[FAQ] Spoiler Policy
P@rick
This FAQ is posted weekly. At the moment, you can also find it at:
http://deadlock.et.tudelft.nl/~jonathan/abe/rules.html
When posting a message in a.b.e, please heed the following rules
concerning the use of spoiler protection.
***What is the dividing line between spoiler and non-spoiler
material?***
In other words, which eps can we discuss or mention freely, without
using spoiler protection. A division is made between 'protected'
epsiodes, which fall under spoiler protection, and 'spoilerfree'
episodes.
The dividing line is the episode BBC2 airs on Friday. The latest episode
aired is 4.14 "Goodbye, Iowa". So all episodes which have already aired
in the current BBC2 schedule (including season 1, 2 and 3) are
spoilerfree, and can be freely discussed and mentioned. All episodes
which have not yet aired on BBC2 (including season 4 *and* 5) are
protected, and discussing or mentioning them requires the use of spoiler
protection.
***What exactly is a spoiler?***
A spoiler is any information about protected episodes that could ruin
the element of surprise of an episode. Of course we are talking about
substantial spoilers here. Mentioning who is going to die in a protected
episode is obviously a big spoiler. So is giving away information about
story developments. But mentioning that Buffy wears a pyama with rabbit
print in a certain ep is, although technically a spoiler, no big deal.
And mentioning the name of a character who is new in season 4, but not
relating it to any event or episode is not much of a spoiler either.
It's left to people's common sense to decide what they can say without
spoiler protection, and what not. An occasional slip-up can occur, so
there's no need to get nasty when that happens. Let's keep things
peaceful.
***What kind of spoiler protection to use?***
For protected episodes:
- mentioning the episode season, number and name and the word 'spoiler'
in the message header
- doing the same in the message body, and adding a minimum of 15 lines
of spoilerspace (no blank lines)
For BBC2 eps that have aired on Wednesday, but not on Friday mentioning
the episode season, name and number in the message header is useful for
people who skip the Wednesday airing. In that way these people get the
chance to skip these messages until Friday. However, in this case using
spoiler protection is optional and matter of courtesy. People who
purposely skip the Wednesday airing automatically have the
responsibility to avoid postings about that ep until Friday. But to be
able to do so, these postings should at least have the episode title in
the header.
***How about episodes of Angel?***
There is little information about which countries get Angel and at which
episode they are. Therefore we use the episode C4 airs on Tuesday in the
UK as the dividing line. The latest episode aired is 1.22 "To Shanshu in
LA". this means that the entire S1 of Angel is now spoilerfree.
Episodes that have not yet aired on C4 are protected, and episodes that
have aired on C4 are spoilerfree. The same spoiler protection we use for
Buffy applies for Angel.
Bye, Patrick
--
Keeper of the Willowism, "And I'm eating this banana. Lunchtime be
damned!"
Keeper of the Wily Willow Charms
ThreadMaker [tm]
ReviewMeister [tm]
Cal Scott
I write about series 5 of buffy?
"P@rick" <P.J.Mee...@students.VampWillow.fss.uu.nl> wrote in message
news:95a58h$9aj$1...@news.surfnet.nl...
Saskia
>Im A bit confused by this Spoiler Policy and Ive just got one question. Can
>I write about series 5 of buffy?
No! Not without spoiler space! This season has not yet aired in Holland
or on the BBC so it is *not* spoiler free.
What exactly is confusing about the following sentence from P@rick's
post: "All episodes which have not yet aired on BBC2 (including season 4
*and* 5) are protected, and discussing or mentioning them requires the
use of spoiler protection."
--
Saskia (just wondering)
P@rick
> Im A bit confused by this Spoiler Policy
Oh dear...
> and Ive just got one question. Can I write about series 5 of buffy?
Ah, that one's easy actually. Yes you can, but you'll have to apply
spoiler warnings. Which means that you state in your header what episode
it concerns (e.g. Buffy 5.2 Real Me SPOILERS). And then you put a
similar warning at the top of your message, followed by 15 lines or more
of spoilerspace. So something like this:
*** SPOILERS Buffy 5.2 Real Me ***
*
*
*
*
etc. up till 15 lines
Easy innit? Well, this is the way I do it. Which may be a bit elaborate
since I post the spoilerpolicy every week and can't afford to use less
than perfect spoilerwarnings.
But as long as you make sure to clearly state in the header what the
message is about and use proper spoilerspace, you're perfectly safe.
Note to self: make spoiler policy less comnplicated.
Note to self II: make answers to questions about spoiler policy less
complicated.
Bye, Patrick
Harvey V
<95co10$d37$1...@news.surfnet.nl>:
>Cal Scott asked:
>
>> Im A bit confused by this Spoiler Policy
>
>Oh dear...
>
>> and Ive just got one question. Can I write about series 5 of buffy?
>
>Ah, that one's easy actually. Yes you can, but you'll have to apply
>spoiler warnings. Which means that you state in your header what episode
>it concerns (e.g. Buffy 5.2 Real Me SPOILERS).
That should, in all honesty, be enough -- it tells you not to open the
article or thread if you don't want to read a spoiler.
It's not really on for people who just _cannot_resist_ opening something
marked "THIS IS A SPOILER", and then complain that "hey -- no fair --
that was a spoiler". DUH.
Harvey
P@rick
> "P@rick" wrote:
> > Which means that you state in your header what episode it concerns
> > (e.g. Buffy 5.2 Real Me SPOILERS).
>
> That should, in all honesty, be enough -- it tells you not to open the
> article or thread if you don't want to read a spoiler.
In practice a lot of people only read the headers in a glance.
Especially those who have a lot of reading to do. Spoilerspace is a
clear visual warning that spoilers are ahead, so you'd better stop
reading.
You're right when you say the warning in the header should be enough. In
practice, including spoilerspace works much better.
Bye, Patrick
Harvey V
<95cpu1$e00$1...@news.surfnet.nl>:
>Harvey V wrote:
>> "P@rick" wrote:
>
>> > Which means that you state in your header what episode it concerns
>> > (e.g. Buffy 5.2 Real Me SPOILERS).
>>
>> That should, in all honesty, be enough -- it tells you not to open the
>> article or thread if you don't want to read a spoiler.
>
>In practice a lot of people only read the headers in a glance.
>Especially those who have a lot of reading to do.
Fair enough, but I think it's more to do with sloppy attention spans than
with volume of reading: I read a lot of stuff, too!!
>Spoilerspace is a clear visual warning that spoilers are ahead, so you'd
>better stop reading.
>
>You're right when you say the warning in the header should be enough. In
>practice, including spoilerspace works much better.
I'd agree that it's probably best to protect people against themselves.
You've got to admit, though, it's like those warnings on takeaway coffees
that say "this-cup-of-boiling-hot-water-may-contain-hot-stuff" because
otherwise somebody gets to sue you when they suck it back and discover --
surprise! -- that it's hot....
Harrumph, I say. :)
Harvey
Saskia
>"P@rick" <P.J.Mee...@students.VampWillow.fss.uu.nl> wrote in
>>You're right when you say the warning in the header should be enough. In
>>practice, including spoilerspace works much better.
>
>I'd agree that it's probably best to protect people against themselves.
>You've got to admit, though, it's like those warnings on takeaway coffees
>that say "this-cup-of-boiling-hot-water-may-contain-hot-stuff" because
>otherwise somebody gets to sue you when they suck it back and discover --
>surprise! -- that it's hot....
I hardly ever read the subjects and not because I'm lazy or sloppy. They
are too often meaningless. People don't change them when the contents
change, it says 'spoiler' when there isn't one and vice versa, etc. etc.
Simply not reliable enough.
--
Saskia
Harvey V
<MPG.14e40d682...@news.cistron.nl>:
>I hardly ever read the subjects and not because I'm lazy or sloppy.
>They are too often meaningless. People don't change them when the
>contents change, it says 'spoiler' when there isn't one and vice
>versa, etc. etc. Simply not reliable enough.
>
That's true -- but I try to work on the principle that if somebody can't
be bothered to put up a reliable subject line, then I can't be bothered
wading through their posts to see if they're saying something
interesting.
When it comes to posts titled "?????" or those "THAT ARE ALL IN UPPER
CASE", life seems too short to bother. :)
Cheers,
Harvey
Mattia Valente
>
> Saskia <sas...@hetwasietsmet.nl> wrote in
> <MPG.14e40d682...@news.cistron.nl>:
> >
> >I hardly ever read the subjects and not because I'm lazy or sloppy.
> >They are too often meaningless. People don't change them when the
> >contents change, it says 'spoiler' when there isn't one and vice
> >versa, etc. etc. Simply not reliable enough.
> >
>
> That's true -- but I try to work on the principle that if somebody can't
> be bothered to put up a reliable subject line, then I can't be bothered
> wading through their posts to see if they're saying something
> interesting.
Fair enough, but consider this situation: people who don't actually read
the subject headers, just hit the 'next message' shortcut key combo, and
thus inadvertently end up in a place they don't want to be. I personally
don't read like that, don't know of anyone that does, but I've heard
some do it that way..
> When it comes to posts titled "?????" or those "THAT ARE ALL IN UPPER
> CASE", life seems too short to bother. :)
;-)
Mattia
ReplyMeister[tm]
Miriam Rocke
: Harvey V wrote:
: >
: > Saskia <sas...@hetwasietsmet.nl> wrote in
: > <MPG.14e40d682...@news.cistron.nl>:
: > >
: > >I hardly ever read the subjects and not because I'm lazy or sloppy.
: > >They are too often meaningless. People don't change them when the
: > >contents change, it says 'spoiler' when there isn't one and vice
: > >versa, etc. etc. Simply not reliable enough.
: > >
: >
: > That's true -- but I try to work on the principle that if somebody can't
: > be bothered to put up a reliable subject line, then I can't be bothered
: > wading through their posts to see if they're saying something
: > interesting.
:
: Fair enough, but consider this situation: people who don't actually read
: the subject headers, just hit the 'next message' shortcut key combo, and
: thus inadvertently end up in a place they don't want to be. I personally
: don't read like that, don't know of anyone that does, but I've heard
: some do it that way..
Like, oh, say, me? *grin*
Not that I'm likely to be spoiled. But -- and I think I've pointed
this out before -- right-arrow (or tab) gets me the next new message;
and even if I did pay attention to the subject lines (which I rarely
do), I still might *see* a spoiler even if it was just a glance in
passing.
Um. But as I said, spoiler issues don't really apply to me.
: > When it comes to posts titled "?????" or those "THAT ARE ALL IN UPPER
: > CASE", life seems too short to bother. :)
:
: ;-)
WHY NOT????????? ITS A PERFETCLY VALLID METHOD OF
COMUNE...COMM...UM... GETTING A POINT ACCROSS. NOTHING WRONG WITH IT.
WHY R U ALL LOOKING AT ME LIKE THAT???????????
Mir
--
Miriam Rocke "Just so we're clear, you guys
mrr...@ucdavis.edu know you're nuts, right?"
http://handel.cipic.ucdavis.edu/~mrrocke/ --BtVS, "Gingerbread"
JOY:-)
> WHY NOT????????? ITS A PERFETCLY VALLID METHOD OF
> COMUNE...COMM...UM... GETTING A POINT ACCROSS. NOTHING WRONG WITH IT.
> WHY R U ALL LOOKING AT ME LIKE THAT???????????
lol!
JOY:-)
Mattia Valente
> Mattia Valente (mae.v...@std.vu.nl) wrote:
> : Harvey V wrote:
> : > That's true -- but I try to work on the principle that if somebody can't
> : > be bothered to put up a reliable subject line, then I can't be bothered
> : > wading through their posts to see if they're saying something
> : > interesting.
> :
> : Fair enough, but consider this situation: people who don't actually read
> : the subject headers, just hit the 'next message' shortcut key combo, and
> : thus inadvertently end up in a place they don't want to be. I personally
> : don't read like that, don't know of anyone that does, but I've heard
> : some do it that way..
>
> Like, oh, say, me? *grin*
Oh, ok. Now I know ;-)
> Not that I'm likely to be spoiled. But -- and I think I've pointed
> this out before -- right-arrow (or tab) gets me the next new message;
I remember that somebody pointed something like this out in a long
distant past when this exact same discussion was raging (well, not much
rage, to be honest, but still...)
> and even if I did pay attention to the subject lines (which I rarely
> do), I still might *see* a spoiler even if it was just a glance in
> passing.
That's the problem, really. The automatic skimming.
> Um. But as I said, spoiler issues don't really apply to me.
True.
> : > When it comes to posts titled "?????" or those "THAT ARE ALL IN UPPER
> : > CASE", life seems too short to bother. :)
> :
> : ;-)
>
> WHY NOT????????? ITS A PERFETCLY VALLID METHOD OF
> COMUNE...COMM...UM... GETTING A POINT ACCROSS. NOTHING WRONG WITH IT.
> WHY R U ALL LOOKING AT ME LIKE THAT???????????
Quick, get that bible! The exorcism bit! She's been possesed by
a..a....no, I can't say it.....AN ILLITERATE TEENAGE USENET NEWBIE!!!!!!
ARGHHHHHHHH
The Horror, THE HORROR!!!
;-)
Mattia
ReplyMeister[tm]