# Why are the spoiler rules so hard for people to understand of late?



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Seriously, guys. They've been in place for years. 

If it's been seen in a preview, put it in tags. If you're discussing another post that's been put in tags, put your discussion in tags as well. It's not difficult.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

What brought this PSA on?


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Friday night lights thread?


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

MikeMar said:


> Friday night lights thread?


Bingo. But it seems like it's been happening more and more across the forum ever since the new season started.


----------



## pex (Oct 21, 2002)

Am I a retard if I don't know what "tags" means?



Neenahboy said:


> If it's been seen in a preview, put it in tags. If you're discussing another post that's been put in tags, put your discussion in tags as well. It's not difficult.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

Put [ spoiler ] and [ /spoiler] around the text you want to spoilerize. With no spaces. Those are called tags.



Spoiler



Like so. This would be anything shown in a preview. Or in an ad for an upcoming episode. Or anything else about upcoming episodes.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

And it's not just in the post bodies, but in the titles, too.

I think for some people it's that they think rules they don't like don't apply to them. For other people, they don't bother to read and understand the rules, again, because the rules don't apply to them. A very small number are honest mistakes that when pointed out are corrected without argument. 

I don't read the FNL threads, but have noticed the problem in the Survivor, BBT, and CSI threads recently.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

Yes mommy. Wouldn't want to offend anyone's non-spoiler lifestyle from previews.


----------



## SNJpage1 (May 25, 2006)

But if you put the date of the show in the title doesnt that open the thread to discuss what took place?


----------



## StacieH (Jan 2, 2009)

I used to put everything in spoiler tags, just to be safe. But got *****ed at about that. God forbid someone has to go the extra mile and <gasp> highlight text. Can't please anyone around here.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

SNJpage1 said:


> But if you put the date of the show in the title doesnt that open the thread to discuss what took place?


Yes. In THAT episode.

It's only stuff in _future_ episodes that is considered a spoiler. That includes previews, and network promos.


----------



## StacieH (Jan 2, 2009)

But it's unrealistic to exclude previews of the next episode that appear in THAT episode. It's part of THAT show.

I, for one, look forward to the previews....and rarely are they what they seem.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

DavidTigerFan said:


> Yes mommy. Wouldn't want to offend anyone's non-spoiler lifestyle from previews.


LOL...

I never could understand why folks get SO worked up about these things....if you want to live a spoiler free lifestyle and Tv is THAT important to you, feel free to avoid the TV forum and just enjoy your shows on your schedule...face it, there's always going to be info floating around everywhere on the net and you can't hide from it forever...unless like I said, you just ignore the TV forums.

If you want to go in there, enter at your own risk.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

StacieH said:


> But it's unrealistic to exclude previews of the next episode that appear in THAT episode. It's part of THAT show.


I disagree. The preview usually comes after the credits have rolled and that episode is technically over, so it's not part of THAT episode. Some stations don't even show previews, so not everyone may have seen it. And some people go out of their way to avoid previews.

I personally don't care about spoilers and often seek them out, but it's the TCF rule and not a very hard rule to follow imho. A discussion of a single episode is about THAT episode, and previous episodes, but not any future episodes. What is so hard about that?


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

DavidTigerFan said:


> Yes mommy. Wouldn't want to offend anyone's non-spoiler lifestyle from previews.





StacieH said:


> But it's unrealistic to exclude previews of the next episode that appear in THAT episode. It's part of THAT show.
> 
> I, for one, look forward to the previews....and rarely are they what they seem.


I, too, watch and enjoy previews. But some people don't, and the forum rules state that previews are considered spoilers and should be tagged. Just because you don't agree with or like the rule doesn't mean you should ignore it.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

StacieH said:


> But it's unrealistic to exclude previews of the next episode that appear in THAT episode. It's part of THAT show.


You are, of course, absolutely right. But when this battle was fought here many years ago, the people who are absolutely wrong won.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

StacieH said:


> But it's unrealistic to exclude previews of the next episode that appear in THAT episode. It's part of THAT show.
> 
> I, for one, look forward to the previews....and rarely are they what they seem.


Sorry, but that's not the case when it comes to this forum. The previews may be shown directly following the show, but many people here at this forum choose not to watch those previews, because they often give away crucial information about the next episode, or mislead the viewer as to what will happen in the next episode. You don't have to like the fact that people do this. You don't have to agree with it. But you have to respect the forum rules if you want to participate here.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Sorry, but that's not the case when it comes to this forum. The previews may be shown directly following the show, but many people here at this forum choose not to watch those previews, because they often give away crucial information about the next episode, or mislead the viewer as to what will happen in the next episode. You don't have to like the fact that people do this. You don't have to agree with it. But you have to respect the forum rules if you want to participate here.


And I watch most of my TV on Hulu, Amazon, or bittorrent. There are no previews there.

It's exactly the same as if people are already discussing what's happening in a future episode, which is a spoiler. I don't understand why this is a debated concept.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Sorry, but that's not the case when it comes to this forum. The previews may be shown directly following the show, but many people here at this forum choose not to watch those previews, because they often give away crucial information about the next episode, or mislead the viewer as to what will happen in the next episode. You don't have to like the fact that people do this. You don't have to agree with it. But you have to respect the forum rules if you want to participate here.


I used to be one of the non-believers and always figured how a preview never really gave away enough to be concerned with, but this season on Survivor there was a huge deal about "someone gets hurt" and the clip shown pretty clearly showed exactly that, and who, although not the extent.. I was bummed I knew it, or at least was pointed to it that directly.

I now can live with the logic of spoilerize a preview..


Diane


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

DavidTigerFan said:


> Yes mommy. Wouldn't want to offend anyone's non-spoiler lifestyle from previews.


I'm sorry but this is not helpful. You can roll your eyes all you want, but them's the rules. And it takes about 15 seconds to add spoiler tags, so it's hardly going to ruin your day to do it. What is the downside to you for following the rules and respecting the others here?


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

My memory's so bad, there's no way I'm going to remember details of 15 seconds of previews a week later.


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

Neenahboy said:


> Why are the spoiler rules so hard for people to understand of late?


Because the rules are idiotic. Normal people don't watch TV according to these rules.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

DavidTigerFan said:


> Yes mommy. Wouldn't want to offend anyone's non-spoiler lifestyle from previews.




I'm with Dave. I think the rule is ridiculous. If it's in the previews, it's also in all the promos for the next week, all over the internet, etc. They're kind of hard to avoid. I can't see why anyone can get that worked up over seeing a preview.

That being said, it is the rule. Rather than breaking it, I just rarely participate in Now Playing because of it. We have enough rules here. We sure don't need more. The spoiler crybabies make the most noise, though, so they win.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

DougF said:


> If it's in the previews, it's also in all the promos for the next week, all over the internet, etc. They're kind of hard to avoid.


I watch previews, so I don't really care about the spoiler tags or not for them, but it's VERY easy to avoid these things if you want to. I have never seen any previews for shows that I didn't watch at the end of the previous week's.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

StacieH said:


> But it's unrealistic to exclude previews of the next episode that appear in THAT episode. It's part of THAT show...


That's just total BS. It's part of the NEXT show...NOT the show that the thread is about.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

I gave up on the silliness of people that don't want to see or know all of the information that aired in a programs complete timeslot long ago. To say more than 'no comment' about the whole topic might lead to saying things that would get me a vacation from this site, so I think I'll just stop here, though I'm tempted to add a big 'This' to a comment above regarding the crying that takes place when spoilers inevitably leak through. (Oops, it seems like I did just that...)


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Kablemodem said:


> Because the rules are idiotic......


Please feel free to leave TCF anytime....the sooner, the better....


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

DougF said:


> They're kind of hard to avoid.


They are actually quite easy to avoid with very little effort.

It's pretty easy to click the peanut "stop" when the episode ends. (I watch previews, but I know people who hate them and just stop watching the episode when it ends. They don't find it hard.)

And I have TiVo, so I don't know about these other "promos" that you mention. I can't remember the last time I saw one, outside of the preview that immediately follows an episode.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

I EASILY avoid previews...as soon as the show is over, I hit the left directional button which gives me the menu allowing me to delete or save a show.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

Kablemodem said:


> Because the rules are idiotic. Normal people don't watch TV according to these rules.





DougF said:


> I'm with Dave. I think the rule is ridiculous. If it's in the previews, it's also in all the promos for the next week, all over the internet, etc. They're kind of hard to avoid. I can't see why anyone can get that worked up over seeing a preview.


But we're not normal people. We're timeshifting TiVo people. I can avoid previews just fine if I decide to, just like I can avoid all the other kinds of commercials.



> That being said, it is the rule. Rather than breaking it, I just rarely participate in Now Playing because of it. We have enough rules here. We sure don't need more. The spoiler crybabies make the most noise, though, so they win.


I think you missed secret option no. 3: Participate in the forum and follow the rule.

Obviously some people are really bothered by the preview spoilers -- even if you're not and you think it's silly, why not just play nice and use the tags? It's not like it's a super challenging rule to follow. I still don't understand the downside of being considerate of others and just doing it. Are you being billed by the letter? Are you getting carpal tunnel from the extra typing of having to use spoiler tags? Do you have a paralyzing fear of putting the word "spolier" in brackets?


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

To bad we all are forced to watch the previews and commercials that spoil our fun. Maybe someday someone will invent a machine that will allow us to stop watching a show before the previews come on or fast forward through commercials so we don't have to watch them. I am sure that would be a huge success. 

I will ask those of you who think the rule is stupid, do you think it is fair to exclude those who don't want to be spoiled?

There are two options:

1) Preview spoilers are allowed. Result: Anyone who does not want to risk being spoiled would not be able to participate because they risk finding out information they don't want to know.

2) Preview spoilers are NOT allowed. Result: EVERYONE can choose to participate. If someone would like to reference a preview, they can use to spoiler tags. Only those who wish to read it will be able to. Those who do not want to be spoiled, can pass right by without being spoiled.

Isn't that fair?


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

Sounds fair to me. 
I don't watch previews OR commercials.



DavidTigerFan said:


> Yes mommy. Wouldn't want to offend anyone's non-spoiler lifestyle from previews.


...and that was condescending and uncalled for...
DavidTigerFan - you get a big :down::down::down: from me.


----------



## StacieH (Jan 2, 2009)

Bierboy said:


> That's just total BS. It's part of the NEXT show...NOT the show that the thread is about.


For the record, I don't post about spoilers. What I'm saying is that what is BS is the idea that a 2 second (or...let's go to hell with it...8 second) soundbite is going to ruin the plot of a one hour show. I have never seen it happen.

In reference to the "spoiler" that started this thread....that same exact information WAS in THAT episode of "Friday Night Lights." The preview for next week was just reinforcing that information. And I think it's silly for people to get upset when (in this case) it was NOT a spoiler.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

Ruth said:


> But we're not normal people. We're timeshifting TiVo people. I can avoid previews just fine if I decide to, just like I can avoid all the other kinds of commercials.
> 
> I think you missed secret option no. 3: Participate in the forum and follow the rule.
> 
> Obviously some people are really bothered by the preview spoilers -- even if you're not and you think it's silly, why not just play nice and use the tags? It's not like it's a super challenging rule to follow. I still don't understand the downside of being considerate of others and just doing it. Are you being billed by the letter? Are you getting carpal tunnel from the extra typing of having to use spoiler tags? Do you have a paralyzing fear of putting the word "spolier" in brackets?


No, nothing so dramatic as per-letter billing or a fear of the word "spolier".  I'd just rather be free to talk (type) without having to worry about rules. Everyone seems to want a rule for everything around here. There was all that crying about the WAYT threads, the movie-quote threads. I just wish we could keep it simple (be polite, keep it clean, no politics, etc.) and leave it at that.

Besides, all of my pre-internet TV life, talking about the previews was part of the fun of discussing a show. I never encountered someone throwing a fit because they found out the Duke Boys were gonna get chased by Sherriff Rosco next week.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

I've seen these conversations before. It comes down to one simple fact about today's culture - people who think they are better than everyone else, and don't have to obey the rules. You think a rule is stupid? Well just ignore it! I'm more important than you, so suck it, crybabies!


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

Cainebj said:


> Sounds fair to me.
> I don't watch previews OR commercials.
> 
> ...and that was condescending and uncalled for...
> DavidTigerFan - you get a big :down::down::down: from me.


ouch. I'll not be able to sleep as well tonight.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

DougF said:


> No, nothing so dramatic as per-letter billing or a fear of the word "spolier".  I'd just rather be free to talk (type) without having to worry about rules. Everyone seems to want a rule for everything around here. There was all that crying about the WAYT threads, the movie-quote threads. I just wish we could keep it simple (be polite, keep it clean, no politics, etc.) and leave it at that.
> 
> Besides, all of my pre-internet TV life, talking about the previews was part of the fun of discussing a show. I never encountered someone throwing a fit because they found out the Duke Boys were gonna get chased by Sherriff Rosco next week.


So you're free to discuss whatever you want at other TV based forums. Freedom baby!


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

Another long-playing thread in the Happy Hour is an example of this thinking, and that's the parking thread. I'm too important to park like a normal person! I'm too important to follow spoiler rules! I don't need to have courtesy towards those other people in the world!


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

DavidTigerFan said:


> ouch. I'll not be able to sleep as well tonight.


maybe you should take your balls and go play in another sandbox.


----------



## emandbri (Jul 5, 2004)

I can't find the post but I am almost certain that years ago this was discussed and a poll was done and the majority of people wanted spoiler tags used on info in the previews.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

StacieH said:


> But it's unrealistic to exclude previews of the next episode that appear in THAT episode. It's part of THAT show.


Really? Then I guess when you buy a series season on DVD, each episode has the previews for the next episode at the end then, right?

What? They don't? Huh. Interesting...


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

You people crack me up.


----------



## balboa dave (Jan 19, 2004)

Here's the difference. The episode is written by the show's writers. The previews and commercials are written by the promo department. 

I only want to know what the writers want me to know when they're ready to tell me during the course of the story I'm watching. Not before, not by inept or deliberately misleading promos, and certainly not by selfish people I don't know in a forum where there are simple and clear rules against it.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

I like the rule the way it is and don't understand why some people who I otherwise like and respect seem to have such a blind spot about it.


----------



## jradosh (Jul 31, 2001)

macplanterguy said:


> I like the rule the way it is and don't understand why some people who I otherwise like and respect seem to have such a blind spot about it.


Ditto this.

At this point the discussion is not so much about the rules and if they make sense or not, but more about which posters show respect to other TCF members and which ones don't.


----------



## Donbadabon (Mar 5, 2002)

For those that love to discuss previews, is it really that much of an inconvenience to spoiler-tag it?

I don't believe anyone here is saying you *can't* discuss it at all, they are just requesting that you tag it as a spoiler.

Whereas the people that want to discuss the spoilers are saying they want it their way, and don't really care what anyone else thinks.

Some of us like to know what happens next week, some don't. By using the spoiler tags, we all get to discuss what we want.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Many (most?) people don't read rules, instructions or licensing agreements.

Common sense suggests it's OK to talk about anything that aired during the program's time slot. That includes the program, commercials and previews.

The forum is free to set different rules but posters have to expect some people don't know, or don't remember, the policy.

I don't know what's the statue of limitations regarding spoilers but after a period of time it should be OK to talk (compare) a show to other shows. Bob Newhart has been off the air for more then a decade. Comparing the ending of the show to other finales should be OK.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

lew said:


> Bob Newhart has been off the air for more then a decade. Comparing the ending of the show to other finales should be OK.


Yet someone will complain.

I don't think people are intentionally being jerks when they post spoilers. As was previously posted, not everybody is going to know all the spoiler rules of TCF and interpret them as expected. Just remind them and move on. Things happen. No point in being a spoiler nazi about it.


----------



## jradosh (Jul 31, 2001)

cheesesteak said:


> Just remind them and move on.
> 
> No point in being a spoiler nazi about it.


Some people seem to think that these two things are the same.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

lew said:


> Common sense suggests it's OK to talk about anything that aired during the program's time slot. That includes the program, commercials and previews.


I don't agree with your premise. Common sense tells me that the previews are information about a different episode, and some people wouldn't want that info revealed.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

cheesesteak said:


> I don't think people are intentionally being jerks when they post spoilers.


No, but some of them sure turn into jerks when told about the rule.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

I don't think we come out to complain so much as when people are specifically called out in a thread. Everyone of you has said it's usually an innocent mistake so why does it need it's own thread treating us like we're children?

I just don't start threads in here anymore for fear I might talk about something and get lynched.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

billypritchard said:


> I've seen these conversations before. It comes down to one simple fact about today's culture - people who think they are better than everyone else, and don't have to obey the rules. You think a rule is stupid? Well just ignore it! I'm more important than you, so suck it, crybabies!


+1!!! Exactly. This is about being considerate to others and that is it. In one scenario, a group is excluded. In another scenario, everyone is included. Why on earth would anyone chose the former over the latter?



macplanterguy said:


> I like the rule the way it is and don't understand why some people who I otherwise like and respect seem to have such a blind spot about it.


+1!!! And that makes me sad.



DavidTigerFan said:


> I just don't start threads in here anymore for fear I might talk about something and get lynched.


Wrong forum! Lynching happens in the Fun House.


----------



## Legion (Aug 24, 2005)

Neenahboy said:


> Seriously, guys. They've been in place for years.
> 
> If it's been seen in a preview, put it in tags. If you're discussing another post that's been put in tags, put your discussion in tags as well. It's not difficult.


Why I never understood about this sort of rule is why people come to a forum to seek out and open a specific thread about an episode they havent even watched yet. What is the point of that?

If you havent watched it, then you dont need to lurk or discuss it. Why should other people have to inhibit and censor their discussion for you?

Not directed at the OP specifically, just using his post to stay on task.



DavidTigerFan said:


> I just don't start threads in here anymore for fear I might talk about something and get lynched.


There is a definite high school "cliq" vibe to this place. I have seen some people make an observation about a show and be ignored or dismissed. Then another person basically paraphrases the same and are lauded as genius. Probably relates directly to post count, but I have never commissioned a study.


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

DavidTigerFan said:


> I don't think we come out to complain so much as when people are specifically called out in a thread. Everyone of you has said it's usually an innocent mistake so why does it need it's own thread treating us like we're children?
> 
> I just don't start threads in here anymore for fear I might talk about something and get lynched.


It seems like a problem as of late so a reminder in the form of a thread might help raise awareness. Yes a good number of spoilers are accidental however I know I have been attacked a number of times for pointing out to the OP that there is a spoiler and they may want to edit their post. Most of the time it is not from the OP but others, who like you David, are pro spoilers being in the wild.


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

Legion said:


> Why I never understood about this sort of rule is why people come to a forum to seek out and open a specific thread about an episode they havent even watched yet. What is the point of that? (not directed at you specifically, just thinking outloud)?
> 
> If you havent watched it, then you dont need to lurk or discuss it. Why should other people have to inhibit and censor their discussion for you?


It isn't about that episode. You are free to discuss that episode in full, it is the previews shown at the end or casting news/rumors that should be spoilerized.


----------



## Jebberwocky! (Apr 16, 2005)

If it bothers people then be kind. Not everyone is like you.

The only spoilers that truly bother me are revealing comments made about a show in an unrelated thread - that and the one time someone posted the winner of amazing race about halfway through (they were right) and spoiler'd it and my email notification came through with the winner listed (the post was all of 5 words). My frustration fell on deaf ears.

I have inadvertently posted spoilers and have been asked via PM to delete the offending miscue - and it was nice because I didn't mean to and the person asked very nicely.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

I think a better way to handle preview spoilers than using spoiler tags is to relax the rules about starting episode-specific threads. If the next episode's thread could be started early, then all preview discussion could be there. This has the added benefit of making it easy for those who skipped the previews to read the comments once they've seen the previewed episode.

Spoiler tags are useful for one-off statements, but if people are starting a discussion around them, then it seems to me that we should be using threads for their intended purpose - to separate discussions. That's why we have episode-specific threads in the first place.


----------



## jradosh (Jul 31, 2001)

BitbyBlit said:


> I think a better way to handle preview spoilers than using spoiler tags is to relax the rules about starting episode-specific threads. If the next episode's thread could be started early, then all preview discussion could be there. This has the added benefit of making it easy for those who skipped the previews to read the comments once they've seen the previewed episode.
> 
> Spoiler tags are useful for one-off statements, but if people are starting a discussion around them, then it seems to me that we should be using threads for their intended purpose - to separate discussions. That's why we have episode-specific threads in the first place.


This makes sense to me.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

The only problem with that plan is that while most of the time the next air date will be in 7 days sometimes it will not, and will posters be looking up and confirming that date? Or will they just assume it and start a thread with an incorrect date?

It would seem easier to me to just have an undated show thread that is open for all discussion.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

SeanC said:


> The only problem with that plan is that while most of the time the next air date will be in 7 days sometimes it will not, and will posters be looking up and confirming that date? Or will they just assume it and start a thread with an incorrect date?


I don't think episode-specific threads necessarily need a date. Season, episode number, and title seem good enough to me, and in fact are easier to search for when looking for old threads than original air date. If those can't be found on a place like tv.com, then previews for that episode likely haven't aired yet either.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

Except the spoiler rules specifically reference putting the air date in the thread title, that is what makes a thread an official episode thread.


----------



## appleye1 (Jan 26, 2002)

When they allowed episode-specific threads to be opened early it lead to many, many duplicate threads due to poor search skills and/or just not caring. I don't blame the mods for not wanting to deal with the mess.

I agree with the idea that a general show thread where spoilers are allowed might be the best solution. It's also a solution currently allowed under forum rules.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

SeanC said:


> Except the spoiler rules specifically reference putting the air date in the thread title, that is what makes a thread an official episode thread.


Well, since we're talking about changes, I think that should be changed too. If I happen to watch a rerun of an episode and want to read the thread here about it, it is much easier for me to search for something like "S01E05" than to look up the air date or even the title, which can sometimes be abbreviated.

People who timeshift don't care when something airs, and with other means of watching episodes via the Internet, the air date is not really that important anymore.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

BitbyBlit said:


> I don't think episode-specific threads necessarily need a date. Season, episode number, and title seem good enough to me, and in fact are easier to search for when looking for old threads than original air date. If those can't be found on a place like tv.com, then previews for that episode likely haven't aired yet either.


Yeah, searching by title is a little easier especially with different date formats that people use. I rarely start threads since I'm usually so far behind on shows, but I like when people use both the date and the title.

I get that some people don't like the spoiler rules here, but it kills me when they tell the people who like and use this forum because of the rules, and expect them to be followed, that _we_ should avoid the forum. The OP in this thread wasn't talking about something nit-picky like spoiling a movie from two years ago, or casting spoilers or other questionable issues.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

appleye1 said:


> When they allowed episode-specific threads to be opened early it lead to many, many duplicate threads due to poor search skills and/or just not caring.


If the official format for an episode-specific thread included the name of the show plus the season and episode number in the format SXXEYY, then the automatic searching that occurs when creating new threads will alert people to threads for the same episode that already exist.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

SeanC said:


> It would seem easier to me to just have an undated show thread that is open for all discussion.


Or type "From the promo for next week:" and then add spoiler tags.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

BitbyBlit said:


> If the official format for an episode-specific thread included the name of the show plus the season and episode number in the format SXXEYY, then the automatic searching that occurs when creating new threads will alert people to threads for the same episode that already exist.


That's not easier than the current situation. It's actually a lot harder.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

MickeS said:


> Or type "From the promo for next week:" and then add spoiler tags.


That comment was in response to this post, which is referencing a discussion that would be mostly spoilers. In that case it does start to seem silly to have post after post be in spoiler tags. So it would make sense to me then to just have a generic show thread tagged as a spoiler thread that could discuss any and all aspects of the show, commercials, previews, magazine articles, and so on, unspoilerized.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

MickeS said:


> Or type "From the promo for next week:" and then add spoiler tags.


But isn't posting "From the promo for next week:" a spoiler? What if the show WASN'T cancelled? The person doesn't know that, you just spoiled them.



Greg


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

gchance said:


> But isn't posting "From the promo for next week:" a spoiler? What if the show WASN'T cancelled? The person doesn't know that, you just spoiled them.


The solution to that is obvious, spoiler the alert that you are posting a spoiler.

Duh....


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Cainebj said:


> maybe you should take your balls and go play in another sandbox.


That works both ways y'know.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

Langree said:


> That works both ways y'know.


Not really, since he is advocating not following the rules. If you want to not follow the rules, you leave. Those of us who want to follow the rules have no need to leave.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

MickeS said:


> That's not easier than the current situation. It's actually a lot harder.


It only takes slightly more effort for the people creating threads to look up the episode number (or just add 1 to the previous episode's number), and it would make future searching easier for everyone. So I think there would be a net gain in overall ease of use.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

billypritchard said:


> Not really, since he is advocating not following the rules. If you want to not follow the rules, you leave. Those of us who want to follow the rules have no need to leave.


Telling people, "if you don't like it, leave" is rude and doesn't add to the discussion.

I've seen people here get jumped by self appointed pro spoiler police because they inadvertantly gave away a spoiler for a movie released MONTHS ago.

Just because there is a rule, doesn't mean some of you don't over-react if something comes out.

It's not the end of the world, really.

I've had things inadvertantly spoiled, I may politely mention it, but I don't stomp my feet and get all bent about it.

In a community this big, **** is gonna happen.

You either deal with it or go elsewhere.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

Langree said:


> Telling people, "if you don't like it, leave" is rude and doesn't add to the discussion.
> 
> I've seen people here get jumped by self appointed pro spoiler police because they inadvertantly gave away a spoiler for a movie released MONTHS ago.
> 
> ...


Um, doesn't this post completely contradict your opening sentence?


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

YCantAngieRead said:


> Um, doesn't this post completely contradict your opening sentence?


Nope, there's a subtle difference in telling someone directly to go play in another sandbox and offering it as an option.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

Langree said:


> You either deal with it or go elsewhere.


In some way you have your wish. The forum rule now is to not say anything to a spoiler, just click on the report a post button.

Seems to be a good solution all around. No more threads getting off track on a spoiler discussion, and the mods can inform offenders of the rules. Done and done.


----------



## Jebberwocky! (Apr 16, 2005)

I would rather someone pm and let me know in a nice manner that I have offended the spoiler police and then I can fix it and apologize.

The less I interact with the mods the better


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Langree said:


> Telling people, "if you don't like it, leave" is rude and doesn't add to the discussion.
> ...
> You either deal with it or go elsewhere.


It was in response to being told that himself, and meant to point out the absurdity of someone who didn't want to follow the forum's rules telling someone who uses the forum because of its rules, to leave (which was clearly stated). So it certainly did add to the discussion and in that context was not rude at all.

Pointing out to people that they're breaking the rules IS "dealing with it."


----------



## harrinpj (Oct 29, 2004)

SeanC said:


> It would seem easier to me to just have an undated show thread that is open for all discussion.


Personally, I would hate this. I don't post very often but I come here multiple times a day to hear what you guys thought of a show I watched last night. If a lot of the discussion moves to a thread where spoilers are allowed then I will miss out on what everyone is talking about because I'd be scared to enter that thread. So I beg you all, PLEASE don't do this and just spoiler tag something from the previews for next week.

I NEVER watch the previews. I didn't even realize until after the show was canceled that Arrested Development "previews" were always just jokes and had nothing to do with the upcoming episode. That was a pleasant surprise while watching the DVDs.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

jeff125va said:


> Pointing out to people that they're breaking the rules IS "dealing with it."


Again, to me, it comes down to how it's handled. There's the polite way, then there's the way I see it here way too often.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

harrinpj said:


> Personally, I would hate this.


Someone else quoted that specific line ignoring the context so I'll post what I've already said about that:



SeanC said:


> That comment was in response to this post, which is referencing a discussion that would be mostly spoilers. In that case it does start to seem silly to have post after post be in spoiler tags. So it would make sense to me then to just have a generic show thread tagged as a spoiler thread that could discuss any and all aspects of the show, commercials, previews, magazine articles, and so on, unspoilerized.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Langree said:


> Telling people, "if you don't like it, leave" is rude and doesn't add to the discussion.
> 
> [...]
> 
> You either deal with it or go elsewhere.


Awesome.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

Langree said:


> Again, to me, it comes down to how it's handled. There's the polite way, then there's the way I see it here way too often.


I always see it being the opposite. People are told they posted a spoiler and then told about the rule, then the whining starts from the "who cares about spoilers crowd."


----------



## StacieH (Jan 2, 2009)

scooterboy said:


> Really? Then I guess when you buy a series season on DVD, each episode has the previews for the next episode at the end then, right?
> 
> What? They don't? Huh. Interesting...


I dunno. I guess since you answered your own question, you know it all. I have seen 2 series on DVD, and to be honest, I can't remember. But again, previews don't bother me IN THE LEAST. In fact, I look forward to them. I get disappointed when they AREN'T shown. I just do not see the big deal of letting a spoiler slip now and then.


----------



## Legion (Aug 24, 2005)

SeanC said:


> In some way you have your wish. The forum rule now is to not say anything to a spoiler, just click on the report a post button.
> 
> Seems to be a good solution all around. No more threads getting off track on a spoiler discussion, and the mods can inform offenders of the rules. Done and done.


But if we all did that then we wouldnt have this particular thread. Where is the fun in that?


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

Heck, I can't even get past page two of this thread without wishing it would get closed by a mod.

I can't believe there are people on here calling each other crybabies, ridiculing each other and arguing about this. It is ridiculous that people are treating each other this way because of a disagreement about rules. 

If you don't like the rules, try to get them changed. Start a poll or something and see what the consensus is and maybe the mods will change them if enough people want them changed. If they can't be changed, and you can't live with that, leave the forum. But until then, follow the rules.

I personally don't mind spoilers. I read spoiler sites to find things out. However, I do not watch previews or commercials. I skip the previews so I can start watching another show. I skip commercials because I have a TiVo and because I can. However, I follow TCF's rules, because they are the rules. I probably agreed to follow the rules when I signed up for the site.


----------



## jeetkunedo (Jul 24, 2006)

StacieH said:


> For the record, I don't post about spoilers. What I'm saying is that what is BS is the idea that a 2 second (or...let's go to hell with it...8 second) soundbite is going to ruin the plot of a one hour show. I have never seen it happen.


The worst one I remember was a preview for the next week's Stargate: Atlantis where the preview showed


Spoiler



Dr. Becket would be found alive, when we all thought he was dead


which didn't happen until literally the very last minute of the next week's show! Before then I didn't try to avoid spoilers all that hard. Now I do.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Why I'm wading into this discussion I just don't know as it seems there's so little positive to be gained, but what the heck.

IMNSHO, there'd be a lot less crying either way if the 'spoiler nazis' would do as noted above just a few posts ago and simply use the REPORT button to report untagged spoilers -- OR, if they very politely PM'd the person who posted the untagged spoiler and politely suggested that the spoiler information should be placed between [ s p o i l e r ] and [ / s p o i l e r ] tags -- rather than 'jumping up and down and hollering' in the middle of a thread "LOOK ----- > > > > SPOILER!!!" (or the equivalent there of).

In other words, if people made less of a big deal of the issue in public it wouldn't bother those that have been asked to be tolerant and polite and use the tags and it also would still accomplish the same thing that the anti-spoiler people want.

Instead the discussion threads get derailed and degenerate into name calling and cry-babying and such because neither side knows how to behave and be tolerant.

Personally, like some others here, I basically gave up on writing anything in this particular area because it seems that no matter what I do I can't avoid the fighting over this topic and like the anti-spoiler people, my experience is ruined because of the behavior of others (on either side) that are rude and obnoxious even if all they've said is "SPOILER THAT!" (and even if they don't recognize their own rudeness in such comments).


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

markz said:


> Start a poll or something and see what the consensus is and maybe the mods will change them if enough people want them changed.


http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=420275&highlight=spoilers

75% of responders like the rules the way they are.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

That poll is so flawed I had to laugh.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

terpfan1980 said:


> IMNSHO, there'd be a lot less crying either way if the 'spoiler nazis' would do as noted above just a few posts ago and simply use the REPORT button to report untagged spoilers


Until recently I had never seen a mod say that the report a post button should be used for spoilers.



> -- OR, if they very politely PM'd the person who posted the untagged spoiler and politely suggested that the spoiler information should be placed between [ s p o i l e r ] and [ / s p o i l e r ] tags -- rather than 'jumping up and down and hollering' in the middle of a thread "LOOK ----- > > > > SPOILER!!!" (or the equivalent there of).


You say PM, I say posting it the thread is more effective because it alerts other people who don't know the rules what the rule is.

IMNSHO it's always the pro-spoiler people who are extremely negative and throwing around derogative names, like crybaby and nazi.



> In other words, if people made less of a big deal of the issue in public it wouldn't bother those that have been asked to be tolerant and polite and use the tags and it also would still accomplish the same thing that the anti-spoiler people want.


I disagree. What would happen is people would post their spoilers and no one in the thread says anything, and since spoilers are allowed to be posted and stay in the thread, the the defacto standard becomes spoilers are welcome everywhere at all times.



> Instead the discussion threads get derailed and degenerate into name calling and cry-babying and such because neither side knows how to behave and be tolerant.


Only because the pro-spoiler people won't just admit that the rule is the rule and follow it.



> my experience is ruined because of the behavior of others (on either side) that are rude and obnoxious even if all they've said is "SPOILER THAT!" (and even if they don't recognize their own rudeness in such comments).


I refer you to the first quote of this post.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

DavidTigerFan said:


> That poll is so flawed I had to laugh.


Why?


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

MickeS said:


> Why?


First off, it's confusing as hell. You never put two questions in one response. Thats bound to lead to people misclicking. Second, it's unfair to just sum up all the responses that indicated that they liked the rules and say 75% of us like the rules fine.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

StacieH said:


> I just do not see the big deal of letting a spoiler slip now and then.


This to me is the heart of the problem, in that those of you who don't mind spoilers can't see the point of view of those of us who don't want them. Either you aren't willing to see it our way, or you are willing, but you just don't get it.

Here's my two cents -- other people who don't care for spoilers can add / disagree with this as they will.

A book or TV episode or movie is made to give a specific audience experience. Let's assume you approach the work spoiler-free, not knowing what is going to happen. An audience member can only have this experience once. Afterwards, when you watch it again, you already know what happens in the show, and the experience of the work is a different one.

Both of these are valuable, especially if you write, because you want to re-read to see how the author of a book set up the events that are to come. But that's a completely different experience than watching something for the first time.

The folks who seek out spoilers never have that first-viewing experience. They jump ahead to the viewing-again one. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, if it's what you prefer, but since you don't ever have the first-viewing experience, you don't know how profoundly different it can be for certain works and for certain audience members. So you can't see 'what the big deal is'.

And no wonder, because in the current viewing environment, we are constantly bombarded with teasers and ads, even within the episodes themselves.

The problem with spoilers, as opposed to ordinary re-viewing, is that the prematurely-known information can overwhelm the rest of the viewing experience. Let's say you are watching an episode of _Super-Duper Dance Extravaganza_ and since you live on the West Coast, you've heard a snippet of a news item that someone drops their partner while attempting a lift, but you miss which couple it was. It's difficult to watch the show after that in the same way one would, not having heard the news item. Which lift is the one that goes wrong? The lifts take on an importance all out of proportion to the rest of the performances.

I want to watch a show or performance or a game and be in the moment, in the same way one might if I were actually at the game or in a live audience. The spoiler rules are designed so that those of us who avoid spoilers and those of us who seek them out can meet together after the episode has aired and talk about the show together in a shared space.

But for whatever reasons, some people don't like the rules and don't want to share. So those of us who admit that we prefer the rules the way they are open ourselves up to all sorts of abuse, like being called spoiler-phobes.

Jan


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

SeanC said:


> {comments that were made that amounted to "you are wrong"}


... and hence why it's counter-productive to say anything here.

You and others want to be able to point at the spoilers and lob grenades at the the people that post them, in the name of keeping others from doing it ever again.

Myself, and perhaps a few others, would prefer that the discussion threads remain discussion threads and not threads on the merits, or lack thereof, of talking about previews and other spoiler information.

You very much seem to be of the opinion that my opinion and others like me doesn't matter and that I and others like me HAVE WORK TO DO so I can fit in.

Screw it, it's not worth it, other than perhaps as an exercise in smacking the 'report post' button every time I see someone 'whining' about spoilers just because such whining really shouldn't be taking place in the discussion threads at all.


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

markz said:


> I can't believe there are people on here calling each other crybabies, ridiculing each other and arguing about this. It is ridiculous that people are treating each other this way because of a disagreement about rules.


Yep, pretty much agree with this. There are people in this thread I consider friends whose responses made me shake my head in disbelief.

And only partially related, I hate that people are so willing to throw the term Nazi around as a casual insult.


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

I don't care too much whether I see a preview or not as most of the time they are misleading anyway (although sometimes not). On the other hand, however, as has been mentioned, these same previews appear during other shows on those channels that I may not be recording, such as football, which is where I saw the giveaway on the Survivor promo of who was hurt. I would have preferred not knowing but it didn't make that big of a difference. Another time I opened up Yahoo on a Friday having not seen Survivor the night before and saw who was voted off. Point is, you sometimes can't avoid these things.

That said, if I was posting about a preview in an episode thread I would use spoilers just out of respect for those to whom it makes a big difference. While I may not agree that previews are such a big deal and am in the camp that it is fair game, havnig been shown within the confines of the actual episode time slot, it is certainly not a hardship to use the spoiler tags if that's all that's being asked.

And keep the episode thread titles as they are. I like seeing the date as I almost never check the episode title or track the episode number. The date gives me a context so I know whether I've seen it or not.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

terpfan1980 said:


> You and others want to be able to point at the spoilers and lob grenades at the the people that post them, in the name of keeping others from doing it ever again.


That's not what I want at all, I don't like the threads getting derailed either, but if nothing is done about spoilers, then there will be spoilers everywhere.



> Myself, and perhaps a few others, would prefer that the discussion threads remain discussion threads and not threads on the merits, or lack thereof, of talking about previews and other spoiler information.


This is exactly what I want as well.



> You very much seem to be of the opinion that my opinion and others like me doesn't matter and that I and others like me HAVE WORK TO DO so I can fit in.


Um, no, I don't have that opinion. In fact I have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

What _*I*_ want is the ability to talk about a show that aired and any possible future speculation. However within the rules that have been brought down upon us there is no way *I* can do that. I can't start a thread and list any "spoilers" because it would be duplication.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

murgatroyd said:


> The problem with spoilers, as opposed to ordinary re-viewing, is that the prematurely-known information can overwhelm the rest of the viewing experience. Let's say you are watching an episode of _Super-Duper Dance Extravaganza_ and since you live on the West Coast, you've heard a snippet of a news item that someone drops their partner while attempting a lift, but you miss which couple it was. It's difficult to watch the show after that in the same way one would, not having heard the news item. Which lift is the one that goes wrong? The lifts take on an importance all out of proportion to the rest of the performances.


Yeah, this is why I usually try and avoid the "Next week on...".

If the preview says "Someone WILL die!" for example, I will spend the episode wondering who will die and why, analyzing each scene from that perspective, and when the death comes, I will simply conclude whether I guess right or not. If the death was meant to be a surprise in this episode, that is taken from me as a viewer.

Marketing departments seem to take liberties that the writers and producers didn't necessarily grant them, or expected.

So I don't think it's too much to expect (or ask) that episode specific threads should be about what the makers of the show intended for us to see in that show, and other information should be spoiler-tagged, for those of us who prefer not to know it beforehand.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

DavidTigerFan said:


> What _*I*_ want is the ability to talk about a show that aired and any possible future speculation. However within the rules that have been brought down upon us there is no way *I* can do that. I can't start a thread and list any "spoilers" because it would be duplication.


Many separate threads have been stared about specific plot points. I don't think anyone will crack down on a thread called, for example, "Speculation about November 3rd episode of LOST!". If the rules don't allow that, I agree that they should.

Or you could just spoiler tag it in the episode specific thread, if the discussion is not likely to generate enough interest for its own thread.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

MickeS said:


> Many separate threads have been stared about specific plot points. I don't think anyone will crack down on a thread called, for example, "Speculation about November 3rd episode of LOST!". If the rules don't allow that, I agree that they should.
> 
> Or you could just spoiler tag it in the episode specific thread, if the discussion is not likely to generate enough interest for its own thread.


But then all we'll have is wall of white text and invariably someone will slip and not put a tag and then get called to the floor for it.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

DavidTigerFan said:


> But then all we'll have is wall of white text and invariably someone will slip and not put a tag and then get called to the floor for it.


OK, so then they're called on it, they change it, and we move on. What's the problem? Mistakes are not the problem, deliberately ignoring the rules is.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

DavidTigerFan said:


> What _*I*_ want is the ability to talk about a show that aired and any possible future speculation. However within the rules that have been brought down upon us there is no way *I* can do that. I can't start a thread and list any "spoilers" because it would be duplication.


I'm pretty sure you could start a thread called "Survivor Samoa - full season untagged spoilers including previews" or similar and talk about them all you wanted.


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

DavidTigerFan said:


> What _*I*_ want is the ability to talk about a show that aired and any possible future speculation. However within the rules that have been brought down upon us there is no way *I* can do that. I can't start a thread and list any "spoilers" because it would be duplication.


You can speculate all you want as long as it is not coming from some other source (such as an interview with cast/writers, previews, etc.). Look at the current Flash Forward threads a lot of people are talking about if the future can or can't be changed, etc.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

MickeS said:


> OK, so then they're called on it, they change it, and we move on. What's the problem? Mistakes are not the problem, deliberately ignoring the rules is.


And what is this whole thread? Was the person that did it told nicely? No, a whole new thread had to be started to "remind" us simple people that they can't do it.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)




----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

Einselen said:


> You can speculate all you want as long as it is not coming from some other source (such as an interview with cast/writers, previews, etc.). Look at the current Flash Forward threads a lot of people are talking about if the future can or can't be changed, etc.


Not the same. I don't participate as much here because I read other sites, watch previews and look for casting news for the shows I like.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

macplanterguy said:


> I'm pretty sure you could start a thread called "Survivor Samoa - full season untagged spoilers including previews" or similar and talk about them all you wanted.


Yeah, but then you get lost in what episode you're talking about, 
what week is what, etc..


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

There is no way the SxxEyy format is feasible. I'm sure most people have no clue which number the House halloween episode is.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

DavidTigerFan said:


> Yeah, but then you get lost in what episode you're talking about,
> what week is what, etc..


Maybe.

Bottom line for me is this. I watch the previews, I read all spoilers, it doesn't ruin the experience for me. But, I respect the other users of this place who don't watch previews and don't read spoilers.

I've said it many times, but once more with feeling. TCF is _different_ from other web boards that talk about TV and movies, and that's a good thing. This is the one place online where people who want to avoid the "Next Week On..." spoilers have a reasonable chance of doing so. It has always been different in that respect and I think it's completely reasonable for that difference to continue.

I also think it's reasonable to call out people who don't follow the long standing conventions of this place. Some people complain about spoiler Nazis, but in my experience it's the people who think the spoiler rules are stupid who get abrasive and mean about it.


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

DavidTigerFan said:


> Not the same. I don't participate as much here because I read other sites, watch previews and look for casting news for the shows I like.


If that is the case I am sure there are a number of other forums (heck even some shows like Lost have their own Wiki, Fan Sites and Forums) in which you can talk all you want about the show.

The mods/owners here noticed this is a TiVo forum and there is a good chance people can easily be behind in the episodes and not want to know about upcoming aspects of the show yet some people do want to mention them so to allow all to participate there is the Spoiler Tags. It doesn't work the way you watch your shows as you do further research and readings but I have seen threads titled "CSI Casting News *Spoilers*" etc where these type of thigns are discussed.


----------



## StacieH (Jan 2, 2009)

murgatroyd said:


> This to me is the heart of the problem, in that those of you who don't mind spoilers can't see the point of view of those of us who don't want them. Either you aren't willing to see it our way, or you are willing, but you just don't get it.


I can see it, and I get it just fine. I dont think its a big deal, but thats just meI understand that.

My point was that its silly to get worked up about one mistake. If someone reveals spoilers on a regular basis, thats one thing. But this post in question (FNL episode) mentioned something in the preview that has already been intimated in the episode, and is something that has been speculated about since the end of last season. I have been in hundreds of show threads and rarely have seen someone post about a preview.

I will continue to use spoiler tags in every thread that does not mention a specific episode. And in threads about movies, new and old.just to be safe. And Im sure, as usual; someone will come along with a snarky comment about why I used spoiler tags on a movie thats 2 years old. After all, if its that old, everyone has seen it right?


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

I try to watch shows like Lost the same night it airs. I'd probably do the same with Survivor (if I watched it). You can't live in the real world and ignore water cooler talk, talk on radio stations and even morning news.

People don't read the "fine print" for important things. They certainly don't read the fine print regarding forum policy on spoilers. It's inevitable that one or more posters don't know, or don't remember, the forum policy regarding previews. I think it's inevitable at some point you'll wind up reading a preview discussion before the "offending" paragraph is spoilerized or deleted. Previews are often intentionally misleading and don't necessarily spoil anything. I agree readers with "issues" should just use the report a post icon. 

People like to compare a current show/episode with an old, classic episode. I understand some posters may be watching an old show (DVD or syndication) but I think the statue of limitations should end at the end of the current TV season or shortly after a movie is released on DVD. JMO but being able to compare a series finale with Newhart has a higher priority then spoiling the Newhart finale for the few (maybe one) reader who's currently watching the show on DVD and doesn't already know the ending.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Legion said:


> Why I never understood about this sort of rule is why people come to a forum to seek out and open a specific thread about an episode they havent even watched yet. What is the point of that?
> 
> If you havent watched it, then you dont need to lurk or discuss it. Why should other people have to inhibit and censor their discussion for you?


There's no problem discussing the actual show. Nobody is saying they want to enter a thread for a show they haven't watched yet. I'm a little confused about where this complaint is coming from.


BitbyBlit said:


> I think a better way to handle preview spoilers than using spoiler tags is to relax the rules about starting episode-specific threads. If the next episode's thread could be started early, then all preview discussion could be there. This has the added benefit of making it easy for those who skipped the previews to read the comments once they've seen the previewed episode.
> 
> Spoiler tags are useful for one-off statements, but if people are starting a discussion around them, then it seems to me that we should be using threads for their intended purpose - to separate discussions. That's why we have episode-specific threads in the first place.


The problem with that approach is that when you go to actually discuss next week's episode, you open a thread and the first several posts are not about the episode at all, but are about the previews from last week and speculation about what it might mean, etc. By the time the majority of viewers actually go to participate in the thread, all of that information will be pointless and there's no need for those people to have to wade through it to find the actual discussion about the episode.


terpfan1980 said:


> Why I'm wading into this discussion I just don't know as it seems there's so little positive to be gained, but what the heck.
> 
> IMNSHO, there'd be a lot less crying either way if the 'spoiler nazis' would do as noted above just a few posts ago and simply use the REPORT button to report untagged spoilers -- OR, if they very politely PM'd the person who posted the untagged spoiler and politely suggested that the spoiler information should be placed between [ s p o i l e r ] and [ / s p o i l e r ] tags -- rather than 'jumping up and down and hollering' in the middle of a thread "LOOK ----- > > > > SPOILER!!!" (or the equivalent there of).
> 
> In other words, if people made less of a big deal of the issue in public it wouldn't bother those that have been asked to be tolerant and polite and use the tags and it also would still accomplish the same thing that the anti-spoiler people want.


Here's where I think the problem lies. Those who disagree with the rule think that people are "lobbing grenades" and acting like "Nazis" when those who support the rule point out an untagged spoiler. How about instead of getting worked up and pissed off that the untagged spoiler was pointed out, simply acknowledge that someone needed to point it out to protect other users of the forum, and that it should be fixed and move on. If those who post spoilers, whether inadvertently or intentionally, would simply fix them when the mistake is pointed out, there would be no issues. Similarly, if those who do the pointing out of the untagged spoilers would do so politely, rather than snarky, that would go a long way toward preventing the arguments.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Here's where I think the problem lies. Those who disagree with the rule think that people are "lobbing grenades" and acting like "Nazis" when those who support the rule point out an untagged spoiler. How about instead of getting worked up and pissed off that the untagged spoiler was pointed out, simply acknowledge that someone needed to point it out to protect other users of the forum, and that it should be fixed and move on. If those who post spoilers, whether inadvertently or intentionally, would simply fix them when the mistake is pointed out, there would be no issues. Similarly, if those who do the pointing out of the untagged spoilers would do so politely, rather than snarky, that would go a long way toward preventing the arguments.


The problem you'll have, and others too, is that you seem to lump me into the group that disagree's with the rule just because I use a term like 'spoiler nazi' or 'spoiler phobe'. I use those terms because I don't much know what else to call the people that are designating themselves the moderators-for-a-day when they see an untagged spoiler slide by.

I know the rules, abide by the rules as they are, and accept that the rules are there to try to provide the most possible participation in the show threads by allowing those that want to avoid spoilers to avoid them while also letting those that want to talk about previews or other potential spoilers do so.

I still don't want some self appointed moderator-wannabe (that normally also happens to be someone that is offended when 'spoiled' information slides through) stinkin' up the threads with their own efforts at policing out the spoilers. Let the designated moderators do the work and leave the show threads uncluttered. That means don't cry about it publicly even if you feel that doing so will prevent the problem in the future. If that was truly the case we'd never have seen this discussion because the problem would long ago have been solved, no?

If the people that don't want to see spoilers want cooperation from those that are tasked with using spoiler tags, how about cooperating back just a bit and do what has been simply requested here -- let the mods do their jobs, and let the threads stay on topic. Seems fair to me despite protestations from some that if they don't point out the spoilers the problem will never be fixed.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Also submitted, for the record, though I personally don't have a problem with previews and other blatant spoilers being untagged in discussion threads, as noted I know the rules, understand the rules, accept the rules and encourage others to do the same. As noted by others here, it's a matter of respect to fellow community members and I appreciate that (just as I ask others above to try to respect the community by NOT trying to police threads themselves).

I also fall in line with others that believe that some people don't try quite hard enough to NOT be disrespectful when posting TV/Movie news items with thread titles that are blatant spoilers. Items such as '{Famous lead character} to leave {famous show}' would be such an example. It isn't difficult to provide that news in a different way that helps people avoid such spoilers. For example: 'NEWS: {famous show} casting news - *spoilers*' would be a much better choice.

I can and do easily sympathize with the folks that don't want to see spoilers, but I get easily irritated when the whole issue of the untagged spoilers turns the discussion into what this thread is.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

terpfan1980 said:


> The problem you'll have, and others too, is that you seem to lump me into the group that disagree's with the rule just because I use a term like 'spoiler nazi' or 'spoiler phobe'. I use those terms because I don't much know what else to call the people that are designating themselves the moderators-for-a-day when they see an untagged spoiler slide by.


Yeah, because anti-spoiler people is such a difficult term to come up with. I'm sure there are others. I think it's pretty apparent you really like calling us anti-spoiler people nazis and crybabies.



> I still don't want some self appointed moderator-wannabe (that normally also happens to be someone that is offended when 'spoiled' information slides through) stinkin' up the threads with their own efforts at policing out the spoilers. Let the designated moderators do the work and leave the show threads uncluttered. That means don't cry about it publicly even if you feel that doing so will prevent the problem in the future. If that was truly the case we'd never have seen this discussion because the problem would long ago have been solved, no?
> 
> If the people that don't want to see spoilers want cooperation from those that are tasked with using spoiler tags, how about cooperating back just a bit and do what has been simply requested here -- let the mods do their jobs, and let the threads stay on topic. Seems fair to me despite protestations from some that if they don't point out the spoilers the problem will never be fixed.


You're mixing 2 different time frames. Historically, AFAIK, the report a post button was specifically for offensive posts and not for spoilers. Just recently JAP said to use the report a post button for spoilers.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

SeanC said:


> Yeah, because anti-spoiler people is such a difficult term to come up with. I'm sure there are others. I think it's pretty apparent you really like calling us anti-spoiler people nazis and crybabies.





Spoiler



You assume too much


----------



## Snappa77 (Feb 14, 2004)

Bierboy said:


>


msg2short


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

SeanC said:


> You're mixing 2 different time frames. Historically, AFAIK, the report a post button was specifically for offensive posts and not for spoilers. Just recently JAP said to use the report a post button for spoilers.


It wouldn't even have occurred to me to use the report button in this manner until we were encouraged to do so. I still forget most of the time anyway. When I see the button I think about spammers and trolls. I wonder how many people even know that this is the preferred approach?


----------



## Donbadabon (Mar 5, 2002)

So in a nutshell, we have two groups of people in a theater waiting to watch a movie.

One group says "If you must talk during the movie, please whisper so it doesn't disturb the rest of us".

The other group says "I don't care if I affect your experience here, I will do whatever I want. Talking doesn't bother me, so it shouldn't bother you either".


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Donbadabon said:


> So in a nutshell, we have two groups of people in a theater waiting to watch a movie.
> 
> One group says "If you must talk during the movie, please whisper so it doesn't disturb the rest of us".
> 
> The other group says "I don't care if I affect your experience here, I will do whatever I want. Talking doesn't bother me, so it shouldn't bother you either".


And the first group is divided into those who would directly ask the loudmouths to pipe down and those who would insist you find an usher to quiet them.

Personally, I almost always prefer to try the direct approach first. I've sent a fews PMs over the years with reminders. Got told to piss of a couple times, too.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Donbadabon said:


> So in a nutshell, we have two groups of people in a theater waiting to watch a movie.
> 
> One group says "If you must talk during the movie, please whisper so it doesn't disturb the rest of us".
> 
> The other group says "I don't care if I affect your experience here, I will do whatever I want. Talking doesn't bother me, so it shouldn't bother you either".


Nice try, but not nearly accurate.

More like group 1 wants to see the movie and not see any added previews at the end that would show what might come in a sequel (or even get a hint that there may be a sequel) while group 2 wants to see the movie and also wants to see the previews.

Both want to talk about the film after watching it, but one group doesn't to hear a peep about the previews while the other wants to talk about whatever they saw while spending the day in the theatre.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Donbadabon said:


> So in a nutshell, we have two groups of people in a theater waiting to watch a movie.
> 
> One group says "If you must talk during the movie, please whisper so it doesn't disturb the rest of us".
> 
> The other group says "I don't care if I affect your experience here, I will do whatever I want. Talking doesn't bother me, so it shouldn't bother you either".


More often than not it seems, that someone in the other group forgets about the rule for a minute and talks to a friend. Then someone from the first group points it out, and the two sides continue arguing through the rest of the movie. The discussion of spoilers is way more irritating to most people than the actual spoilers. Hopefully that is over now (and future spoilers will be reported to mods), and we never have to discuss these things again.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

realityboy said:


> More often than not it seems, that someone in the other group forgets about the rule for a minute and talks to a friend. Then someone from the first group points it out, and the two sides continue arguing through the rest of the movie.


I think this is fairly accurate, and I do think it's a shame to ruin a perfectly good conversation (thread) by derailing it, but sitting idly by and doing nothing was unacceptable. This is a moot point now that I'll be using report a post.



> The discussion of spoilers is way more irritating to most people than the actual spoilers.


I don't think anyone enjoys the debate, it's annoying and stupid.



> Hopefully that is over now (and future spoilers will be reported to mods), and we never have to discuss these things again.


One can hope, but I highly doubt this is the last time it is debated.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

realityboy said:


> The discussion of spoilers is way more irritating to most people than the actual spoilers. Hopefully that is over now (and future spoilers will be reported to mods), and we never have to discuss these things again.


LOL.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Speaking of going to movies, did I ever tell the story of going to see No Country For Old Men where the guy sitting next to me is talking to his wife?

She asks, "You read the book, right?"

"Yes," he responds.

"How was it?"

"It was great. At the end {complete spoiler for the movie that hasn't even started which we are about to see}"

AUGGHHH. I don't know why she didn't stab him in the eyes with her lipstick at that point. I wanted to.

That's how I feel about preview spoilers too very occasionally since they basically do the same thing when the preview creators decide to spoil something significant.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

SeanC said:


> One can hope, but I highly doubt this is the last time it is debated.


If you think that spoilers will be discussed again in the future, is that a spoiler?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

realityboy said:


> If you think that spoilers will be discussed again in the future, is that a spoiler?


Only if your source comes from a preview or an interview or magazine article or something. IF you just guess on your own, it's OK.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

How is this even a discussion? The rules are the rules. If you don't know the rules, they are pointed out to you as soon as you screw up.

I'll preface by saying that I don't care about spoilers, and I often seek them out.

I do think that some people tend to cry a bit too much about what sometimes amounts to a simple mistake.

...and I also think that others get way too defensive about making that same mistake. apologize, learn from it, and move on.

If you know the rules and you just can't bother yourself to use a tag, you're just a **** and this whole epic thread is for nothing


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

I agree with the spoiler rules in general, but the previews requiring spoilers I don't agree with.. I think that rule needs to be changed, and it seems like a lot of other people believe so as well.

Otherwise we can just all get around it by discussing what is in previews for next week as pure conjecture and guessing on our part, and that is something that does need to be spoiled.

Spoilers and previews are designed to be part of the watching experience and are provided by the show creators and network. They should not be out of bounds for a specific episode thread.


----------



## knuckles (Dec 21, 2002)

MonsterJoe said:


> How is this even a discussion? The rules are the rules. If you don't know the rules, they are pointed out to you as soon as you screw up.
> 
> I'll preface by saying that I don't care about spoilers, and I often seek them out.
> 
> ...


It's a discussion because some like the rules the way they are, and some don't. How is that not a discussion? How do you change rules, without letting someone know that you want them changed? Last time I tried to have someone read my mind, she fell asleep way before I did.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

marksman said:


> Spoilers and previews are designed to be part of the watching experience and are provided by the show creators and network. They should not be out of bounds for a specific episode thread.


The Dune sequels not written by Frank Herbert were designed to be part of the Dune experience. I don't want to read those pieces of crap either. The people who make spoiler previews are often not directly involved with the production of the show and have minimal direct contributions to the show aside from possible meddling or "notes".


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

knuckles said:


> It's a discussion because some like the rules the way they are, and some don't. How is that not a discussion? How do you change rules, without letting someone know that you want them changed? Last time I tried to have someone read my mind, she fell asleep way before I did.


Well, I meant "Why" is this a discussion...but anyway, that's not my point.

The moderators have already made it clear that they aren't interested in discussing it...so it's all just posturing and bellyaching that degrades the signal to noise ratio of an already slow (relative) forum.

We hear from all the pro and con spoiler people...but what about those of us who just want to enjoy the threads?

If you want, report posts and PM them with your wishes...and who knows, maybe if enough people do, things will change....but no reason to clutter up the forum and active threads with bellyaching. That's what HH is for.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Donbadabon said:


> For those that love to discuss previews, is it really that much of an inconvenience to spoiler-tag it?
> 
> I don't believe anyone here is saying you *can't* discuss it at all, they are just requesting that you tag it as a spoiler.
> 
> ...


I don't have a problem with the rule other than I think it unnecessary. How about since this is a time shifting forum we have all info for an episode tagged by segment. That way I might watch half of the latest law and order and be interested in what others think about the first half but I don't want the rest to be spoiled. I might not get to watch the second half for a few days, but I can get opinions and thoughts on say the opening and the first segment before the second commercial break.

The technology makes this possible and a not uncommon way for people to watch shows now, so it would not be bad to accommodate it so people can discuss the parts of a show they want to talk about and/or have already seen.

I think spoiler tags make carrying on reasonable conversation extremely clunky and akward and thus are not really an effective way of segmenting conversations. Since there is probably not enough traffic/discussion here to support seperate threads for people to discuss previews of a show it is a bit of a problem. While it is understood that people do not want to see previews, can it is also be understood that others do want to discuss previews and speculate what might be coming up next week and do it in a way that is not horribly clumsy like spoiler tags are?

I know what the rules are but perhaps they should be reviewed. If you choose not to watch spoilers, fine with that. I can't for the life of me understand how people discussing the short preview clip would provide some sort of burden or ruin enjoyment of a future episode.

To me this is not really a compromise. One side doesn't want to be spoiled, so for the most part previews don't get discussed at all because carrying on full discussions in spoiler tags is not really worthwhile.

Can we at least be allowed to tag threads in the title that allow for previews to be discussed outside of spoiler tags?


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

BitbyBlit said:


> I think a better way to handle preview spoilers than using spoiler tags is to relax the rules about starting episode-specific threads. If the next episode's thread could be started early, then all preview discussion could be there. This has the added benefit of making it easy for those who skipped the previews to read the comments once they've seen the previewed episode.


I like this idea. Let people discuss previews for next week's show. Thus allow people to open the threads a week before they air or whenever the last one was on and you don't increase more threads. This is a very good idea.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

marksman said:


> To me this is not really a compromise. One side doesn't want to be spoiled, so for the most part previews don't get discussed at all because carrying on full discussions in spoiler tags is not really worthwhile.


I disagree with the notion that they don't get discussed for that reason. People use spoiler tags often in the threads I read to discuss other aspects of the show and outside news information. Previews are rarely even worth discussing. That's probably why they don't get discussed. I also don't discuss 30 second sound bites of songs I hear on amazon when browsing albums, or the description on the back of a book.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Zevida said:


> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=420275&highlight=spoilers
> 
> 75% of responders like the rules the way they are.


In a general sense. The issue of previews is a specific part of those rules. I don't have a problem with the spoiler rules in general. I just don't think previews need to be spoilered in episode specific threads.


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

marksman said:


> I like this idea. Let people discuss previews for next week's show. Thus allow people to open the threads a week before they air or whenever the last one was on and you don't increase more threads. This is a very good idea.


I don't like this idea because sometimes it can be days before I finally watch a show and then I don't remember what day it originally aired on, what the episode number was or what the episode title is. I just go into the TV Show Talk and scroll down and see the thread for House and see it is not dotted and/or subscribed to so that must be the new thread.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Bierboy said:


> That's just total BS. It's part of the NEXT show...NOT the show that the thread is about.


Actually, I'd say it's an ADVERTISEMENT for the next show. Exactly the sort of thing most of us bought TiVos to avoid.



marksman said:


> Spoilers and previews are designed to be part of the watching experience and are provided by the show creators and network. They should not be out of bounds for a specific episode thread.


They're advertisements for the next show, designed to convince you to watch. The network doesn't care about spoiling plot points, they just want eyeballs.

I'm already planning to watch the show, I don't need to be sold, and I don't want to know the plot points until they happen. Next week.



IndyJones1023 said:


> There is no way the SxxEyy format is feasible. I'm sure most people have no clue which number the House halloween episode is.


Actually it's s6e5. And if I didn't know that off the top of my head (which I do) I'd just google "house epguides". I'm just as likely to know the ep# as I am the OAD or ep title.


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

Robin said:


> Actually it's s6e5. And if I didn't know that off the top of my head (which I do) I'd just google "house epguides". I'm just as likely to know the ep# as I am the OAD or ep title.


IMDb tends to do a good job at keeping up to date on Episode numbers and OAD.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

So does epguides.com.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

We need to suggest to the forum administrator that they put a spoiler tag making shortcut at the top of the reply box like they do with the quote making shortcut or the hyperlink shortcut.

Maybe people would be more willing to use them if they were easier to implement.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Excellent suggestion. I've looked for it there many times!


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

ferrumpneuma said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Soilent green is made of PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!


I know you were joking, but unlabeled spoilers? Worse than spoiled previews. I mean, if a spoiler isn't labeled, then how am I able to choose if I should be reading it or not?


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

StacieH said:


> I dunno. I guess since you answered your own question, you know it all. I have seen 2 series on DVD, and to be honest, I can't remember.


It was simply a rebuttal to your claim that previews are part of the episode. They are not.



> But again, previews don't bother me IN THE LEAST. In fact, I look forward to them. I get disappointed when they AREN'T shown. I just do not see the big deal of letting a spoiler slip now and then.


And as others have already said, therein lies the problem. Because you like to see the previews, you can't understand why others don't or why it is a big deal for others to not be spoiled by them (even "now and then"). Some like to be *totally* surprised when watching the next episode and prefer to know *nothing* about it. Even 8 seconds worth. Even if that 8 seconds is totally misleading. You don't feel that way, but why can't you respect that some other people do?

I recently complained about a spoiler where someone (I think) simply posted their comment in the wrong episode thread. And it's actually not that important to me to avoid spoilers. But I was thinking of the others to whom it is more important. I was hoping the person would say "oops" and remove it. But he didn't even acknowledge that it was a faux pas - he simply defended his post by saying it wasn't a "plot spoiler". 

Like macplanterguy said, it really baffles me how some of the otherwise logical people here have this blind spot.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

scooterboy said:


> And as others have already said, therein lies the problem. Because you like to see the previews, you can't understand why others don't or why it is a big deal for others to not be spoiled by them (even "now and then"). Some like to be *totally* surprised when watching the next episode and prefer to know *nothing* about it. Even 8 seconds worth. Even if that 8 seconds is totally misleading.


I think murgatroyd did a nice job of explaining why some people prefer to watch totally unspoiler in this post.

I know I have a bit of the same issue with spoilers. They cause me to watch the episode always wondering when that scene or line is going to pop up.
In my personal opinion watching a show w/ spoilers (be they from a preview or some other source) is less enjoyable that either watching for the 1st time or watching a 2nd time.

In the first watch situation if I am guessing where the stories going, it's only with the information the writer wanted me to have.

In the rewatch situation I know the whole plot, but now I can appreciate any red herring, or foreshadowing, or just character development I missed.

But in the spoiled situation I don't have either of those, and I can't help over-focusing on _how_ the spoiler will fit in and it's just less enjoyable for me that way.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Jonathan_S said:


> In the first watch situation if I am guessing where the stories going, it's only with the information the writer wanted me to have.


Exactly. I want the creative people, and not the marketing department, to be in control of the way the story is revealed to me.

I can suspend some of the knowledge that is given in promos and teasers, but that ability only goes so far.

Of course some pre-knowledge is unavoidable. If you know that in real life, an actor died while a movie was shooting, and the film people had to do some hand-waving and CGI trickery in post-production to finish one of the scenes he is in, you aren't going to get the same viewing experience as the viewer who watches the movie decades later, and for whom that information will simply be a bit of trivia.

On the other hand, if you are too busy with your real life to seek out spoiler sites and entertainment gossip, you actually may not hear that an actor is leaving a show, and so you might be able to watch a season finale where the character exits the show without knowing the exit is coming. Since most people will have heard already, you'll have a viewing experience unlike that of most other people, and may have fresh insight to bring to a discussion because of that.

Jan


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

Personally, I think there should be a SPOILER tag in the message box if they really wanted people to use SPOILERS. I think more people would use the tag if they could SEE it. I was here for quite some time before I realized you had to type out [ spoiler ] - and I think I had to ask. As it is now, it's simply NOT intuitive.

So my 2c is there really NEEDS to be a tag, like Bold or Italic or Image, for spoilers.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

sushikitten said:


> As it is now, it's simply NOT intuitive.


Nipples are intutive, all the rest of this stuff has to be learned. I suspect a lot of people are like me and always type out tags and never use the provided buttons. It's not that tough, and IMO easier than searching for the right button to click.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

macplanterguy said:


> Nipples are intutive, all the rest of this stuff has to be learned. I suspect a lot of people are like me and always type out tags and never use the provided buttons. It's not that tough, and IMO easier than searching for the right button to click.


Sounds like basic concepts relating to user interface and human-computer interaction are "stuff that has to be learned" in your case as well. Add to that the definition of the word intuitive. Though I must admit that I look forward to quoting the nipple statement here at work when anyone talks about UI.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

macplanterguy said:


> Nipples are intutive, all the rest of this stuff has to be learned. I suspect a lot of people are like me and always type out tags and never use the provided buttons. It's not that tough, and IMO easier than searching for the right button to click.


I always type out my tags, but I still think there should be a button. People who are new to vbulletin look at the buttons for the various functions and even us old folks forget the ones we use infrequently.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

Yeah, clicking the one button is definitely easier than typing out the 19 characters. It would help a great deal here if a button was added, so I started this thread in the Forum Operations sub-forum requesting it:

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=436594

Chime in with your support!


----------



## StacieH (Jan 2, 2009)

scooterboy said:


> And as others have already said, therein lies the problem. Because you like to see the previews, you can't understand why others don't or why it is a big deal for others to not be spoiled by them (even "now and then"). Some like to be *totally* surprised when watching the next episode and prefer to know *nothing* about it. Even 8 seconds worth. Even if that 8 seconds is totally misleading. You don't feel that way, but why can't you respect that some other people do?


Now Im confused. Please point out where I said I dont respect others? Point out where I said I would post spoilers. Point out spoilers I have posted. You wont be able to. In fact, I said I use spoiler tags when I probably dont need to.

Just because I dont agree with the anti-spoiler crowd, and just because I dont believe its that big of deal, doesnt mean I dont respect others' opinions about spoilers.


----------



## StacieH (Jan 2, 2009)

Fofer said:


> Yeah, clicking the one button is definitely easier than typing out the 19 characters. It would help a great deal here if a button was added, so I started this thread in the Forum Operations sub-forum requesting it:
> 
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=436594
> 
> Chime in with your support!


I'll vote for that!


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

StacieH said:


> But it's unrealistic to exclude previews of the next episode that appear in THAT episode. It's part of THAT show.
> 
> I, for one, look forward to the previews....and rarely are they what they seem.


This. 100%.

The "next week on xxxx show" is part of that week's show, and shouldn't be spoilerized.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

classicX said:


> This. 100%.
> 
> The "next week on xxxx show" is part of that week's show, and shouldn't be spoilerized.


Unfortunately, that battle was fought years ago here on TiVoCommunity, and reason lost.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Unfortunately, that battle was fought years ago here on TiVoCommunity, and reason lost.


If it's the rule then it's the rule, I don't have to agree with it.

I personally think that episode titles should be included in the thread title, when available. I hate seeing this:

FlashForward 10/29/09

Since I have DVRs and often pile up a few episodes at a time, it's easier to know if I've seen an episode if the episode title is there, since that's something I look at before beginning a program.

I find it quite annoying to have to think back if I saw a show that aired on a particular date.

If people won't follow the spoiler rule, why would the follow the thread title rule?


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

StacieH said:


> Now Im confused. Please point out where I said I dont respect others? Point out where I said I would post spoilers. Point out spoilers I have posted. You wont be able to. In fact, I said I use spoiler tags when I probably dont need to.
> 
> Just because I dont agree with the anti-spoiler crowd, and just because I dont believe its that big of deal, doesnt mean I dont respect others' opinions about spoilers.


I appreciate your willingness to use spoiler tags and that you don't post spoilers.

However, you've repeatedly posted that 'it's just not a big deal' -- which is disrespectful.

If you were at someone's house, and someone was cooking a souffle, and another guest slammed the door, thus causing the souffle to collapse, would you excuse their behavior by saying "it's just not that big a deal"?

Jan


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

StacieH said:


> Now Im confused. Please point out where I said I dont respect others? Point out where I said I would post spoilers. Point out spoilers I have posted. You wont be able to. In fact, I said I use spoiler tags when I probably dont need to.
> 
> Just because I dont agree with the anti-spoiler crowd, and just because I dont believe its that big of deal, doesnt mean I dont respect others' opinions about spoilers.





murgatroyd said:


> I appreciate your willingness to use spoiler tags and that you don't post spoilers.
> 
> However, you've repeatedly posted that 'it's just not a big deal' -- which is disrespectful.
> 
> ...


murgatroyd pretty much covered it, but I'll add:

I never said *you* had or would post spoilers, or that you didn't respect others. I asked why you couldn't respect _others' point of view_ that even "now and then" was a big deal to them. Not the same thing.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

I don't understand how not agreeing with a point of view, and simply stating that fact, is disrespectful.

Even with your souffle example, I don't see how it's disrespectful. Tactless yes, but it's just an opinion stated at perhaps the wrong time.


----------



## Jebberwocky! (Apr 16, 2005)

simply stating a fact or Flogging a dead horse?


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

Jebberwocky! said:


> simply stating a fact or Flogging a dead horse?


Not having read the whole thread, I am not sure your comment is directed at me or someone else.

If it's directed at me, I don't see your point.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

classicX said:


> Even with your souffle example, I don't see how it's disrespectful. Tactless yes, but it's just an opinion stated at perhaps the wrong time.


Being tactless *is* disrespectful. Civilized, kind human beings show respect for one another by exercising tact.

A collapsed souffle is ruined. 
A spoiled TV show is ruined.

This is very different from "stating an opinion."


----------



## Jebberwocky! (Apr 16, 2005)

classicX said:


> Not having read the whole thread, I am not sure your comment is directed at me or someone else.
> 
> If it's directed at me, I don't see your point.


no, not you specifically more everyone collectively.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

classicX said:


> I don't understand how not agreeing with a point of view, and simply stating that fact, is disrespectful.
> 
> Even with your souffle example, I don't see how it's disrespectful. Tactless yes, but it's just an opinion stated at perhaps the wrong time.


If I posted once that spoilers were not a big deal *to me*, that's one thing.

But repeated posts that spoilers are "just not a big deal", without the "to me" qualifier, sends a different message.

This is what prompted my earlier comment about people who didn't care about spoilers and who seemed to be unwilling to even consider the other point of view.

StacieH's post reminds me of the man's prayer on The Red Green show:



Spoiler



_I'm a man ... but I can change ... if I have to... I guess._



It's a statement of grudging willingness to follow the rules of the board. It's not really respecting the reason the rules were set in place.

Sometimes spoilers don't matter. Sometimes they make a huge difference. The problem is that, you can't tell which case is which _unless you've already had the spoiler-free experience_ to compare the two. And if there have been spoilers, that can't happen.

Many of the people for whom spoilers 'are not a big deal' don't seem to grok this simple problem. They don't seem willing to look at it from the POV of those of us who want a first-viewing experience.

Jan


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> ...Many of the people for whom spoilers 'are not a big deal' don't seem to grok this simple problem. They don't seem willing to look at it from the POV of those of us who want a first-viewing experience...


I'd say the opposite is true, as well. Those who want the true first-viewing experience don't seem to be willing to look at it from the POV of the other side. There are those who'd like to be free to discuss the previews without the inconvenience of having to use the spoiler tags.

The first-viewing crowd seems to be of the opinion that their wants are more important than the other side's, which is exactly what they are accusing the other side of doing.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

Fofer said:


> Being tactless *is* disrespectful. Civilized, kind human beings show respect for one another by exercising tact.
> 
> A collapsed souffle is ruined.
> A spoiled TV show is ruined.
> ...


Honestly, I don't see how.

I hope we can agree to disagree, because it's obvious that you define tact differently than I do.

Being tactless to me means that you either don't know or don't care that you have or are offending someone.

Being disrespectful means that you are doing something that overtly advertises the fact that you do not hold someone in high regard, or any regard, for that matter.

While one may be a consequence of the other, that doesn't mean they are the same thing.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

It comes down to selfishness, that's all. Plain and simple.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

classicX said:


> Being tactless to me means that you either don't know or don't care that you have or are offending someone.


Indeed, I think of it differently, from the positive side of things:

Tact is "a keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations with others or avoid offense"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tact


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

An observation:

I don't think either "side" here is failing to understand the feelings of the other; I think the issue is that there is a rule set, but to one party the breaking of this rule is inconsequential, which the other party is offended by it.

Perhaps if there were some sort of universal consequence for breaking this rule, more people would obey it.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

Fofer said:


> Indeed, I think of it differently, from the positive side of things:
> 
> Tact is "a keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations with others or avoid offense"
> 
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tact


So how is not having the keen sense being disrespectful? Like I said, they are not the same.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

classicX said:


> This. 100%.
> 
> The "next week on xxxx show" is part of that week's show, and shouldn't be spoilerized.


I take it you didn't read the post in this thread which (correctly) point out that in MOST cases the previews are not part of the show. They are usually put together by the network's marketing department and NOT the creators/writers of the show.

I will use two example just from the past week (spoilered of course) :



Spoiler



In last week's Survivor, Foa Foa lost another member at Tribal Council. Without seeing the previews, one could start to wonder if we are going to see another tribe whittled down to one person before the merge. HOWEVER, the preview clearly show the merge will take place this week. Thin the producers wanted everyone to know that Foa Foa was not going to lose another member? Even Jeff Probst's blog from last week was questioning when the merge would take place. Like he didn't know.

Two night's ago, V premiered. One of the twist revealed was that the FBI agent's partner was actually a V and she killed him. However, the previews show him in future episodes. Wasn't I supposed to think he was dead?



(FYI - Spoilers are from Survivor and V including preview spoilers)

As you can see from those examples, my thought process after the episode was clearly changed by what was shown on the previews.

And, before any asks why I watched the previews, I don't mind seeing the previews, but I completely understand why other would not want to see them and respect the need for SPOILER tags.


----------



## Jebberwocky! (Apr 16, 2005)

Can you pick other examples - I watch both shows and I don't want to see them and have my viewing experience marred


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

TriBruin said:


> I take it you didn't read the post in this thread which (correctly) point out that in MOST cases the previews are not part of the show.


You are correct, I did not read that post. In that case, I will change my point of view, and agree with the above.

It makes sense, and people seem to think that I don't understand the argument for the spoiler tags, which is completely false.

My point is, the rule is as it is written; argue for or against it as you will, but don't break the rule because you don't agree with it.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

Some perspective:

I have a friend who I love sharing movie favorites with. But he doesn't like it if I say something like, "It has a great twist ending."

Because that spoils it for him.

Because from that point forward, as he's watching the film, he's distracted, looking for hints and clues about the upcoming twist. 

(He'd prefer to watch it "clean," and be surprised by something he never saw coming. Allows him to immerse himself and enjoy the experience more.)

He has a point.

I try to respect his wishes as best I can, but sometimes I slip.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

Spoiler



just wondering, who would read an unlabelled spoiler? and were you kinda scared I'd spoil something?


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

Fofer said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> just wondering, who would read an unlabelled spoiler? and were you kinda scared I'd spoil something?





Spoiler



Yeah, I was thinking you'd reveal Luke Skywalker's father!


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

allan said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I was thinking you'd reveal Luke Skywalker's father!





Spoiler



Luke had a father? I didn't know that. Thanks for spoiling it!


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

DougF said:


> There are those who'd like to be free to discuss the previews without the inconvenience of having to use the spoiler tags.


Sure, but the "first-viewers" regard discussion of spoilers as more than merely "inconvenient".

So basically there are two scenarios:
The forums can operate according to the rules. The "first-viewers" are happy and the "spoilsports" are slightly inconvenienced.
The forums could freely discuss previews and other spoilers. The "spoilsports" are happy and the "first-viewers" won't contribute.


----------



## StacieH (Jan 2, 2009)

murgatroyd said:


> But repeated posts that spoilers are "just not a big deal", without the "to me" qualifier, sends a different message.


I guess I thought that was implied, since I was not speaking for anyone else.

My opinion is that spoilers not a big deal.

I follow the rules, but spoilers are not a big deal.....to me.

I don't get upset if someone posts a spoiler.

I would not think it direspectful if I accidentally ruined someone's souffle....but I would feel terribly about it. And I would never do it on purpose. I would feel worse if it happened to someone else than if it happened to me.

Hopefully one of those will suffice.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

DougF said:


> I'd say the opposite is true, as well. Those who want the true first-viewing experience don't seem to be willing to look at it from the POV of the other side. There are those who'd like to be free to discuss the previews without the inconvenience of having to use the spoiler tags.
> 
> The first-viewing crowd seems to be of the opinion that their wants are more important than the other side's, which is exactly what they are accusing the other side of doing.


How do you propose that to work? Two separate threads, one for those who don't want to read spoilers and one for those who don't care? Just allow spoilers and those who don't want to see them can't participate? Something else?

I think the minor inconvenience of using spoiler tags is a no brainer compared to any of the potential alternatives.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

DougF said:


> The first-viewing crowd seems to be of the opinion that their wants are more important than the other side's


And per the rules and long tradition of this board, they are.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> How do you propose that to work? Two separate threads, one for those who don't want to read spoilers and one for those who don't care? Just allow spoilers and those who don't want to see them can't participate? Something else?


If "first viewing" were very important to me, I would assume that someone would eventually slip up in the threads and leave out the spoiler tags. In that case I'd just not read or participate in the thread. Until I saw the following week's episode.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

classicX said:


> Until I saw the following week's episode.


But spoilers aren't limited to previews---someone could also post other information about what's going to happen in future upcoming episodes. How would you know when it's safe to read the episode thread?


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

Amnesia said:


> But spoilers aren't limited to previews---someone could also post other information about what's going to happen in future upcoming episodes. How would you know when it's safe to read the episode thread?


You wouldn't. You'd have to weigh the chances that someone will slip up versus your desire to remain "pure."

If it were that important, I wouldn't participate in the threads at all, and just enjoy the show as I want.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Yes, that's what I said earlier---if people were free to post spoilers in the TV show threads, then those who prefer to watch TV spoiler-free would simply stop reading the threads.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

murgatroyd said:


> ...
> 
> This is what prompted my earlier comment about people who didn't care about spoilers and *who seemed to be unwilling to even consider the other point of view.*
> ...
> ...


(emphasis mine.)

See, up to this post, I was fully on board. I understand that you are trying to explain the reasons behind YOUR need to remain spoiler-free. However, to me, the post reads that even if someone grudgingly abides by the rules, it's not enough: they have to _understand and respect the reasons, too_.

That's a bit much.

All we can do is hope to influence behaviors. Let's not get into purity of thought, too.

If a poster grudgingly follows the rules, that's enough.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> Sure, but the "first-viewers" regard discussion of spoilers as more than merely "inconvenient".
> 
> So basically there are two scenarios:
> The forums can operate according to the rules. The "first-viewers" are happy and the "spoilsports" are slightly inconvenienced.
> The forums could freely discuss previews and other spoilers. The "spoilsports" are happy and the "first-viewers" won't contribute.


I can't speak for all the spoilsports, just for myself. What I can tell you is that the spoiler stuff is one of the reasons I don't particpate in Now Playing any more than I do. I guess it is only an inconvenience, but it's enough to turn me off. I'd prefer to be free to discuss things without having to worry if I ruined someone's experience because I mentioned something in the preview.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

DougF said:


> I can't speak for all the spoilsports, just for myself. What I can tell you is that the spoiler stuff is one of the reasons I don't particpate in Now Playing any more than I do. I guess it is only an inconvenience, but it's enough to turn me off. *I'd prefer to be free to discuss things without having to worry if I ruined someone's experience because I mentioned something in the preview.*


When in doubt, use spoiler tags for ANYTHING that was not in the episode being discussed. How hard is it really? How is it an inconvenience? I mean, you know if something you mention was in the episode you just watched, right? I don't understand...


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

DougF said:


> I'd say the opposite is true, as well. Those who want the true first-viewing experience don't seem to be willing to look at it from the POV of the other side. There are those who'd like to be free to discuss the previews without the inconvenience of having to use the spoiler tags.
> 
> The first-viewing crowd seems to be of the opinion that their wants are more important than the other side's, which is exactly what they are accusing the other side of doing.


Since the forum rule is that we can't have two different threads, one with everything out in the open, and one spoiler free, using spoiler tags is a compromise position, designed to include the greatest amount of people in the discussion. It is equally sucky to both sides, those who would like to discuss anything without the bother of spoiler tags, and to those of us who might like a discussion where no one posted potential spoilers at all.

If I truly thought that my wants were more important than the people who wanted to discuss previews, I would agitate for no discussion of the previews at all.

That's not what I want. I'd like us to all be able to share in most of the discussion. For some shows, if we divided up into two separate threads, we'd never reach critical mass, and we'd have no discussions at all.

Jan


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> I think the minor inconvenience of using spoiler tags is a no brained compared to any of the potential alternatives.


The problem is it is not really a minor inconvenience. It is for all intents and purpose stifled any discussion about such things.

Most people just don't bother because it is a tedious way to carry on a conversation.

So participation on some areas of discussion about shows simply don't take place. I know I don't bother, because it is not worth the effort. Spoiler tags are not a good way to conduct an ongoing conversation in the middle of another discussion except for novelty.

I guess people could just wait to read the current episodes thread until they have seen the next week's episode. There is no good solution here. The point though, is, the current solution is not a very good one.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> I think the minor inconvenience of using spoiler tags is a no brained compared to any of the potential alternatives.


Yeah because you don't care so it is of no inconvience to you at all.

I would say allowing people to discuss previews and having those who don't want to see them wait until they see the next episode is a minor inconvenience as well. Especially since it would not impact me at all.

Since some shows have a single thread for the entire season, I don't really understand this at all.


----------



## ArnoldPrize (Nov 6, 2009)

Thanks for this thread.... Keep it up!


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

MikeCC said:


> (emphasis mine.)
> 
> See, up to this post, I was fully on board. I understand that you are trying to explain the reasons behind YOUR need to remain spoiler-free. However, to me, the post reads that even if someone grudgingly abides by the rules, it's not enough: they have to _understand and respect the reasons, too_.
> 
> ...


I see where you are coming from.

I was only referring to some of the comments in this particular thread. I wasn't demanding purity of thought across the board. 

May I use a different example? Let's say my sister-in-law has installed a new carpet, and wants people to take off their shoes inside the house so it doesn't get filthy.

If I take off my shoes, but afterwards say to her, "I don't see why you have to make a big deal about it" several times during my visit, that isn't what I call _respectful_. Isn't it more courteous to both do what she asks, and not to comment on it?

But in light of StacieH's most recent post, I withdraw my objection.

Jan


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

marksman said:


> Yeah because you don't care so it is of no inconvience to you at all.
> 
> I would say allowing people to discuss previews and having those who don't want to see them wait until they see the next episode is a minor inconvenience as well. Especially since it would not impact me at all.
> 
> Since some shows have a single thread for the entire season, I don't really understand this at all.


The single-thread per season is not a good solution for a lot of shows. In my experience, what often happens is that people get behind, so no one reads/posts, and the discussion comes to a standstill.

Jan


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

I hope we get that spoiler button so people who find using tags "inconvenient" won't have an excuse anymore.

Link smeek.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

murgatroyd said:


> The single-thread per season is not a good solution for a lot of shows. In my experience, what often happens is that people get behind, so no one reads/posts, and the discussion comes to a standstill.
> 
> Jan


I personally LOVE LOVE the single season threads. I find it difficult to keep track of the multiple episode thread especially when a general conversation about the show happens and it gets lost because of the split.

And I have seen certain shows go for weeks without a post because no one wanted to start a thread for that week but everyone wants to talk after the thread has started.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

I love NCIS, but I hate the fact that they put spoilers in the "bumpers," which are the little black and white 2 second shots between the show and the ads.


----------



## StacieH (Jan 2, 2009)

Turtleboy said:


> I love NCIS, but I hate the fact that they put spoilers in the "bumpers," which are the little black and white 2 second shots between the show and the ads.


I've noticed that, TB. But I've only seen the show once, maybe twice. From what I saw, it looked like they were shots of what had already happened, but I couldn't tell for sure.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

StacieH said:


> I've noticed that, TB. But I've only seen the show once, maybe twice. From what I saw, it looked like they were shots of what had already happened, but I couldn't tell for sure.


No, they are usually a final shot of an upcoming scene from the segment before the next commercial break.

I think NCIS:LA does this too, but theirs looks like surveillance video.


----------



## Jebberwocky! (Apr 16, 2005)

Turtleboy said:


> I love NCIS, but I hate the fact that they put spoilers in the "bumpers," which are the little black and white 2 second shots between the show and the ads.


I close my eyes until it's safe to watch - my wife thinks it's silly.

Last week they showed something that absolutely cleared up what they were working on with the frozen frame teaser - which was not really cleared up until right before the next commercial break.

I hate that.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

markz said:


> No, they are usually a final shot of an upcoming scene from the segment before the next commercial break.
> 
> I think NCIS:LA does this too, but theirs looks like surveillance video.


It's nuts! Often, characters are captured by a bad guy, or are shot, and you don't know what's going to happen. The bumpers will show the "might be dead" character alive, or will show Gibbs pointing his gun at someone. It boggles my mind why they do that! It would be like if in Empire Strikes Back, right after Darth cuts off Luke's Hand, there's a five second shot of Luke being rescued by the Falcon.


----------



## StacieH (Jan 2, 2009)

markz said:


> No, they are usually a final shot of an upcoming scene from the segment before the next commercial break.
> 
> I think NCIS:LA does this too, but theirs looks like surveillance video.


Huh. That is strange.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

marksman said:


> The problem is it is not really a minor inconvenience. It is for all intents and purpose stifled any discussion about such things.
> 
> Most people just don't bother because it is a tedious way to carry on a conversation.
> 
> ...


So, I grant you that some people find spoiler tags annoying enough that they just forgo the conversation rather than use them.

But let's remember what we're talking about here: we're talking about discussions on the 15 seconds or so of previews! You still have an entire 30-60-whatever minutes of actual episode that you _can_ discuss, with no tags needed! If the tagging is too frustrating don't use it, and don't discuss the previews. I just don't see the major inconvenience there.

After all, you can always discuss what happened in this week's previews in NEXT WEEK'S episode thread. It's not like that discussion can never happen.

So there's some percentage of people who watched the previews (obviously <100%); of those there is percentage who have something that they want to bring up on the forums regarding the previews, and of _those_ there is some percentage that hate using spoiler tags enough to never want to use them. To me, having that group of people simply refrain from discussing the previews, while still being free to discuss everything else about the episode, is far and away the more fair and reasonable solution than saying that anyone who doesn't want to see the preview spoilers should avoid reading or participating in any part of the current week's episode thread, until after the next episode airs. I'm pretty sure any objective evaluation of the situation would agree with me.

If indeed there is no good solution here, then at least I can't see any better/more equitable/more inclusive solution than the one we have.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

Turtleboy said:


> It's nuts! Often, characters are captured by a bad guy, or are shot, and you don't know what's going to happen. The bumpers will show the "might be dead" character alive, or will show Gibbs pointing his gun at someone. It boggles my mind why they do that! It would be like if in Empire Strikes Back, right after Darth cuts off Luke's Hand, there's a five second shot of Luke being rescued by the Falcon.


Spoilers!



Spoiler



Dr. Sam Beckett never returned home


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

ArnoldPrize said:


> Thanks for this thread.... Keep it up!


Is it a spoiler if I say I think I smell spam coming up in about four posts?


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

marksman said:


> I would say allowing people to discuss previews and having those who don't want to see them wait until they see the next episode is a minor inconvenience as well. Especially since it would not impact me at all.


Why do you keep talking about discussing previews? Do you have a desire to discuss these in depth regularly? They are 5-10 second blips of information generated by marketers to market a future episode. I don't understand why anyone would complain about the spoiler rules solely because of previews. They aren't worth discussing to the degree you keep claiming. There is no great travesty of justice occurring here - they are previews, not entire episodes.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

murgatroyd said:


> May I use a different example? Let's say my sister-in-law has installed a new carpet, and wants people to take off their shoes inside the house so it doesn't get filthy.
> 
> If I take off my shoes, but afterwards say to her, "I don't see why you have to make a big deal about it" several times during my visit, that isn't what I call _respectful_. Isn't it more courteous to both do what she asks, and not to comment on it?


It would be more courteous to not comment, but in your example I don't find it disrespectful, unless you continued to say why you don't think it's a big deal AFTER your sister asked you not to do so.

It would be disrespectful to say tell her that she stupid for having such a rule. Simply stating that you don't understand why her rule exists (which is what you're really say by "I don't see why you have to make a big deal about it"), is just stating an opinion.

I still don't see how voicing an opinion is disrespectful, unless you were specifically asked not to voice your opinion.

For instance, if I say "you're not doing a very good job of explaining your point of view," there is no disrespect meant, and none should be taken, although I can't say that none would be taken.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

classicX said:


> This. 100%.
> 
> The "next week on xxxx show" is part of that week's show, and shouldn't be spoilerized.





Rob Helmerichs said:


> Unfortunately, that battle was fought years ago here on TiVoCommunity, and reason lost.


And if the previews were put together by the creators of the show and *not* the network marketing department, you'd have a case.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> It's nuts! Often, characters are captured by a bad guy, or are shot, and you don't know what's going to happen. The bumpers will show the "might be dead" character alive, or will show Gibbs pointing his gun at someone. It boggles my mind why they do that! It would be like if in Empire Strikes Back, right after Darth cuts off Luke's Hand, there's a five second shot of Luke being rescued by the Falcon.


"Dallas" did this for a while, but even worse, they did a recap before the opening credits of each episode, where they showed what was going to happen in the episode that was just about to start. It was really, really annoying.

BSG also did this to a small degree, but it was such quick edits that it was hard to tell what was happening anyway. I usually skipped it though.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

classicX said:


> For instance, if I say "you're not doing a very good job of explaining your point of view," there is no disrespect meant, and none should be taken, although I can't say that none would be taken.




Jan


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

JYoung said:


> And if the previews were put together by the creators of the show and *not* the network marketing department, you'd have a case.


I've already changed my point of view in a previous post.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> I love NCIS, but I hate the fact that they put spoilers in the "bumpers," which are the little black and white 2 second shots between the show and the ads.


Since they come with a photo-flash sound effect, if you're watching live, you can avoid them by not looking at the screen until after the flash noise. FFing, you can try to skip past the B&W part.

Over the years I've gotten used to them -- but of course I can see how they are hugely annoying if you can't help thinking about how they are going to arrive at the end-scene.

Why do they do it? I suspect it is to keep people from trimming off the ends of the segments when the show is run in syndication. All NCIS fans will know that the show segments have black and white bookends, and if they are missing, the show has been mucked with.

As self-spoilers go, I find them much less annoying than the "here's what will be coming up in the next segment" teasers which some shows like to use.

Jan


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

classicX said:


> I've already changed my point of view in a previous post.


I apologize for that but I was responding more to Rob.
Your post was included for context.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

MickeS said:


> BSG also did this to a small degree, but it was such quick edits that it was hard to tell what was happening anyway. I usually skipped it though.


That goes back to the 1960's Mission: Impossible TV series.

Of course, those were crafted by the creators of the show to pique the viewers interest.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

JYoung said:


> That goes back to the 1960's Mission: Impossible TV series.
> 
> Of course, those were crafted by the creators of the show to pique the viewers interest.


When I watched BSG I always skipped that part. Ridiculous.

Project Runway I think does a similar thing where they show snippets of what is coming up. I'm watching your show, you don't have to push so hard!


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

billypritchard said:


> Project Runway I think does a similar thing where they show snippets of what is coming up. I'm watching your show, you don't have to push so hard!


Every "reality" show I've watched has had the "coming up" bits before every commercial break. It gets really annoying, especially when they show the same bit over and over again before each break, and it comes at the end of the episode. And of course, it usually is never as exciting as it seems in the preview.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

zalusky said:


> I personally LOVE LOVE the single season threads. I find it difficult to keep track of the multiple episode thread especially when a general conversation about the show happens and it gets lost because of the split.
> 
> And I have seen certain shows go for weeks without a post because no one wanted to start a thread for that week but everyone wants to talk after the thread has started.


Depends on the show. Some shows don't have huge reveals week after week, and a single thread can cover "the news" quite easily. And it's a good way to keep conversation alive, especially when the just shown episode prolly didn't deserve its own thread. There are a bunch of cable shows that could fall into this group. But shows that tend to have huge plot developments each week just scream for their own episode thread (LOST, FF, Fringe, etc).

One type of thread that bugs me (and this is only incidental to spoiler problems) is when someone has started a "before the show airs info-type" thread. And then after the first episode, everyone uses that same thread to discuss that ep. Not a big deal, just annoying.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

Well, whaddaya know?

We've moved mountains, people.



Spoiler



Now it's super easy to create spoilerized text... and view it too.


----------



## Jebberwocky! (Apr 16, 2005)

Spoiler



so pigs do fly?



Thanks to whoever's responsible :up:


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

That button's too hard for me to use.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

Spoiler



Wow, now I can shout to the heavens that that 9 year old boy in Phantom Menace becomes Darth Vader!


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Hooray!! Love this new feature.



Spoiler



it was the sled!!


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Thanks, Fofer, and admins!


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 17, 1999)

Spoiler



I'm convinced that all the people who preferred not using them before will use them all the time now.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

Spoiler



This is awesome. Thanks mods!


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

Mike Lang said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I'm convinced that all the people who preferred not using them before will use them all the time now.


Your "optimism" is noted. 

At least now, though, one subset of those people can be told more easily how to use the feature. Explaining how to type the


Spoiler



tag wasn't always easy.

Baby steps.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

Spoiler



I am going to use them for all my posts now.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Bummer, now I can't do a Select-All and view all the spoiler text on a whole page any longer.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

TAsunder said:


> Thanks, Fofer, and admins!


Yep, very happy with this, for a reason that hasn't been mentioned in the thread I think... when using the TC mobile skin (as I do on my phone most of the time) the spoilers were not hidden with the old spoiler tag. Now they are! Yay.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

macplanterguy said:


> Bummer, now I can't do a Select-All and view all the spoiler text on a whole page any longer.





Spoiler



You just can't please some people.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> It would be like if in Empire Strikes Back, right after Darth cuts off Luke's Hand, there's a five second shot of Luke being rescued by the Falcon.


Luke gets rescued? I did NOT know that! 

I am liking the new spoiler button though!


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

steve614 said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> You just can't please some people.





Spoiler



I was pleased before. I'm glad the non-typers got their button, but the other change is a step backward.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

macplanterguy said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I was pleased before. I'm glad the non-typers got their button, but the other change is a step backward.


You seriously highlighted all the text on a page just so you could read any spoilers without having to select the specific text only? I assumed you were joking.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

So did I.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Wow, this site looks terrible when I hit control+a. I wish to nominate macplanterguy for a medal if he is able to do this regularly.


----------



## Jebberwocky! (Apr 16, 2005)

MickeS said:


> I assumed you were joking.


that would be the logical assumption - which goes to show that you can never account for everyone's taste's


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I'm just glad there's now a way to read the spoiler text on my iPhone without having to hit "quote" and load a new page.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

Great work.

But does it work on my iPhone? (I'll let you know when I can test it out.)


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

classicX said:


> Great work.
> 
> But does it work on my iPhone? (I'll let you know when I can test it out.)


From reading the post directly preceding yours, I am assuming it does.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

markz said:


> From reading the post directly preceding yours, I am assuming it does.


Actually I just assumed that it does, but I haven't tested it either.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

allan said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, now I can shout to the heavens that that 9 year old boy in Phantom Menace becomes Darth Vader!


You couldn't do that before?


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

markz said:


> From reading the post directly preceding yours, I am assuming it does.


Just because my post is 15 minutes later than his doesn't mean I didn't have the page loaded first and just typed my response.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

MickeS said:


> You seriously highlighted all the text on a page just so you could read any spoilers without having to select the specific text only? I assumed you were joking.


Not often, but on a page with a lot of spoiler text, yes.

I'm not complaining. On balance it's a worthy upgrade and it will make life easier reading from the iPhone.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Thank you Fofer and Peter for making it happen so quickly!


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

classicX said:


> Just because my post is 15 minutes later than his doesn't mean I didn't have the page loaded first and just typed my response.


True, that has happened to me.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

astrohip said:


> Depends on the show. Some shows don't have huge reveals week after week, and a single thread can cover "the news" quite easily. And it's a good way to keep conversation alive, especially when the just shown episode prolly didn't deserve its own thread. There are a bunch of cable shows that could fall into this group. But shows that tend to have huge plot developments each week just scream for their own episode thread (LOST, FF, Fringe, etc).
> 
> One type of thread that bugs me (and this is only incidental to spoiler problems) is when someone has started a "before the show airs info-type" thread. And then after the first episode, everyone uses that same thread to discuss that ep. Not a big deal, just annoying.


Well DWTS is an example where the reveal is who gets booted off and last season people were not creating the weekly threads and this season somebody created a full season thread and it seems to be surviving. I suppose it could be a reflection of the slipping ratings The shows you have mentioned also have continuing plot developments that don't like being fragmented. IE a conversation starts about something in the plot and then we have to start a new thread for the following episode and that conversation essentially gets fragmented and many times lost(pun) though the plot point has continued. This does not happen in single season threads.

Now some shows are more stand alone in nature such as comedies or the COP dramas and as a result are fragmented in nature.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Fofer said:


> Some perspective:
> 
> I have a friend who I love sharing movie favorites with. But he doesn't like it if I say something like, "It has a great twist ending."
> 
> Because that spoils it for him.


I do the same thing! I'm not militant about it, but when I watch movies like The Sixth Sense it's completely different when you know to be on the lookout for a twist. I prefer not to know because then I'm more likely to be surprised.

(And yes, I'm sure I just ruined Sixth Sense for somebody. ha ha.)


----------

