Indeed. 
No, I didn’t. I just wanted the post removed for the sake of future thread-readers and CK did, at least in part because of the stink I made.
Fever’s now deleted post said something like, “why watch the season when we know <blank>”. That was it.
And <blank> was just a huge spoiler about an ongoing battle. Even if you knew it, you’re still watching the season, it was just massive assholery.
Let time tell. See what Fever is doing 45 days from now. If I’m wrong, I’ll apologize to the fucking bitch.
Will you admit that how you did it, with that Pit-worthy tirade, was wrong?
Just for clarification, since there seems to be a fair amount of confusion about moderating processes. In general on spoilers: A little common sense gets us through this. Remember the logic is that people who want to avoid spoilers should be able to do so; one way is spoiler tags, and one way is thread titles.
I think there is a fair expectation that a title that permits “open spoilers” refers ONLY to what’s mentioned in the thread title. Example: a title of “Star Wars Episode VII: open spoilers” would mean that it was OK to mention openly that Darth Vader says he’s Luke’s father. It would NOT be OK to mention openly that Leia is Luke’s sister – that’s not revealed until Episode VIII, a different episode. It would also NOT be OK to mention openly that, in Agatha Christie’s MURDER IN PATAGONIA, that the butler is the murdered man’s father – while that might be relevant (theme of unexpected parental disclosure), it’s NOT “Star Wars Episode VII” and thus spoiler tags should be used.
If you’re with me so far, that says that anyone who thinks this is Rubystreak’s fault for posting a title with “open spoilers” is being irrational.
Now, a thread title that says “Star Wars, the whole series, open spoilers” then any comment about any Star Wars episode, aired or not, could still be open. The point is that the title should be the indicator – if you don’t want any part of the series spoiled, then don’t read that thread. A spoiler about Agatha Christie, however, should still be blocked.
Is that pretty clear? That seems to me to be the way that logic and common sense dictate. The title is meant to tell people who care about spoilers whether to read the thread.
Now that we’ve settled the general case (and this IS the way we moderate, so this IS settled), we have here an instance of a new poster who didn’t read all the rules and procedures. It happens, folks, all the time. There’s a lot to read, and some of it is complicated. New posters come here eager to join in, and don’t bother to read through, what six threads of 30+ posts of rules and forum principles? I understand perfectly, and so should you.
So, a new poster goofed and violated one of our “good manners” suggestions. When it’s pointed out, she apologies. Not a big deal. Some people have a spoiler revealed for a favorite show. That’s lamentable, but not the end of the world.
The situation got reported. The moderator tried to fix things in the simplest way possible – by changing the title of the thread (to say “season spoilers”) and by blocking out the goof. We do NOT like deleting posts, that’s a last resort (except for spammers etc.) The moderator thought that the simplest and easiest fix was the best, and that’s usually correct.
In this case, however, two things were going on: one is that the thread really was supposed to be about the single episode, not about the whole series. Thus, upon reflection, we felt the simplest fix was not the best in this case, and the offending spoiler was edited out altogether.
But the second thing going on is this enormous recreational outrage, as though someone’s life has been ruined and there must be blood to avenge the wrong. I mean, please. Get a grip. And when a moderator says “cool it,” you should follow instructions, however feverish your righteous indignation.
A new poster made a mistake. She didn;t know better. She’s learned. I hope she reads our rules and procedures and becomes an active poster.
An old poster has now made a mistake. He should indeed know better. I hope he’s learned, but this thread doesn’t make me optimistic.
Yes.
Man, that’s gonna sting.
She is learned, or she has learned?
::ducks, runs to a safe distance and sticks out tongue::
Poor little Trunk! His TV viewing pleasure has been ruined…
Yes. This is a point that seems to have been completely overlooked in this thread.
Fever was wrong and has apologized. Trunk still feels justified in his anger.
Fair enough.
What the fuck? People don’t like spoilers. I don’t like spoilers. If I ran across a spoiler for a show I’d invested a lot of time in I’d be pissed too. Why does this cause condescention on your part. Is it that you think we shouldn’t watch TV at all? We should sip port and read Henry James?
“The monkey in the tree likes to laugh at the lion.” – Saddam Hussein.
Seriously. . .it’s just piling on because I’m brusque. It’s not even worth responding to.
:mad:
What next, dude? Telling us the secret behind Rosebud or Soylent Green? Spoiler that shit, man.
I watch plenty of TV. (Also read & drink–but neither Henry James nor Port is a personal favorite.)
“Alert” is a pretty good way to call attention to an objectionable post. Hijacking a thread & then starting a Pit thread–in order to use all those lovely words–just calls attention to the complainer.
If you’re worried about maintaining your virginity, the Internet is a dangerous place.
This is the only contribution to this conversation that makes any sense to me.
Psssstt…the Titanic sinks…
I guess this is why I’m glad I don’t watch TV.
the North won, sort of.
Adam and Eve fuck.
Alright, that’s it. Pistols at dawn.
Well, you can have a pistol at dawn. I’ll be the one who ran over you with a tank at 3:00am.
Man, I dug her rap! My momma ain’t raised no dummy!
Rosebud is PEOPLE!!!
Wait, I thought… …Soylent Green was the name of the sled.