Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Policy & Help >

Spoilers!!!

Page: 1 2 3(4)5 6

miss wonderstarr

14:21 / 01.04.07

Are we really incapable of simply talking about the pros and cons of the acting, writing, driection, etc, without having to blather on about characters and events that haven't even been seen yet?

I see that as possible, but it would miss out a big part of the pleasures of a series for me ~ as something like Doctor Who (or Lost, or Heroes) contains mysteries and enigmas, and subtle, hidden clues along the way, that invite viewer speculation and puzzle-solving. We've seen in the last two seasons of Doctor Who that background details added up to a grand arc. For me, a lot of the fun is discussing that level of the show ~ the shape of the season, not just the episode.

But I accept that strictly speaking, that thread wasn't the place for it. I personally see some ambiguity there in that there were speculations (and arguably, spoilers) almost from the start ~ and I'd still distinguish between bringing up privileged outside information and guessing based on things we've seen in the episode and official BBC trailers ~ but I said from early on page 2 that I'd be happy for my posts to be moved or deleted. Not that I felt people should take the trouble to start another spoiler-free thread ~ that my posts could be moved or deleted with my approval if they were inappropriate. I think that was fair.

14:28 / 01.04.07

My twopennorth: I think you haven't behaved inappropriately in the Dr Who thread, MW, for the reasons which you, and others, have given. I would take issue, however, with any conception of spoilers that deems that only those facts which haven't been officially released can be considered spoiler material. Broadly speaking, I couldn't care less whether something is in a trailer, a press release, an interview, or whether it's widely reported - if it hasn't happened within the narrative of the show, and I'm not looking to spoil myself, I don't want to hear about it. I don't think that's a particularly controversial statement, although I will admit that this stuff does stray into some grey areas.

14:30 / 01.04.07

Basically I don't think we should forget the spirit of a no-spoiler rule. It's not about technicalities, it's about keeping people's fun entact.

miss wonderstarr

14:42 / 01.04.07

I don't want to spoil anyone's fun, either, so I think two threads to provide for people who enjoy a show in different ways is the best option.

I won't be online a great deal for the next 2 weeks, so I don't want it to seem like I'm being rude and not participating, or ignoring any questions. I just have to go to the other side of the world.

14:57 / 01.04.07

Oooh, hope you have fun.

16:58 / 01.04.07

Didn't intend for W to take all of the heat over this, as hir posts were just following a trend that had been set out in that thread some time previously. But we've had to do this three years on the trot now - I was sort of hoping that it wasn't going to have to be something that'd need explaining a third time.

20:17 / 01.04.07

I'm really glad that the upshot of this is that a new thresd has been made, and that once again we've pandered to the people who don't seem to care what the thread title is and just post what they want regardless.

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:11 / 01.04.07

Well, there's not a lot else we _can_ do, Lula. I think the "speculatron to 9" thing was potentially confusing, because while there is a line between speculation and spoiler it's often a bit of a personal thing. Now that the spoilers have proliferated, it seems the only thing one can really do is start a new non-spoiler thread - even a deleting spree would lead to a very choppy thread.

Clearly, there is something about Doctor Who that makes some people want to spoil and others want to be kept safe from spoilers. Having two threads will hopefully help people to know which is right for them. I've put in the mod requests.

21:13 / 01.04.07

Well one problem is that the thread title made no mention either way on spoilers, only mentioning no spoilers in a summary that also gave free reign to speculation which soon bled into spoileration.

But beyond that the creation of a new more explicitly spoiler-free thread is as much about practicality as anything else. If one thread is already contaminated with spoilers it is quicker and easier make a new thread than it is to delete posts on an old thread. YMMV.

21:44 / 01.04.07

and that once again we've pandered to the people who don't seem to care what the thread title is and just post what they want regardless.

"Pandering"? I don't think taking necessary measures to ensure there's no excuse for fucking up (despite how easy it may seem to follow the instructions) can be called "pandering".

Also, I find the tone of your post, Olulabelle, coupled with your previous "Lets start deleting spoiler posts when they appear in non-spoiler threads. Or even deleting people if they can't stick to the rule. That should do it!" is verging on what we colloquially call "snark", and whilst I (obviously) retain my sense of humour in other forums, I would hope that we can keep Policy threads as snark-free as possible. Time and again, we've proven that it's not helpful in either making progress or resolving issues. Still, I'm glad that this one appears to have been solved; I think sleazenation's "path of least resistance" point is a good one.

Elijah, Freelance Rabbi

03:44 / 02.04.07

See though, this discussion makes me worried about posting in the new thread.

If we decide that Spoiler Free means only mention of things in the episodes that have already aired, is mention of the season's buzz word in the new thread going to start this up all over again?

The opening post of the first thread mentioned Life On Mars, I don't see how it being mentioned again led to this kind of blow out. It seemed obvious, if not from the summary, from the opening post that the thread was going to have info about the future of the season.

ONLY NICE THINGS

09:07 / 02.04.07

Well, ERD has said subsequently that the repetition was the trigger but not the start of the problem.

In terms of your question - well, a degree of judgement would need to be exercised. The word has cropped up twice in the episode, which suggests that it is "in play" as a motif for discussion in a non-spoiler thread - but spoily information about who the person is or how he will interact with the Doctor could be directed to the spoiler-friendly thread.

15:36 / 02.04.07

What relevance does the buzz word have to the episode aired as it stands? None.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

16:17 / 02.04.07

I'm a bit fucked, really, as I enjoy speculation but hate spoilers.

16:59 / 02.04.07

Speculation is fine as long as it doesn't rely on spoilers, shirley?

17:07 / 02.04.07

You'd hope, but it's a line that seems very difficult for a number of people to identify when talking about this particular series. Why this should be the case here and not with other series - we never had this issue with Buffy, The Sopranos or Life on Mars, for example - I really don't know. All I do know is that it's now making me avoid any Who thread on this board just in case, and I think that's a shame.

21:58 / 02.04.07

E. Randy: I think that is a shame, as a lot of the enjoyment I derive from various TV series comes from reading the Barbelith discussion after airing. Honestly, I think it's safe for you to read the non-spoiler topic. There's nothing remotely spoilerish being discusses therein.

I'd also like to apologise for contributing somewhat spoilerific content to the original (now spoiler-loaded) season 3 topic, but like Haus mentioned up-thread, there's something about Doctor Who that attracts a lot of people bearing spoilers. Personally, my enjoyment of Doctor Who doesn't come from the plot details, or the season buzz-word stuff; It comes from the humour, emotional moments, and the thrill of seeing how something that I'm vaguely expecting through spoilers will eventually look on-screen. Certainly, the seasonal buzzword stuff is interesting, and speculation about what Bad Wolf meant was featured in the bulk of season 1 discussion, but my enjoyment of s1 and s2 didn't hinge on the year's arc.

Again, sorry if I've lessened anyone's enjoyment of the season so-far.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

22:58 / 02.04.07

Speculation is fine as long as it doesn't rely on spoilers, shirley?

Given that we now have one thread for spoilers, and a spoiler-free one which has no speculation either, not really.

10:36 / 03.04.07

I'm with Stoatmeister, I love the speculation but hate the spoilers. I don't watch TV or read anything that might have spoilers in (for example I dare not touch the Batlestar thread until I've watched it all even though I'm desperate to), but I'm happy to try and deduce or guess what's going to happen from hints dropped in the show, that's part of the fun. 'She's his mum!', 'She's a man!', 'They're in purgatory!', things like that.

Regrettable Juvenilia

12:12 / 03.04.07

What relevance does the buzz word have to the episode aired as it stands? None.

If you're talking about what I think you're talking about, I don't think this is true. It would be perfectly feasible, if impressive, to spot some of the "this will become big later" clues for what they are in an episode of Doctor Who even this early. And I don't think there's anything wrong with groundless speculation about what might happen in future episodes of the show - to restrict that seems absurd, as much as restricting comments like "I think Martha's relationship with the Doctor will prove to be more interesting than Rose's" would be.

The problem we have is that a) the internet culture around shows like this IS highly spoilerific, so there are a lot of people who are unable to groundlessly speculate, and b) a significant number of those people don't seem able to stop themselves from speculating on the basis of spoilery stuff they've read, in threads that are meant to be spoilery. We can't do much about a), so we need to focus on b).

Regrettable Juvenilia

12:16 / 03.04.07

Your actual fora-about-tv-shows (e.g. Television Without Pity) really do address this by having a Spoiler thread, a Speculation-With-Spoilers thread, and a Speculation-No-Spoilers thread. But they're busy enough to justify that.

I suspect it's Dr Who's popularity that makes this more of an issue, combined with people being particularly attuned to insensitivity in this case because during prior seasons certain people with insider knowledge haven't been able to resist bragging about it.

Elijah, Freelance Rabbi

13:27 / 03.04.07

To add to what Fly said, I think part of the problem with Who is that there are so many spoilers.

It seems like ruing Dr Who is in the charter of most UK newspapers (based on previous seasons at least).

A lot of shows (LOST for example) stay pretty spoiler free because nothing gets leaked. I don't know if it is the nature of public funded television (BBC is paid for by taxes right?) that the information is in the wild. IT seemed really strange to me that newspapers and magazines had episode details for the previous seasons and were publishing them weeks ahead of broadcast.

Another aspect of the Who fandom on this forum especially is that there have been semi active threads running between seasons, so we knew who the new companion was before the teasers started. The casting issues have also been discussed pretty heavily in (i think) the Runaway Bride thread. I think in this case the problem was not people trying to ruin other peoples day, but an assumption made that the information being disclosed was already part of the Barbelith communal intelligence.

You know what happens when you assume, right? You choose a course of action based on available information and previous life experience.

18:09 / 03.04.07

(BBC is paid for by taxes right?)

No, it's paid for through the licence fee - In the UK if to own a television set that is tuned in you have to pay for a licence for it.

08:09 / 04.04.07

A lot of shows (LOST for example) stay pretty spoiler free because nothing gets leaked.

Except by the trailers. As I've pointed out in the thread, last season the show's creators, obviously a little ticked off, publicly suggested that the channel showing the show should rein in its desire to cram the trailers full of major plot points.

That's one of the reasons why I think trailers are a potentially troubling area: they're not necessarily straighforwardly "officially" released information in the way that some would like to argue they are.

That last sentence was awful.

Elijah, Freelance Rabbi

16:10 / 04.04.07

It is all good Face Of Boboss, I getcha.

Trailers, I think, should be left out as potential spoilers. We had this discussion during Who season 1 I think. Since the trailers are avoidable, and many choose to do so, they were made verboten.

19:09 / 09.05.07

Right, I want to talk spoilers and G&G. It's largely impossible to have an ongoing discussion of a videogame - whether it's got a narrative or not - without including spoilers in that discussion. Games are about exploration (and a lot of other stuff, but it's the exploration bit that's important here) and people should be able to take part in a continuing thread without having to have some of that spoiled for you. And because games - unlike, say, movies - can be experienced by different people at different speeds, it's difficult to include everybody in a thread about a new game without having to whack spoiler warnings and huge great empty blocks of space all over the place.

So I'm looking at previously suggested spoiler suggestions again and wondering what everybody thinks about them. There are a bunch of them here. I like fridge's second Javascript solution, but I don't know if fucking up the code could potentially lead to thread and/or board breakage - anybody?

Failing that, there's the black text in a black strip thing here, which I hated with a passion at the time, but have since come to accept may be the only workable, safe way of going about hiding spoilers.

19:16 / 09.05.07

[+] [-] Spoiler

20:07 / 09.05.07

Oh, that's too fucking cool.

20:58 / 09.05.07

That's utterly wicked. Implement! Implement!

21:00 / 09.05.07

What malicious thing? How malicious can a person be with a bit of spoiler code? Am I missing a big issue?

21:28 / 09.05.07

I don't really know, Lula. That's the problem. It looks like there's absolutely no lockdown on its use - unlike HTML, where Tom only allowed the use of certain tags in order to prevent people doing lots of annoying stuff like filling posts with flashing or scrolling text.

fridge posted an example of the kind of thing that somebody could currently stick into a post here - I'd imagine that's a very innocent bit of daftness compared to what could be done.

14:59 / 10.05.07

Well, if a pillock wants to troll the board and they already know Java then there's nothing to stop them. I suppose if we start using it we will be advertising a potential vulnerability, but I'm not sure that should stop us.

15:00 / 10.05.07

Low level inappropriate behaviour - scrolling, flashing nonsense - can be quickly quashed, I reckon

17:43 / 10.05.07

that + - thing is wicked. We should make that standard for spoilers.

21:09 / 10.05.07

That would be amazingly useful for SBR threads too. Hooray!

Page: 1 2 3(4)5 6