hey all, did you see the show last night about blah? What do you think about it?

Poster B: Well, in the book they [spoiler].
Poster C: Yep, Poster B, and they [spoiler]
Poster D: And don’t forget about the time they [spoiler] the [spoiler]
Poster E: But what if they don’t show [spoiler]? I mean [spoiler] [spoiler] did [spoiler] in the book, if you remember.

Poster A: Uh, guys…this is about the show. I’ve never read the books.

Poster B: Oh yeah, I remember that. It was [spoiler]. Say, I wonder if they’ll include [spoiler] and [spoiler]?
Poster C: Probably, after all, if they don’t then [spoiler] won’t make sense. After all, [spoiler].
Poster D: No, I disagree that was [spoiler]'s motive. I think he did it because [spoiler].
Poster E: No, no, no, it was [spoiler]. Clearly [spoiler] was [spoiler]

Poster A: Hello? Things in the books may not happen in the show…I really just want to talk about what happened in the show…

Poster B: Poster D, how can you think that? In the book [spoiler][spoiler][spoiler][spoiler] the [spoiler][spoiler] and [spoiler][spoiler] with [spoiler].
Poster C: Yeah! And [spoiler], remember?
Poster D. Oh yeah, you’re right. But didn’t [spoiler][spoiler] with [spoiler] at [spoiler]?
Poster E: Well, yes, but [spoiler][spoiler][spoiler][spoiler][spoiler][spoiler][spoiler][spoiler][spoiler][spoiler][spoiler].

Poster A: Hello? Does anyone want to talk about what happened IN THE ACTUAL SHOW I just saw?! ARRGGGHHHH!

So yeah, it can be somewhat frustrating to want to talk about the show only (especially if someone has never read the books) but keep getting replies about book stuff only. One or two posts are easy to skip over, but when multiple conversations start, it doesn’t take long for a lot of tangents and replies to make a pretty big “book talk” hijack happen. Then the OP would have to skip over large amounts of posts, looking for only those that he/she wants to see, which also takes time because they’d have to read each post to see if it applies or not. I think that’s why the GoT rules came about.

So I can understand having separate topics about each thing. One for book and book talk/spoilers only, one for show and show talk/spoilers only, and maybe even ones where you can talk about the show and book at the same time.
No, it’s not a hard rule for the SDMB and won’t be added to the TOS, it’s more of just one of those common courtesy things. If the thread is clear (in the title or OP) about what is wanted in it and what is not, then posting things contrary to that can be seen as jerkish and thus, why the moderation comes down on it when it happens.

3

Spoiled and unspoiled threads on Game of Thrones are not unique to this message board. Every discussion and review I’ve see is identified as such to allow readers to make a choice as to what they are reading.

It hardly seems worth rehashing year after year since virtually everyone seem to be fine with it, except for DrDeth who will, apparently, take it to his, uh, grave.

4

Yeah but, in the book, DrDeth gives it up just before he dies, so the writers must have change it.

5

That’s not the issue. The issue is that even saying that there is another medium sends a handful of vocal posters into overdrive. It has killed all The Walking Dead threads for me, and I haven’t read the comics since they left the prison (2 or 3 seasons ago). It’s not comparing spoiler versus no-spoiler threads.

6

Try reading my post:

"First of all, let us all agree- **Spoilers are bad **(except in a SPOILER! Thread). No one wants spoilers in a spoiler-free thread. …particularly annoying were the "Well, I have read the books, and I can tell you- dont get too attached to that character! " type of posts. That’s not only being a spoiler, that’s being a jerk…or especially spoilers- since spoilers are still against the rules."

So, my thread isnt at all about allowing spoilers in a spoiler free thread- in fact the opposite.

D_Odds actually read my post and his comments are quite correct. "That’s not the issue. The issue is that even saying that there is another medium sends a handful of vocal posters into overdrive… It’s not comparing spoiler versus no-spoiler threads."
Indeed, he said it better than I : “The issue is that even saying that there is another medium sends a handful of vocal posters into overdrive”

**So, no- I dont want spoilers **(in spoiler free threads)

I would like the ability to just mention that GRRM wrote a best selling series of books that the HBO show is based on.

Now, **Idle Thoughts **has made some very reasonable points- it makes a lot of extra work for the Mods when dudes post spoilers- or even something close to or could be considered a spoiler- in a spoiler free thread.

However, I appreciate his/her :stuck_out_tongue: compromise in that it’s no longer a hard and fast “special” rule.

OTOH- Let’s not anger the OP unnecessarily by being rude and pissing in his cornflakes or making the Mods angry by making more work for them. As long as frothing at the mouth junior modding and hijacking their own thread is treated the same as a casual mention of the “B-word” or a accidental minor spoiler then I think we’re OK here. Sorry to make such a deal of this.

So, Ok, thanks Idle Thoughts and you can close the thread now. Thank you for your well thought out reply!

7

John, fair cop and funny post, but “before he dies”? Which time? :stuck_out_tongue:

8

I’m not reading the books until the series is complete.

9

Heh.

10

I read them after the season ends, though the seasons don’t keep perfectly in line with the books. Still, it’s close enough that I don’t mind the little overlap, and it allows me to compare and contrast while the shows are still fresh in my head.

Of course, considering how I usually can’t remember what I ate for dinner the previous night (and I’m the cook), how fresh can something be in my head 3+ months later?

11

This is quite possibly one of the best piece of understated ironic humor ever posted on this MB. :smiley:

12

I have read them all, as soon as they come out, and still the HBO series surprises me- due to that same memory issue. Not to mention HBO changes stuff.

13

Accidental? You’re kidding, right? All of your “accidental” spoilers have been as deliberate as you could possibly make them. You’ve deliberately attempted to spoil the show for those who haven’t read the books.

As someone who has read all the books and has only watched season one of the TV show:

You’ve really been a complete jerk about this from day one.

14

Cite? Go ahead, show me a spoiler I posted in a spoiler-free thread about GoT. You can’t because I havent.

I have been against spoilers since day one.

15

Ever? Ever? Boy, DrDeth, you really are a …
(*Secondary Personality - Wait, wait, wait - you can’t say that anymore. Besides, apparently it makes you look stupid.

M. P. - It does? Well, screw that! What can I say about DrDeth?

S. P. - I dunno. Just about anything you say, he’s gonna Rules Lawyer ya. Even if you bring up the original thing, where he told everyone that Tyrion was gonna hoom-hoom his hoom-hoom, he’ll just scream something about the thread title. Tell ya what - call him an Armenian. And mention the spelling thing.*)
Boy, DrDeth, you really are an Armenian, arncha? And learn how to spell your own name!

16

And see this is the issue.

Spoilers have been against the rules since at least 11-07-2005 when
C K Dexter Haven posted them in a sticky. So, then there’s no need for special rules against spoilers- they already have a rule. And of course- Frank, you damn well know that.

But in order to make the “special rules” side sound good it has to be stated as “we are against spoilers, you are in favor of them”- even tho I have stated time and again, **I heartily and 100% support the SDMB rules on spoilers. **

Because you cant very well say "I am in favor of special rules that allow one poster to make up rules for his thread, allowing him to personally attack with spittle-laden invective and try to ban anyone who mentions the word “Book”. :rolleyes:Because, well, that doesnt sound very sane, now does it? So, you have to say that I am pro-spoiler, even tho I am not. Why not say you’re in favor of Motherhood, America and Applepie and I am a dirty godless commie rat who kicks puppies?* As long as you are making shit up, make up good shit. *:stuck_out_tongue:

Come on, you support this:?"For fucks sake, no one mention the word “book” in these threads ever again. You add nothing to the discussion and you just fucking open it up to stupid squabbling again. THE BOOKS DO NOT EXIST IN THESE THREADS, stop talking about them in any context,…" I mean, just quoting that I had to wipe the frothing spittle from the inside of my monitor, and damn that’s hard to do.

So, for the Nth time. **I am against spoilers **(except in a SPOILER! Thread, of course). I fully support the SDMB rules about spoilers

I am happy with the rules as they are now. I appreciate **Idle Thoughts ** post here and his (not so idle) thoughts about spoilers in Cafe Society.

17

No, you’re just pissed because you want to talk about the books in a thread that people have asked to speak of JUST the tv show itself. That’s it. If you want to start a spoiler-free thread that allows discussions of the book, ask the mods if that’s okay. Otherwise, quit bitching about it.

18

duplicate post

19

DrDeth must be one of the UnCuddled.

20

Better that than the Illiterati! :stuck_out_tongue: