# Just what we need: another spoiler debate



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

This one is comics-related. There are a LOT of comic book related shows on the air right now. What should the spoiler guidelines be for information from the comics that isn't revealed on the show? It seems week after week after week in the threads on shows like The Flash, Arrow, Gotham, etc., there's discussion about the backstory of various characters that hasn't been revealed in the show yet, or how a certain plot differs from the storyline of the comics, or how a certain character is different from his/her portrayal in the comics. 

If we follow the spoiler guidelines for the forum to the letter, no information from external sources is allowed. I've seen threads for shows like Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead that have separate threads for people who want to discuss the source material along with the shows. Should we follow suit with other comic book based shows?


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

You're certainly correct that a LOT of spoilers are being posted for non-comic book readers. I've noticed, but decided i don't care because, well, they're comic books.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

heySkippy said:


> You're certainly correct that a LOT of spoilers are being posted for non-comic book readers. I've noticed, but decided i don't care because, well, they're comic books.


I'm in this boat.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

I stopped reading the Gotham threads because of all the comic book discussion.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

heySkippy said:


> You're certainly correct that a LOT of spoilers are being posted for non-comic book readers. I've noticed, but decided i don't care because, well, they're comic books.


I'm not in this boat. The source being comic books has nothing to do with anything, for me. Even if I'm NEVER going to read the source material, if it's a show I'm watching and someone posts information from the source upon which the show is based, to me that's an unwanted spoiler and pretty inconsiderate to the viewer of the show. For example, right now in one of the Daredevil threads there's a discussion about the backstory of one of the main characters. The character's backstory hasn't been developed yet in Season One, but some groundwork arguably has been laid for next season or beyond. The thread right now is replete with discussion not only of that character's background but also of some significant actions they (in the comics) take in the future. I'm not concerned that the commentators on the thread are spoiling the comic for me (though they are doing that, too), but I'm a bit perturbed that they are spoiling the show. There's no exception to the spoiler rules that says "information from outside sources is a spoiler, unless the source is a comic book." I think common courtesy would be to spoilerize those types of posts. Or, title the threads with "***source material spoiler discussion okay***" or something along those lines and then have at it.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

heyskippy said:


> you're certainly correct that a lot of spoilers are being posted for non-comic book readers. I've noticed, but decided *i don't care because, well, they're comic books*.


+1


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

danterner said:


> I'm not in this boat. The source being comic books has nothing to do with anything, for me. Even if I'm NEVER going to read the source material, if it's a show I'm watching and someone posts information from the source upon which the show is based, to me that's an unwanted spoiler and pretty inconsiderate to the viewer of the show. For example, right now in one of the Daredevil threads there's a discussion about the backstory of one of the main characters. The character's backstory hasn't been developed yet in Season One, but some groundwork arguably has been laid for next season or beyond. The thread right now is replete with discussion not only of that character's background but also of some significant actions they (in the comics) take in the future. I'm not concerned that the commentators on the thread are spoiling the comic for me (though they are doing that, too), but I'm a bit perturbed that they are spoiling the show. There's no exception to the spoiler rules that says "information from outside sources is a spoiler, unless the source is a comic book." I think common courtesy would be to spoilerize those types of posts. Or, title the threads with "***source material spoiler discussion okay***" or something along those lines and then have at it.


I'm with Dan on it. The source comic books are no different than the source novels, and neither should be discussed in the episode threads.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

I'm with Dan as well, and have the same reaction to the spoilers in the Daredevil threads. I think those are very significant spoilers, because it seems clear that the character's backstory will come up in the future (they've been laying the groundwork). It sucks, really.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

I don't disagree, it's not right regardless of the source and I certainly wouldn't blame anyone for griping. Y'all should speak up, especially in the case of the Daredevil threads. I would be on your side, even while it doesn't have a big affect on me.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

Yup. An external source is an external source. The fact that it's a comic book shouldn't make any difference.


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

I see points to both approaches. However, surely there must be some statute of limitations to source material? In the example of Daredevil, the comics developments in question were published nearly thirty years ago.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Drewster said:


> I see points to both approaches. However, surely there must be some statute of limitations to source material? In the example of Daredevil, the comics developments in question were published nearly thirty years ago.


True, but the show is currently airing. It draws from the comic books, but knowing the comic lore is not a prerequisite to watching the show.

If I went to go see "The War of The Worlds," in the movie theater, having never read the book or heard about the storyline, and the people in the row in front of me are chatting with each other before the movie starts about how the alien invasion is resolved in the original, I'd be upset. It doesn't matter that the source was published in 1898: the movie is new and doesn't depend upon familiarity with the source material. Knowing the source material detracts from the experience of seeing the new movie and figuring it out for yourself as you watch. Whether the new movie ends the same way as the original (or whether it is any good, for that matter) is ultimately irrelevant. What's important is being considerate to others.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

Drewster said:


> I see points to both approaches. However, surely there must be some statute of limitations to source material? In the example of Daredevil, the comics developments in question were published nearly thirty years ago.


I tend to agree with this. The source material has been out in the open for years and years, so that should be fair game. It is just as likely the show may follow a slightly different path, anyway.

To gripe about info that has been public for years strikes me like the movie goer who got upset when standing in line to watch _Titanic _and was pissed when he overhead a fellow patron mention the ship sank.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

MikeCC said:


> I tend to agree with this. The source material has been out in the open for years and years, so that should be fair game. It is just as likely the show may follow a slightly different path, anyway.
> 
> To gripe about info that has been public for years strikes me like the movie goer who got upset when standing in line to watch _Titanic _and was pissed when he overhead a fellow patron mention the ship sank.


Funny that we landed at the same analogy at the same time, but from two different sides. I personally see where the Titanic viewer was coming from.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

I'll give a pass if it's practically common knowledge. Few people don't know the below:



Spoiler



Darth Vader is Luke's father.



But generally, they should use spoilers, IMO.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

I do agree that comic spoilers should probably not be allowed. I know that I may have been guilty of this before, but I do try to limit them. The good thing is that there will be very few plot spoilers as generally the shows follow completely different stories. It would be like watchers of Elementary discussing the original Sherlock Holmes books. 

On a semi-related note, I wish news outlets treated spoilers for comic books the same as movies or TV shows. Often the headline will be s spoiler for a book that came out that day, or they'll run the headline the day before the book comes out.

Edit: I don't agree with the comparison to Game of Thrones, War of the Worlds, etc. Those are based on the books. There is no single book that Daredevil is adapting. It's telling a new story with existing characters.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

I agree: treat it just like GoT. If you want to discuss the books, too, then do it in a separate thread.

It's not about spoiling the comic book, it's about spoilers for the show.



Drewster said:


> I see points to both approaches. However, surely there must be some statute of limitations to source material? In the example of Daredevil, the comics developments in question were published nearly thirty years ago.


So, what?

The movie 10 Things I Hate About You is based on The Taming of the Shrew. Just because the source material is 400 years old doesn't mean it would be appropriate to go into a *spoiler free* discussion of the movie and post about how TotS ends.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Drewster said:


> I see points to both approaches. However, surely there must be some statute of limitations to source material? In the example of Daredevil, the comics developments in question were published nearly thirty years ago.


 I would give a pass to things which are clearly in the culture. The Allies won WWII, JFK was assassinated, Superman is an alien from another planet, the moon landing was successful, etc.

But I really disagree this applies to this situation: it may have been published a long time ago but these backstories and plotlines are in no way generally known: Daredevil is not an "A-list" superhero and I'd say very few people could even name any character from the comic.



realityboy said:


> I do agree that comic spoilers should probably not be allowed. I know that I may have been guilty of this before, but I do try to limit them. The good thing is that there will be very few plot spoilers as generally the shows follow completely different stories. It would be like watchers of Elementary discussing the original Sherlock Holmes books.
> 
> Edit: I don't agree with the comparison to Game of Thrones, War of the Worlds, etc. Those are based on the books. There is no single book that Daredevil is adapting. It's telling a new story with existing characters.


 I think that this is too simple. The particular plot may be new but It's clear that they are taking much of the backstory of all the characters from the comics. So, discussing those backstories, which we can expect to come into play in future episodes, is definitely a spoiler IMO.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

I never understood the extreme sensitivity as to what is considered a "spoiler". I get the general concept but, really, is a show actually spoiled if someone mentions something which wasn't already shown in an episode?

Actual spoilers are revealing plot twists (e.g., she's actually a dude; he was actually dead from the start; the food is people; etc.), but saying that an actor signed on to the series, or the preview had a 1/2 second clip of people sitting at a desk, or what you think is going to happen ... does that actually spoil your personal viewing of the show? Can you not turn off your mind for a few moments to get into a show without echoes of a passing comment from a forum on the internet?  

You wouldn't be able to watch "Armageddon" because the title spoils something about the plot. "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"? Well now I already know that body snatchers will invade whatever peaceful world we see at the start of the movie! "Texas Chainsaw Murders"? The movie begins with sexy teenagers having fun. Then you realize that they're in Texas and you just know what's going to happen to them, and with what specific odd implement (of all things). Thanks Obama!


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

getreal said:


> I never understood the extreme sensitivity as to what is considered a "spoiler". I get the general concept but, really, is a show actually spoiled if someone mentions something which wasn't already shown in an episode?
> 
> Actual spoilers are revealing plot twists (e.g., she's actually a dude; he was actually dead from the start; the food is people; etc.), but saying that an actor signed on to the series, or the preview had a 1/2 second clip of people sitting at a desk, or what you think is going to happen ... does that actually spoil your personal viewing of the show? Can you not turn off your mind for a few moments to get into a show without echoes of a passing comment from a forum on the internet?
> 
> You wouldn't be able to watch "Armageddon" because the title spoils something about the plot. "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"? Well now I already know that body snatchers will invade whatever peaceful world we see at the start of the movie! "Texas Chainsaw Murders"? The movie begins with sexy teenagers having fun. Then you realize that they're in Texas and you just know what's going to happen to them, and with what specific odd implement (of all things). Thanks Obama!


They've actually done a scientific study on spoilers. I'm sure many here would disagree with their findings though.

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/archive/newsrel/soc/2011_08spoilers.asp


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

madscientist said:


> I think that this is too simple. The particular plot may be new but It's clear that they are taking much of the backstory of all the characters from the comics. So, discussing those backstories, which we can expect to come into play in future episodes, is definitely a spoiler IMO.


I agreed that it shouldn't be allowed. I was just pointing out that it would generally only offer character spoilers as opposed to plot spoilers, and even with those, there's no way to know which particular parts of their backstory may be used. These are 50+ year old characters so there are lots of stories to pull from.

Also, the same rule should probably apply to movies. Quoting Catwoman's origin from Batman Returns is equally as spoilery as talking about any of her comic book origins.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

madscientist said:


> I think that this is too simple. The particular plot may be new but It's clear that they are taking much of the backstory of all the characters from the comics. So, discussing those backstories, *which we can expect to come into play in future episodes*, is definitely a spoiler IMO.


Maybe, but there is no way we can know that for sure. Many comic book characters have multiple background stories based on who the author of a given story is. Some things they may keep and others they may throw out. The Daisy character on Agents of SHIELD is completely different than any comic book version of her we have had. Who knows where they will take her. Discussing what stories she has had in the comics really isn't a spoiler for the TV show because they are essentially different characters in different stories.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

getreal said:


> I never understood the extreme sensitivity as to what is considered a "spoiler". I get the general concept but, really, is a show actually spoiled if someone mentions something which wasn't already shown in an episode?


 That depends on what the "something" is, clearly. That's why the rules are there, so we don't have to rely on each person's personal opinion of what is or isn't a spoiler. The rules are restrictive, in one way, to try to accommodate the largest number of viewers. But really, no one is saying you can't post whatever you like... is it really _so_ difficult to add spoiler tags?



getreal said:


> Actual spoilers are revealing plot twists (e.g., she's actually a dude; he was actually dead from the start; the food is people; etc.), but saying that an actor signed on to the series, or the preview had a 1/2 second clip of people sitting at a desk, or what you think is going to happen ... does that actually spoil your personal viewing of the show?


 Actors signing on to series don't bother me personally (but, it's not about what bothers me, or you... see above). Actors who are _leaving_ a series is more concerning.

I've never seen a preview that contains just "a 1/2 second clip of people sitting at a desk": the entire point of a preview is to get you to tune in next week. They often do that by teasing you with juicy parts of the upcoming episode, to get people talking about it. Some people don't want to see that.

As for "what you think is going to happen", I've seen comments like this before but I've never figured out where the idea comes from that these are spoilers. I've been around here a long time and I can't remember _ever_ seeing anyone's (uneducated) guesses called spoilers... and rightly so because clearly they're not.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

getreal said:


> I never understood the extreme sensitivity as to what is considered a "spoiler". I get the general concept but, really, is a show actually spoiled if someone mentions something which wasn't already shown in an episode?


I'm with you, brother. But that battle was fought and lost in the early days of TCF. We just have to live with it.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

The rule does seem to be a little vague. For example:

Avengers comic spoiler for Age of Ultron:



Spoiler



Is mentioning that Wanda Maximoff is Scarlet Witch a spoiler? I don't think this is a fact that is well-known without Avengers comics knowledge, but I've seen it mentioned here & elsewhere without spoiler warnings.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

madscientist said:


> But I really disagree this applies to this situation: it may have been published a long time ago but these backstories and plotlines are in no way generally known: Daredevil is not an "A-list" superhero and I'd say very few people could even name any character from the comic.


*raises hand*

The sum total of my knowledge (outside of the few episodes of the current series that I've watched) is that Ben Affleck was in a crappy Daredevil movie. I think.



getreal said:


> I never understood the extreme sensitivity as to what is considered a "spoiler". I get the general concept but, really, is a show actually spoiled if someone mentions something which wasn't already shown in an episode?


"Spoiled" as in "now there's no point in watching"? Of course not. But is my enjoyment lessened by knowing what's coming? Personally, yes. I'm currently sulking over a spoiler for Overlander that was in my local paper this weekend.

Is that the case for everyone? No, of course not. Plenty of people read reviews, watch previews, etc. There are hundreds of forums where you can discuss TV shows and "spoil" away. But this particular forum has strict spoiler rules. If you want to participate here you have to follow them.



madscientist said:


> As for "what you think is going to happen", I've seen comments like this before but I've never figured out where the idea comes from that these are spoilers. I've been around here a long time and I can't remember _ever_ seeing anyone's (uneducated) guesses called spoilers... and rightly so because clearly they're not.


Agreed.

There's nothing wrong with "what you think is going to happen".



Azlen said:


> They've actually done a scientific study on spoilers. I'm sure many here would disagree with their findings though.
> 
> http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/archive/newsrel/soc/2011_08spoilers.asp


That doesn't contradict my theory that some people prefer spoilers and some don't. On the whole they preferred them. That doesn't mean that every single person did.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

I suspect a fair number of viewers have also read the comics. Comparing the development of the characters in the show with the comics makes too much sense.

It's up to a moderator to decide if this is general knowledge or if these kinds of discussions need to be done in a separate thread, tagged to permit comic book discussions.

I don't know how many viewers are also comic book fans. You might win the battle and lose the war if most of the talk occurs in threads which speifically allow such dissucssions.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Why would it be up to the moderators when it's unambiguously spelled out in the rules?


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

heySkippy said:


> Why would it be up to the moderators when it's unambiguously spelled out in the rules?


Is it though? There's no rules about discussing source material that may or may not become relevant in the future.


----------



## Shakhari (Jan 2, 2005)

Spoilers are the third rail of this forum ... if you touch them, you die


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Azlen said:


> Maybe, but there is no way we can know that for sure. Many comic book characters have multiple background stories based on who the author of a given story is. Some things they may keep and others they may throw out. The Daisy character on Agents of SHIELD is completely different than any comic book version of her we have had. Who knows where they will take her. Discussing what stories she has had in the comics really isn't a spoiler for the TV show because they are essentially different characters in different stories.


It's a big problem in that the writers and producers aren't slavishly beholden to the source material so even if it's in the comics, that doesn't mean it will be the same in the movies and TV shows.

Prime example is in Age of Ultron,it's known that Tony Stark


Spoiler



created Ultron.


But in the comics, it was Hank Pym


Spoiler



who will appear in the upcoming Ant Man movie


.

A lot of times, our talking about the comic versions of these characters is no more than speculation about where the writers plan to take the characters.

Now, I do try to put the big stuff in spoiler tags.
For example, anyone who's read the Guardians of the Galaxy comic book knows who Peter (Star-Lord) Quill's father is.

Even though they've stated that won't be the case in the movies, I'll still put it in spoiler tags because they made a big deal about it in the movie.

But is it a spoiler for the movies if I say that Peter Quill in the comics is hooking up with


Spoiler



Kitty Pryde of the X-Men


?

Because we know that's not going to happen in the movies anytime soon.

As for the Daredevil thread, I'm sorry that the discussion went that way because the original intent was a knock on the writer who did that development.

But just because a character did said action in the comics doesn't mean they'll do it in the TV show whereas in Game of Thrones you know from the Song of Fire and Ice books that


Spoiler



Ned Stark got his head chopped off and the Red Wedding happened


.


----------



## pendragn (Jan 21, 2001)

allan said:


> I'll give a pass if it's practically common knowledge. Few people don't know the below:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Funny you should mention that. I showed that movie to my 5 and 7 year old daughters this weekend. When that particular fact was revealed my 7 year old was totally shocked. The wonder in her eyes was amazing. Now, she's probably not reading TCF much  but there are still people that would have even 35 year old movies spoiled by facts like this.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

I'm still not really getting the distinction between comics and books. Show runners change things from the source material when it comes from books, too. GoT routinely leaves out characters and entire plotlines. From my understanding (I've never read the books), they create varying plotlines as well. 

This differs from comics how?


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

David Platt said:


> I'm still not really getting the distinction between comics and books. Show runners change things from the source material when it comes from books, too. GoT routinely leaves out characters and entire plotlines. From my understanding (I've never read the books), they create varying plotlines as well.
> 
> This differs from comics how?


With books, they're generally adapting the same story. They may change things, but it's following the same outline. With comics, there is no one story being adapted. They're telling a new story with existing characters.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

The funny thing about the comic book TV shows is that the comics may or may not be spoilers, but for the people who read the comics, it makes the show that much more interesting, and that much better. But for those that don't read the comics, that comic book knowledge seems to take away from the experience. For instance, in Agents of Shield, I had no clue who the Daisy character was, and I was kind of bummed that a big light bulb didn't go off over my head when they revealed her real name, like it did with some others here.

As for the speculation of that Daredevil character, we know the character did something significant, and something not on the up an up. My comic book knowledge allowed me to make an educated guess, but I have no real knowledge. Is it really a spoiler to guess where they are going with a character?

And look at Gotham. That show is all about spoilers. I'll spoil this just in case:


Spoiler



Oswald Cobbelpot is the Penguin. Selina becomes Catwoman. Edward Nigma becomes the Riddler. And that rich kid becomes Batman. And Jim Gordon becomes commissioner.


 But those are such common knowledge tidbits, are they really spoilers?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

realityboy said:


> With books, they're generally adapting the same story. They may change things, but it's following the same outline. With comics, there is no one story being adapted. They're telling a new story with existing characters.


One could argue, though, that Daredevil the comic book is a continuous story that started in 1964 and will never end, which is now being adapted as a TV show.

And you can bet that the official approach to spoilers here will always be the most restrictive. Whatever we feel about that, it is what it is.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

David Platt said:


> I'm still not really getting the distinction between comics and books. Show runners change things from the source material when it comes from books, too. GoT routinely leaves out characters and entire plotlines. From my understanding (I've never read the books), they create varying plotlines as well.
> 
> This differs from comics how?


It doesn't, not as far as the rules and traditions of this form are concerned.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Philosofy said:


> But those are such common knowledge tidbits, are they really spoilers?


I would say that yes, they are spoilers.

No one is saying knowing/discussing the stuff in books/comics is bad, just keep it to a separate thread.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Depends on the show and the comic book. I'm much less concerned when someone posts interesting backstory stuff or speculation about Agents of SHIELD than I am when it comes to Walking Dead. The Marvel universe is much more broad and full of divergent stories about the same characters, and much harder to keep track of than a single character's story. I generally appreciate the background info, speculation, and names/information on that show, because I can't keep track of everything in the comics and knowing what to look up and find out more about is helpful.

Other shows, like Walking Dead, I would much prefer to have a narrow set of knowledge. It's not a vast universe of multiple comic series over decades and decades and it's not as much of a speculative nature about how they are going to frame certain characters and known developments.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

realityboy said:


> With books, they're generally adapting the same story. They may change things, but it's following the same outline. With comics, there is no one story being adapted. They're telling a new story with existing characters.


That doesn't mean people should feel free to say "looking forward to character X becoming superhero/villain Y" because something in the episode gave a hint that only readers would pick up on.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Gotham is an interesting example. I don't read comic books. But I've seen the Batman movies. And I've seen the campy Adam West TV series. And I've seen some of the characters in the old Saturday morning cartoons. Even within those realms, the characters differ. Within the movies, there are differences. Reboots. I don't read the comic books, but from the discussions I read, there can be a lot of discrepancies and variations on character origin and what not in the comic books over the many decades that they have been published.


For "Gotham", I guess I don't care. And really, even if I learn something new about a character that I have not seen or remember and previous stuff (movies, TV, cartoons) and it does "spoil" Gotham, I am not sure I even care about that.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> One could argue, though, that Daredevil the comic book is a continuous story that started in 1964 and will never end, which is now being adapted as a TV show.
> 
> And you can bet that the official approach to spoilers here will always be the most restrictive. Whatever we feel about that, it is what it is.


One could argue that, but that doesn't make it true. There's been 4 volumes of the Daredevil comic, plus numerous other Daredevil stories. No one here knows which bits and pieces of each story might make it onto the show. The only option is to disallow any comic book spoilers & speculation from those with comic book knowledge.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

cherry ghost said:


> That doesn't mean people should feel free to say "looking forward to character X becoming superhero/villain Y" because something in the episode gave a hint that only readers would pick up on.


I agreed in my original post that there very well could be characters spoilers, and that those should be disallowed, but prole really don't need to worry about plot spoilers as most shows are not adapting specific stories.

Although in certain shows, it seems that the writers are counting on the audience having knowledge not presented in the show/movie.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

cherry ghost said:


> That doesn't mean people should feel free to say "looking forward to character X becoming superhero/villain Y" because something in the episode gave a hint that only readers would pick up on.


Again, that doesn't mean that they will.

I do try to put big stuff in spoiler but in Arrow, when


Spoiler



Tommy Merlyn


 shows up, I did post in spoiler tags about the fact that in the comics, that character becomes a supervillain. But as the show progressed, that didn't happen.
So all I really posted was speculation.

So are we saying that speculation shouldn't be allowed in episode discussion threads?

If at the end of an episode of NCIS, Gibbs and a couple of other characters are tied to chairs in a room where a bomb is set to explode by countdown timer, are we not allowed to speculate in the open about how they could get out of it?


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

realityboy said:


> One could argue that, but that doesn't make it true. There's been 4 volumes of the Daredevil comic, plus numerous other Daredevil stories. No one here knows which bits and pieces of each story might make it onto the show. The only option is to disallow any comic book spoilers & speculation from those with comic book knowledge.


I see other options:

1. Have the spoiler discussion and speculation from those with comic book knowledge, but if that discussion and speculation is in a thread that hasn't been tagged as a spoiler thread, spoilerize the discussion/speculation comments.

2. Have open non-spoilerized spoiler discussion and speculation from those with comic book knowledge in a thread that has been tagged for comic-related spoilers.

Isn't that what we are already supposed to do with knowledge that comes from third party sources, anyway?



JYoung said:


> If at the end of an episode of NCIS, Gibbs and a couple of other characters are tied to chairs in a room where a bomb is set to explode by countdown timer, are we not allowed to speculate in the open about how they could get out of it?


Speculation is and has been fine under the forum rules. But if you speculate that they will get out of it by using a fire extinguisher to freeze the bomb, because that's what happened in the NCIS comic book you read which had a similar scene, then I'd say your speculation has crossed the line into spoiler territory.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

JYoung said:


> Again, that doesn't mean that they will.
> 
> I do try to put big stuff in spoiler but in Arrow, when
> 
> ...


I have no problem with speculation if you truly believe it to be speculation when you post it.

Here's the Arrow thread that caused me to stop reading Arrow threads.

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=495087&highlight=arrow


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Philosofy said:


> And look at Gotham. That show is all about spoilers. I'll spoil this just in case:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


That could be tricky in a way because even though those "spoilers" are not revealed as part of the show I believe the show is written in such a way that the writers expect the audience to know those things. It's similar to the Star Wars prequels, they didn't write them with the expectation that people didn't know the fates of those characters.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

cherry ghost said:


> I have no problem with speculation if you truly believe it to be speculation when you post it.
> 
> Here's the Arrow thread that caused me to stop reading Arrow threads.
> 
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=495087&highlight=arrow


Ok, but I'm not exactly sure what was spoiled in that thread.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

danterner said:


> Speculation is and has been fine under the forum rules. But if you speculate that they will get out of it by using a fire extinguisher to freeze the bomb, because that's what happened in the NCIS comic book you read which had a similar scene, then I'd say your speculation has crossed the line into spoiler territory.


I suppose the issue is that these comic books movies and TV shows wouldn't necessarily use the same method to get out of the room.

Whereas in Game of Thrones, if


Spoiler



Ned Stark gets his head chopped off in the book


, it's pretty much guaranteed it's going to happen in the TV show.

That said, I'd probably spoiler tag my speculation in that case.

But how far do you go?

In Agents of SHIELD, we have the character of Bobbi (Mockingbird) Morse.
In the comics, she (Age of Ultron spoiler)


Spoiler



ends up marrying Clint (Hawkeye) Barton.



If you've seen Age of Ultron, you know that's not going to happen anytime soon and the only reason I put it in spoiler tags is because it's an Age of Ultron spoiler and not an Agents of SHIELD spoiler.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

I'm not sure why this is even a debate? The forum rules are pretty clear. In show specific threads only events in the show to date are allowed without spoiler tags. And there is no statute of limitations on spoilers. Outside content is always supposed to be tagged. If you don't like the rules here, then post elsewhere (my interpretation). Seems pretty darned simple to me.

If you see people breaking the rules, then report them. I don't think the mods here review every post for appropriateness. But when violations regarding spoilers are reported, they take action. Yes, sometimes people post a spoiler unintentionally, but those people go back and add the tags when asked and don't argue about the validity of the spoiler. I have no qualms at all about reporting unapologetic jerks.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

JYoung said:


> Ok, but I'm not exactly sure what was spoiled in that thread.


You don't see where it's pointed out that


Spoiler



Laurel will eventually be Black Canary?


 That wasn't speculation.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

cherry ghost said:


> You don't see where it's pointed out that
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


1. It wasn't necessarily carved in stone.

2. Bruce Wayne becomes Batman, Tony Stark becomes Iron Man, Kal El becomes Superman.
Should those have been spoiler tagged too? 
How far should it be taken?


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

JYoung said:


> I suppose the issue is that these comic books movies and TV shows wouldn't necessarily use the same method to get out of the room.
> 
> Whereas in Game of Thrones, if
> 
> ...


No, it's not. While I haven't read the books, it's my understanding there are quite a few differences from the books.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

JYoung said:


> Should those have been spoiler tagged too?


According to the rules of this forum? Yes

And others in this thread have already agreed.

I've never heard of the second guy.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Spoilers are spoilers, regardless of where they come from. Whether from comics, books, history, etc., unless it is universally regarded as "known to all", it's a spoiler. There is no statute of limitations.



madscientist said:


> I would give a pass to things which are clearly in the culture. The Allies won WWII, JFK was assassinated, Superman is an alien from another planet, the moon landing was successful, etc.


Agree. This is my "known to all" exception.

I also think there has to be some judgment involved. In a discussion of Star Wars history, "known to all" will mean everyone in the discussion knows about Darth & Luke. But standing in a theater line waiting to see a big-screen revival of "The Empire Strikes Back", that discussion would be rude in the extreme.



lew said:


> I suspect a fair number of viewers have also read the comics. Comparing the development of the characters in the show with the comics makes too much sense.


Absolutely not. I haven't read any comics in years, and was put off by the amount of comic talk in the Gotham/Flash/etc threads. It got to the point I quit reading them because (1) I couldn't follow all the "guess who that really was" posts, and (2) there was more "comic vs TV series" talk than "episode" talk. Not always, but much of the time.

Having said that, if the clear majority wants comic book talk in their comic book related threads, then so be it. That may be the exception that makes sense. And if so, that's because the vast majority of _comic book related TV series watchers_ have also read the comics.

And now, for a non-spoilery thread drift...



Philosofy said:


> The funny thing about the comic book TV shows is that the comics may or may not be spoilers, but for the people who read the comics, it makes the show that much more interesting, and that much better. But for those that don't read the comics, that comic book knowledge seems to take away from the experience.


Read my mind. I stopped watching Arrow, Flash, Gotham et al because I don't read comics, and felt I was missing half the joy of the show. I'd watch an episode and think it was an ok episode, nothing special. Then I'd read a review, or a message board, and exclamation marks were flying around from the excitement of the appearance of... {whoever}. It's like half the fun of the episode was the secret knowledge of the back-history. I'd given it a B, and the Webs had given it an A+!!!.

I'm not going to stop watching a show just because I'm not part of the inner club. But when too much of the thrill of watching comes from being in that club, or perhaps better said, there's not enough thrill unless you're in that club, I got plenty of other mindless diversions lined up.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

In the comics it has been revealed that the new Thor is


Spoiler



Jane Foster which is the character portrayed by Natalie Portman in the movies


I put it in spoilers because it is a comic book spoiler. I don't think there's a chance at all of it happening in the movies.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

astrohip said:


> Spoilers are spoilers, regardless of where they come from. Whether from comics, books, history, etc., unless it is universally regarded as "known to all", it's a spoiler. There is no statute of limitations.


The "known to all" rule is probably a good one but also contains a lot of gray area. I think the knowledge that Bruce Wayne is


Spoiler



Batman


 or the fate of the Titanic would be something that falls into the "known to all" category but that doesn't seem to be the case here.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

David Platt said:


> No, it's not. While I haven't read the books, it's my understanding there are quite a few differences from the books.


I haven't read the books either but my understanding is that the show follows the books for the major events and a lot of the minor details too.
What I was talking about were the major events.



cherry ghost said:


> According to the rules of this forum? Yes
> 
> And others in this thread have already agreed.


If you say so.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

well, hell. In that case, we need to lock down the Gotham thread.


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

JYoung said:


> In Agents of SHIELD, we have the character of Bobbi (Mockingbird) Morse.
> In the comics, she (Age of Ultron spoiler)
> 
> 
> ...


Wait, what?



Spoiler



I didn't catch that in the movie at all. Was she referred to as Bobbi in dialogue?


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

The level some of you are taking spoilers means that this place becomes useless. No conversation at all in terms or comparative literature. 

As for GoT, the real issue wasn't spoilers so much as people did put things in spoiler tags. It was that whole threads were dominated by book talk. That is why there are separate book threads because of the amount people wanted to talk about the books. The threads on the show became nothing but spoiler tags because of the book talk. 

A comparison of how DC or Marvel in the 1960s versus the 1990s versus today versus a tv show is NOT spoiling. It is comparing. If it winds up being too much, I get it. But those of you who don't read comics may not know that there are so many reboots in characters, origins and stories that there is no single source that qualifies as a spoiler in the terms you are talking. There are multiple Green Lanterns. The origin stories of the Joker have been changed so often, there is no real origin. 

Comparing literature or drama or comedy is not a spoiler. GoT just needed a spilt because of the sheer volume.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Drewster said:


> Wait, what?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, the spoiler is


Spoiler



that Hawkeye married Laura, who is not Bobbi. That means that Clint and Bobbi are not getting married in the MCU anytime soon.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

lol


This is what t he "Gotham" thread is gonna look like.


oy.


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

Where there is *only one* prior work/source material -- e.g. Story of Fire and Ice, or Harry Potter -- I can see restrictions on spoilers. In this case the source material is the only prior source, and story divergence in the adaptation can matter quite a lot.

However, in stories that have already been told, adapted, republished, retold, adapted, and retold again -- Beowulf, Shakespeare, Homer, the Bible, and yes, comics -- I think that's a different situation. In these cases the source material is not a single work, but a tapestry of interpretations. In these cases, I think that tapestry should be fair game for discussing the basis of the adaptation at hand.

Comics history is *highly* malleable. For decades, Clark Kent's parents were dead, as laid down in the '30s by Simon & Schuster. They were resurrected as "alive" in the '80s via a new origin by John Byrne; they've been "alive" in all continuity and retellings since. However, Smallville followed the template from the 1978 motion picture, in which Pa Kent dies but Ma remains alive.

A cornerstone of Marvel history is that


Spoiler



Gwen Stacy dies


, circa 1973. In 2004 a new story rectonned a development so ridiculous -- and so abhorrent to readers -- that it was soon re-retconned back out of existence and is now _the recton of which we never speak_. (Or they shuffled the story off to an alternate Earth to never be heard from again. I forget which.)

Part of the conceit of DC's TV universe is that nearly all the background character names are lifted from DC's deep catalog of heroes and villains. That the producers are mining this background isn't material to the TV story, but if you know about it it can be entertaining.

Myself? I'm only conversant in DC comics and the catalog usage doesn't bother me at all. Meanwhile I'm nearly fluent in Marvel, and the catalog usage in SHIELD distracts me quite a bit.


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

JYoung said:


> No, the spoiler is
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Wha? {googles}

Yeah, that's pretty deep catalog there. I knew of Bobbi from the comics, but that several recyclings-of-the character-ago. Non-spoiler in my book.

Matter of fact, this is a great example of comic's history being a tapestry. The bit presented in Avengers:Ultron is from one splinter of Marvel continuity, while what you put in spoiler tags is from another.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

Drewster, JY revealed something from the comics that can't possibly be considered a spoiler for the Marvel cinematic universe, since the Avengers movie went in a completely different direction.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Philosofy said:


> Drewster, JY revealed something from the comics that can't possibly be considered a spoiler for the Marvel cinematic universe, since the Avengers movie went in a completely different direction.


This.

The only reason I put it in spoiler tags is the direction they did go in Age of Ultron is a spoiler if you haven't seen the movie yet.


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

And I think it wouldn't be a spoiler even then. I *saw* the movie and didn't blink at that plot point. Didn't even occur to me. And I *know* the comics history in question.

Which brings us back to my point: Comics history is a malleable tapestry.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

So, like, that Bruce Wayne kid in "Gotham" might not become Batman? It's gonna be Detective Gordon that will turn into Batman??


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

DC has an imprint called "Elseworlds", where they play with the boundaries of their heroes' stories, exploring different scenarios...

Kal-El lands in Soviet Russia.
Bruce Wayne gets the Green Lantern ring.
Bruce Wayne lives and becomes Batman in Victorian England.
..etc.

I don't know that they've done a Gordon-becomes-Batman, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's in there somewhere.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I haven't read this thread yet, so I'll contribute my thoughts first, without being influenced by others' opinions, then I'll go back and read.

My three thoughts which would suggest comics are a unique case:

1) Especially with the Marvel Cinematic Universe, what is depicted on the screen is considerably different than any version that has been depicted in the comics. As such, I would consider any discussion of how events in the comics might tie into what we are seeing on the screen to be at most speculation, rather than a spoiler.

2) Given that comics as a whole are frequently internally contradictory, with entire sections of the comic-verse relaunched and "re-envisioned" on a regular basis, I'm not sure how *any* references to comics can be considered a spoiler, since you can't be certain as to which version (if any) of events or characters might be used as a basis of events on the screen.

3) I, personally, find the comic discussion in the SHIELD threads to actually *enhance* the enjoyment of the show, rather than spoiling anything.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

getreal said:


> I never understood the extreme sensitivity as to what is considered a "spoiler". I get the general concept but, really, is a show actually spoiled if someone mentions something which wasn't already shown in an episode?


You clearly don't "get the general concept".

The creators of artwork which is designed to be experienced sequentially usually have constructed a path or through-line which the audience is supposed to follow on the first reading/viewing. The audience has one chance to go through the story on that through-line, which I will call the "first viewing" experience.

After that, the audience can go through the story again (re-reading/re-watching) but the experience is different because you already know what is coming next.

If you want the "first viewing" experience, you have to avoid spoilers.

The case of adapted works is especially tricky because the original and adapted works are semi-spoilers for each other. I watched S1 of Game of Thrones on HBO and spend 90% of the time thinking about the adaptation and whether the people who hadn't read the books would be able to follow it or not. If I had not read the books first, I would have had a completely different experience.

I think for adapted works, it is better to have one thread for people who are watching the show and being introduced to the universe for the first time. They're the only ones who have a chance at that "first viewing" experience but why not let them have it? IMHO, the people who want to discuss both show and books should do it in another thread.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

I'm in the camp that we should follow the forum rules. Whether we agree with them or not. Comics are source material. Spoilerize any info that comes from them. No matter how much you think the info is in the public consciousness.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

TonyD79 said:


> The level some of you are taking spoilers means that this place becomes useless. No conversation at all in terms or comparative literature.
> 
> As for GoT, the real issue wasn't spoilers so much as people did put things in spoiler tags. It was that whole threads were dominated by book talk. That is why there are separate book threads because of the amount people wanted to talk about the books. The threads on the show became nothing but spoiler tags because of the book talk.
> 
> ...


I agree.

I respect many of the folks posting here, but to say that anything and everything relating to a show is verboten unless it's been in the show is ridiculous. Many of these comic based shows are running on source material that is decades old. I'm sorry, but if you guys don't want any information relating to them, then I think you guys need to bow out. Insisting that people who have grown up with the subject matter can't speak at all in reference to plots that are decades old is selfish IMO.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

jsmeeker said:


> So, like, that Bruce Wayne kid in "Gotham" might not become Batman? It's gonna be Detective Gordon that will turn into Batman??


Well....


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Drewster said:


> Comics history is *highly* malleable. For decades, Clark Kent's parents were dead, as laid down in the '30s by Simon & Schuster. They were resurrected as "alive" in the '80s via a new origin by John Byrne; they've been "alive" in all continuity and retellings since. However, Smallville followed the template from the 1978 motion picture, in which Pa Kent dies but Ma remains alive.


I didn't know any of that. Thanks for nothing.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

astrohip said:


> Absolutely not. I haven't read any comics in years, and was put off by the amount of comic talk in the Gotham/Flash/etc threads. It got to the point I quit reading them because (1) I couldn't follow all the "guess who that really was" posts, and (2) there was more "comic vs TV series" talk than "episode" talk. Not always, but much of the time.
> <snip>
> Read my mind. I stopped watching Arrow, Flash, Gotham et al because I don't read comics, and felt I was missing half the joy of the show. I'd watch an episode and think it was an ok episode, nothing special. Then I'd read a review, or a message board, and exclamation marks were flying around from the excitement of the appearance of... {whoever}. It's like half the fun of the episode was the secret knowledge of the back-history. I'd given it a B, and the Webs had given it an A+!!!.
> 
> I'm not going to stop watching a show just because I'm not part of the inner club. But when too much of the thrill of watching comes from being in that club, or perhaps better said, there's not enough thrill unless you're in that club, I got plenty of other mindless diversions lined up.


I agree with all of this. I may not even have realized it, but thinking about it, that is exactly how I have been feeling about Gotham/Flash/Arrow, and a large part of the reason they have been sitting unwatched on my DVR.



TonyD79 said:


> The level some of you are taking spoilers means that this place becomes useless. No conversation at all in terms or comparative literature.


You can have the conversation, just be aware and use spoiler tags. It's really not that hard to do.



Peter000 said:


> I'm in the camp that we should follow the forum rules. Whether we agree with them or not. Comics are source material. Spoilerize any info that comes from them. No matter how much you think the info is in the public consciousness.


Ding! Ding! Ding!


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

hummingbird_206 said:


> If you see people breaking the rules, then report them. I don't think the mods here review every post for appropriateness. But when violations regarding spoilers are reported, they take action. Yes, sometimes people post a spoiler unintentionally, but those people go back and add the tags when asked and don't argue about the validity of the spoiler. I have no qualms at all about reporting unapologetic jerks.


I try to always give the poster the opportunity to correct it, either by alerting them via pm or in the thread. If they don't tag or delete the spoiler then I report it. Unfortunately the mods don't always clean it up.



TonyD79 said:


> GoT just needed a spilt because of the sheer volume.


Disagree.



DavidTigerFan said:


> Insisting that people who have grown up with the subject matter can't speak at all in reference to plots that are decades old is selfish IMO.


But insisting that the rules don't apply to you, that's not selfish?


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

DavidTigerFan said:


> Insisting that people who have grown up with the subject matter can't speak at all in reference to plots that are decades old is selfish IMO.


But you can. Just put it in spoiler tags and label appropriately.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

heySkippy said:


> But you can. Just put it in spoiler tags and label appropriately.


QFT

I just don't get the arguments against it. You can have your cake and eat it too, as long as you spoilerize it.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

Robin said:


> I try to always give the poster the opportunity to correct it, either by alerting them via pm or in the thread. If they don't tag or delete the spoiler then I report it. Unfortunately the mods don't always clean it up. Disagree. But insisting that the rules don't apply to you, that's not selfish?


 yeah. I disagree with that because they aren't spoilers. I'm never going to post something like:



Spoiler



dr wells is the reverse flash, who is eobard thawne. But posting that flash and reverse flash fight a lot in the comics and flash beats him up regularly is backstory


 (flash related semi spoiler from this season.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

DavidTigerFan said:


> yeah. I disagree with that because they aren't spoilers. I'm never going to post something like:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But you'd never need to spoilerize that, as every piece of that information has been revealed on the show.


----------



## goblue97 (May 12, 2005)

allan said:


> Yup. An external source is an external source. The fact that it's a comic book shouldn't make any difference.


Would Breaking Bad be considered an external source in a Better Call Saul thread?


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

David Platt said:


> But you'd never need to spoilerize that, as every piece of that information has been revealed on the show.


Early in the season, even the background that the Man In Yellow is likely a traditional Flash villain would likely be objected as a spoiler.


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

heySkippy said:


> I didn't know any of that. Thanks for nothing.


During the Smallville run, would a comparative discussion of "I wonder if they'll go with Pa living or dying" been a spoiler?


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

Drewster said:


> During the Smallville run, would a comparative discussion of "I wonder if they'll go with Pa living or dying" been a spoiler?


Very interesting question.

There are some plot points in comics that have varied over the years, but there are other 'immutable' comic facts, like the secret identities of superheroes.

With the former, I'd say since there's no predetermined outcome in the comics and it could very well go either way, a discussion would be okay.

But for the latter-- that's where we run into issues. With very little variance, I'd say, the secret identities of most superheroes and villains has not changed over the years, except for the move from the Golden Age DC heroes to the Silver age DC heroes with completely different identities and backstories. Let's set those aside for now.

So where we get into issues is: when a more minor character pops up on a show, a discussion might occur about that character's possible future on the show, whether or when he or she will turn into a certain superhero or villain. It's happened many times in threads here over the years. It's frustrating, as viewers who have not read the source materials are now watching the show with the mindset of "hmmm, wonder when this is going to happen?" rather than discovering that this certain character becomes a hero or villain on their own as the show-runners intended.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

I think Gotham is in a different situation than a show like The Flash because Gotham is essentially a prequel and is written with the expectation that the audience knows who these characters become. Saying who Bruce Wayne becomes is not a spoiler but expected knowledge from anyone who is watching the show. However in The Flash saying that


Spoiler



Caitlin Snow could become the villain Killer Frost


is something that should be spoilerized.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

I can see the non spoiler peoples point, but like another poster said the information from the comics is historical information that the show is building upon. Also, the number of people in these threads without Comic Book knowledge is very small. I also think the threads for these types of shows wouldn't be interesting without the background info discussion. 

I suspect if we do create threads where no comic book discussion is allowed they will drop off due to non posting and the other thread will remain dominant. 

So perhaps adding **Background Spoilers** to the thread title would be appropriate and prevent at least future events from being spoiled.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> 3) I, personally, find the comic discussion in the SHIELD threads to actually *enhance* the enjoyment of the show, rather than spoiling anything.


I said this too, I'm glad I'm not alone. Generally TCF has a neutral or negative effect on shows for me (as in, I'm more likely to dislike a show more than I did previously by reading and participating in the forums). SHIELD is a good counter-example.

I don't watch Gotham, Flash, and Green Arrow so I don't know if this is true of those shows as well.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Drewster said:


> During the Smallville run, would a comparative discussion of "I wonder if they'll go with Pa living or dying" been a spoiler?


"since on 4 of the 5 comic books have him dying, he will probably die" - Spoilery

"I think he will die/live based on X/Y, where those are speculations and not based on comic books" - not spoilery


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

TAsunder said:


> I said this too, I'm glad I'm not alone. Generally TCF has a neutral or negative effect on shows for me (as in, I'm more likely to dislike a show more than I did previously by reading and participating in the forums). SHIELD is a good counter-example.


And that can still happen. Just put some stuff in spoiler tags. If you want to read them, great. If not, then don't.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Azlen said:


> However in The Flash saying that * SPOILER * is something that should be spoilerized.


I agree that that should be spoilerized (and I wish I hadn't read it, but it's my own fault that I did). I'm curious to know if anyone in the "background info from the comics should be fair game to discuss and post about without spoilerizing it" camp is of the opinion that this particular piece of info should be open for unspoilerized discussion.


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

danterner said:


> I agree that that should be spoilerized (and I wish I hadn't read it, but it's my own fault that I did). I'm curious to know if anyone in the "background info from the comics should be fair game to discuss and post about without spoilerizing it" camp is of the opinion that this particular piece of info should be open for unspoilerized discussion.


Despite being one such comics person, I am mostly-ignorant on Flash lore. To me that piece isn't a spoiler at all. Just because they use that character's name doesn't mean the same future will play out. It *might*, if the show lasts long enough, and the creators decide to develop the character that way, and the actor stays with the show, etc.

Gotham is already playing fast and loose with some elements of "history". I think it's interesting that the show is peppered with *possibilities* of creative choices, but IMHO that those possibilities exist is not a spoiler.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

eddyj said:


> And that can still happen. Just put some stuff in spoiler tags. If you want to read them, great. If not, then don't.


My point was, I feel like in the one show where this affects me, things are going fine and should remain as is. I don't think we need to change anything really.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

danterner said:


> I agree that that should be spoilerized (and I wish I hadn't read it, but it's my own fault that I did). I'm curious to know if anyone in the "background info from the comics should be fair game to discuss and post about without spoilerizing it" camp is of the opinion that this particular piece of info should be open for unspoilerized discussion.





Spoiler



When I first saw that the man in yellow was going to be on the show, I assumed they meant ZOOM. As my DC FU is weak I didn't know about Thawn, Reverse Flash, Speed Force, or anything like that. I spoke to a friend who's DC FU is superior and he mentioned a Professor Zoom. I still don't get Zooms place in the DC universe.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

When I am king, everything that is not on the show, or pure speculation based on the show would be required to be spoilered, and the spoiler tagged with appropriate text.

So this is a bad spoiler:



Azlen said:


> However in The Flash saying that
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Should be:



Azlen said:


> However in The Flash saying that (spoiler about XYZ)
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

Amazing how polarizing this is. So many people are wrong!


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Drewster said:


> Amazing how polarizing this is. So many people are
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


FYP


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

eddyj said:


> When I am king, everything that is not on the show, or pure speculation based on the show would be required to be spoilered, and the spoiler tagged with appropriate text.
> 
> So this is a bad spoiler:
> 
> Should be:


I disagree with that. Saying too much about what the spoiler is about could be considered a spoiler in itself. If you know a twist is coming even if you don't know what it is, is a different experience then being completely surprised by it.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Azlen said:


> I disagree with that. Saying too much about what the spoiler is about could be considered a spoiler in itself. If you know a twist is coming even if you don't know what it is, is a different experience then being completely surprised by it.


Clearly the answer is nested spoilers.


Spoiler



Spoiler description goes here


Spoiler



Spoiler text goes here


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Stormspace said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> When I first saw that the man in yellow was going to be on the show, I assumed they meant ZOOM. As my DC FU is weak I didn't know about Thawn, Reverse Flash, Speed Force, or anything like that. I spoke to a friend who's DC FU is superior and he mentioned a Professor Zoom. I still don't get Zooms place in the DC universe.


Answer to spoilered question about the Flash comic about a name that has not been used in the TV show.


Spoiler



Professor Zoom IS Eobard Thawne who is the Reverse Flash. They are just multiple names for the same person.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Azlen said:


> I disagree with that. Saying too much about what the spoiler is about could be considered a spoiler in itself. If you know a twist is coming even if you don't know what it is, is a different experience then being completely surprised by it.


Well, yes, you have to be somewhat careful with the spoiler descriptions. But that is still 100x better than no spoiler, and at least 10x better than spoilers where you have no clue what it is about.

You can keep it general (various people do) by saying thinks like "future casting spoiler" or "comic book speculation" or something.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

eddyj said:


> Well, yes, you have to be somewhat careful with the spoiler descriptions. But that is still 100x better than no spoiler, and at least 10x better than spoilers where you have no clue what it is about.
> 
> You can keep it general (various people do) by saying thinks like "future casting spoiler" or "comic book speculation" or something.





Spoiler



Just spoilerize your entire comment. That's safest, right?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Stormspace said:


> Just spoilerize your entire comment. That's safest, right?


It depends whether the intention is to make the thread more friendly to all, or if the intention is to act like a jerk (not saying you are, mind you!) If people are getting spoiled, and they are asking nicely for others to be more considerate, I don't think that is a lot to ask.

Especially when the rules supports it.

Using spoilers judiciously and nicely helps everyone, and is a minor inconvenience. I just don't see why people are so resistant to do it. Nobody wants to suppress the discussion, just make it so those that do not want to participate in that part, can do so.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

eddyj said:


> It depends whether the intention is to make the thread more friendly to all, or if the intention is to act like a jerk (not saying you are, mind you!)


No. Just trying to illustrate the point of a thread with too many spoilers. If someone that doesn't like spoilers visits a thread where a lot of spoilered info is being discussed it's not going to be very interesting to them. They leave and now the posters are spoilering for nothing.

Is the issue that including **spoilers** in the thread title isn't enough?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Stormspace said:


> No. Just trying to illustrate the point of a thread with too many spoilers. If someone that doesn't like spoilers visits a thread where a lot of spoilered info is being discussed it's not going to be very interesting to them. They leave and now the posters are spoilering for nothing.
> 
> Is the issue that including **spoilers** in the thread title isn't enough?


That is not the issue at all. Spoilers from the show, from any episode that have already aired are what is expected and allowed by putting in spoilers in the title. Untagged spoilers FROM OTHER SOURCES are what is not allowed by the rules. This is clearly done and enforced for book sources, but not for comic book sources.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

eddyj said:


> You can keep it general (various people do) by saying thinks like "future casting spoiler" or "comic book speculation" or something.


See, this is where I have an issue. Yes, casting news is considered a spoiler... but speculation has always been allowed without spoiler-tagging.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> See, this is where I have an issue. Yes, casting news is considered a spoiler... but speculation has always been allowed without spoiler-tagging.


Pure speculation is fine.

Speculation based on stuff in the comic books is bringing outside sources.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

heySkippy said:


> Why would it be up to the moderators when it's unambiguously spelled out in the rules?





realityboy said:


> Is it though? There's no rules about discussing source material that may or may not become relevant in the future.


Yes, yes it is unambiguously spelled out in the rules.


> Any spoiler *information from other sources*, such as articles, websites, webisodes, personal friendships with producers, etc., *must also be tagged*.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

Nobody is impressed with your knowledge of any other relevant source material. You don't need to be so eager to share it.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Just looking at the Flash thread and saw a reference to


Spoiler



The Speed Force.


 Technically that should be spoilered since it comes from the books. Time travel also seems to be possible without the


Spoiler



Cosmic Treadmill


 so would it be a spoiler to mention it?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> See, this is where I have an issue. Yes, *casting news is considered a spoiler...* but speculation has always been allowed without spoiler-tagging.


Is it always?

There are tons of threads where the cast of an upcoming new show is mentioned.


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

eddyj said:


> Pure speculation is fine.
> 
> Speculation based on stuff in the comic books is bringing outside sources.


Suppose there's a Renaissance-era show called "Verona". It's basically "Dallas", but recast into a world of costumes, swords, and corsets. The industry in question is, say, spices. It focuses on a family called the Montagues, their intrigues, and their conflicts with rivals the Capulets. Oh, and the Montague scion is named Romeo. He's good friends with a guy on the security staff, Mercutio.

Are you really saying that one can't speculate on whether or when Mercutio gets whacked? Or on Romeo's romance possibilities with that lovely Capulet daughter? Or the significance of that morally ambiguous apothecary?


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

jsmeeker said:


> Is it always?
> 
> There are tons of threads where the cast of an upcoming new show is mentioned.


I don't know if our rules here address it but IMO additions to the cast are fine, it's deletions that are the problem.

That tells you you're losing that character.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Robin said:


> I don't know if our rules here address it but IMO additions to the cast are fine, it's deletions that are the problem.
> 
> That tells you you're losing that character.


There's is a cast member being added into the next season of one show that was killed off a year ago on another show. Wouldn't talking about his addition be a spoiler that he is no longer on the other show?


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

David Platt said:


> So where we get into issues is: when a more minor character pops up on a show, a discussion might occur about that character's possible future on the show, whether or when he or she will turn into a certain superhero or villain. It's happened many times in threads here over the years. It's frustrating, as viewers who have not read the source materials are now watching the show with the mindset of "hmmm, wonder when this is going to happen?" rather than discovering that this certain character becomes a hero or villain on their own *as the show-runners intended*.


The problem here is that the showrunners themselves are usually huge comics geeks themselves.
They either have or do write comics for the publishers.
(Even Joss Whedon wrote one of the X-Men books for a while.)

And they are very aware of the fact that most of their core audience knows who these characters are (or are capable of doing a Google search).

Why do you think they drop in certain shoutouts?


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

Stormspace said:


> Just looking at the Flash thread and saw a reference to
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


I'm fairly sure the


Spoiler



Speed Force


 has been mentioned on the show. I don't recall the


Spoiler



Cosmic Treadmill


 being mentioned, so technically that should be spoilered, though I doubt anyone would be bothered by it being mentioned.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Robin said:


> I don't know if our rules here address it but IMO additions to the cast are fine, it's deletions that are the problem.
> 
> That tells you you're losing that character.


The thing is, it shouldn't be an "IMO that's not a spoiler". The rules are very clear. If it's not something from the current or previous eps, it's supposed to be contained in spoiler tags. It's not at all ambiguous.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

That's fine by me. I don't read any entertainment news so there's no risk of me spoiling anything for anyone.;-) 

I guess my point was that I, personally, am not bothered by casting addition spoilers. I won't post them, but I wouldn't complain about or report them either.


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

allan said:


> I'm fairly sure the
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


The first has definitely been mentioned by name. The second has not.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Robin said:


> That's fine by me. I don't read any entertainment news so there's no risk of me spoiling anything for anyone.;-)
> 
> I guess my point was that I, personally, am not bothered by casting addition spoilers. I won't post them, but I wouldn't complain about or report them either.


I get this. Honestly, there are some spoilers that don't bother me, and some that do. I'm not bothered by the discussion of the comics in the AoS threads. But the reality is that some are bothered by it, and we should all be following the forum rules as they are the lowest common denominator.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Drewster said:


> The first has definitely been mentioned by name. The second has not.


I'm going to need season, episode number, and time to confirm that before I despoiler it though.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

JYoung said:


> The problem here is that the showrunners themselves are usually huge comics geeks themselves.
> They either have or do write comics for the publishers.
> (Even Joss Whedon wrote one of the X-Men books for a while.)
> 
> ...


I can't find a single reference to Bruno Heller (Gotham), Greg Berlanti (Arrow, Flash, Supergirl), or Drew Goddard (Daredevil) having written a comic book.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

David Platt said:


> I can't find a single reference to Bruno Heller (Gotham), Greg Berlanti (Arrow, Flash, Supergirl), or Drew Goddard (Daredevil) having written a comic book.


1) Does not preclude them from being comic geeks.
2) Given the pure number of easter eggs that not only involve the hero of the show, but links to other DC material, some of them VERY vague. Someone involved is pulling info from the comics, likely being very much a geek.

Those nods to the comics, those easter eggs, those are there because they know the bulk of their fanbase comes from comic book geeks themselves.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

David Platt said:


> I can't find a single reference to Bruno Heller (Gotham), Greg Berlanti (Arrow, Flash, Supergirl), or Drew Goddard (Daredevil) having written a comic book.


Ben Edlund (Gotham) has and created the Tick.

Marc Guggenheim and Andrew Kreisberg (Arrow, Flash, Supergirl, DC's Legends of Tomorrow) have. 
Kreisberg currently writes The Flash Season Zero and Guggenheim currently writes Arrow Season 2.5 for DC. 
Plus all three (Berlanti, Guggenheim, and Kreisberg) worked closely with DC Chief Creative Officer Geoff Johns to develop The Flash.

Jeph Loeb (Daredevil) has written quite a number, most recently Nova for Marvel.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

When j said "show runners," I meant people who run the show. As in 'Creator and Executive Producer.'


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

JY's point is solid: the shows' creative staffs draw from the comics industry. In particular, Geoff Johns and Jeph Loeb are notable figures in the comics industry, and each are "headliner" names on a book.

These aren't just "TV writers" working from a slate of names. These are comics people who intimately know their material.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

David Platt said:


> When j said "show runners," I meant people who run the show. As in 'Creator and Executive Producer.'


A good showrunner picks a staff with knowledge beyond his own, to put the pieces together.

On other shows you would see this as the "Creative consultant".


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Robin said:


> I don't know if our rules here address it but IMO additions to the cast are fine, it's deletions that are the problem.
> 
> That tells you you're losing that character.


I just read something about a cast addition to the next season of a show that I watch -


Spoiler



Doctor Who


. I had no problem with hearing about the addition, except that the person being added is currently a significant character on another show that I watch -


Spoiler



Game of Thrones


. I could be wrong, but I'm deducing that this may mean that this particular actor will be leaving Show #2 so they can do Show #1. Of course, it's possible they could do both shows, I suppose: maybe they will be on Show #1 just in a limited guest-starring capacity. But now I'm expecting that they may be killed off of Show #2. For anyone interested, the actor is


Spoiler



Maisy Williams - Arya Stark. I haven't read the GoT books, so I don't know the fate of her character, nor do I want to - until I learn it from the show


.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

I think it's a bit silly to think most of the audience of these comic book movies/series are comic book readers. Surely the hoped-for audience for a major television or movie production is much larger than that subset of humanity.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

scandia101 said:


> Yes, yes it is unambiguously spelled out in the rules.
> 
> Any spoiler information from other sources, such as articles, websites, webisodes, personal friendships with producers, etc., must also be tagged.


I guess I read that differently. Those words are about articles, etc, ABOUT the show. Like articles from EW or EW.com. I see nothing there about comic book references or, even, novels.


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

I shook my head at the spoiler police when they went nuts on "spoilers" for shows based on historical events.

The boat sinks.

Jesus got Crucified.

Spartacus lost the 3rd Servile War.

Troy was sacked after accepting a Gift of a big wooden horse filled with soldiers

Henry VIII had Anne Boleyn's head cut off and started the Anglican Church

Rodrigo Borgia couldn't keep it in his pants.

The Texians lost at the battle of the Alamo.

The North won the Civil War.

People must not have been paying attention in History Class, as I've been "yelled" at for posting all those "spoilers". 

--Carlos "I didn't misspell Texians" V.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

hummingbird_206 said:


> I get this. Honestly, there are some spoilers that don't bother me, and some that do. I'm not bothered by the discussion of the comics in the AoS threads. But the reality is that some are bothered by it, and we should all be following the forum rules as they are the lowest common denominator.


You know what you get by lowering to the lowest common denominator? Pablum.

Again, as AoS does NOT follow any comic book except tangentially, mentioning a character or plot from comics is not a spoiler.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

David Platt said:


> When j said "show runners," I meant people who run the show. As in 'Creator and Executive Producer.'


I strongly suspect that Goddard and Berlanti are big comic book geeks.
I don't know enough about Heller to state an opinion.

But Loeb, Guggenheim, and Kreisberg are Executive Producers on those shows.
Edlund is a Co-Executive Producer on Gotham.

They may not be the "Head Showrunners" but they are the top lieutenants to the heads.

They attend and contribute in the story meetings, write and rewrite scripts, and have a say in the story arcs.

And Geoff Johns gets a "Developed by" credit and a check for every episode of The Flash that airs.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

danterner said:


> I just read something about a cast addition to the next season of a show that I watch -
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Considering the lower amount of episodes each show does, I think it's more likely that said actor can be scheduled to do both shows without too much issue.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

JYoung said:


> Considering the lower amount of episodes each show does, I think it's more likely that said actor can be scheduled to do both shows without too much issue.


Yes. This would slot into the "oh, no, this might be a spoiler because I may jump to a conclusion."

It's all nuts. We are going way overboard.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

TonyD79 said:


> You know what you get by lowering to the lowest common denominator? Pablum.
> 
> Again, as AoS does NOT follow any comic book except tangentially, mentioning a character or plot from comics is not a spoiler.


For THIS forum anything not in the episode (or previous episodes) is most certainly supposed to be tagged in 'spoiler' tags. It's not up to you or me or anyone else to decide if it's a "spoiler" for other people or not. The rules are very clear on this subject.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

hummingbird_206 said:


> For THIS forum anything not in the episode (or previous episodes) is most certainly supposed to be tagged in 'spoiler' tags. It's not up to you or me or anyone else to decide if it's a "spoiler" for other people or not. The rules are very clear on this subject.


While I agree with the rules for the most part, let's not act like they're the infallible Word of God and can't be changed if requested.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Azlen said:


> While I agree with the rules for the most part, let's not act like they're the infallible Word of God and can't be changed if requested.


Sure you can request a change. But I'm talking about the current rules.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

hummingbird_206 said:


> Sure you can request a change. But I'm talking about the current rules.


Bah! Why worry about rules when I have to send 5 extra seconds putting in spoiler tags? Too hard!


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

eddyj said:


> Bah! Why worry about rules when I have to send 5 extra seconds putting in spoiler tags? Too hard!


And I'm sure you know better than anyone else what is a spoiler for everyone, too, huh? We should just trust you, right?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Spoiler



I anxiously look forward to the Gotham threads where everything will be in spoiler tags


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

eddyj said:


> Bah! Why worry about rules when I have to send 5 extra seconds putting in spoiler tags? Too hard!


It takes longer a little longer when you have to think of a way when it's also required to describe the spoiler in such a way that it doesn't reveal too much about what is being spoiled but not so little that a person who might want to click it doesn't know what it is that you are spoiling. Sometimes it might be easy but other times it's a little more difficult to think of how exactly to word the description. What you have requested in this thread is much more than just spoiler tags.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I anxiously look forward to the Gotham threads where everything will be in spoiler tags


Again I think because Gotham is a prequel it is expected that you are somewhat familiar with what it is a prequel of and that is the show is written with that expectation.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Azlen said:


> Again I think because Gotham is a prequel it is expected that you are somewhat familiar with what it is a prequel of and that is the show is written with that expectation.


well, I tend to agree. But it seems that technically, discussing that openly violates the strict letter of the rule


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

In an episode of Gotham, there were circus performers known as the Flying Graysons. In the show, their son had a Romeo and Juliet story with a rival group in the circus. Jim Gordon solves whatever the issue is, and the boy and girl get together at the end of the show. 

It is NOT a spoiler to say that these are Robin's future parents. Robin is Dick Grayson and his parents were circus performers. I'm sure that there are some of you who didn't know that, but that is 75 years old information.

The whole reason that the writers put them in there is a big wink to the audience, a big signpost saying "Hey look how clever we are. We are showing you Robin's parents! Look at us!" There's no way that their son, Dick who will become Robin will appear in the show, unless the show goes on for another 15 years. 

It's not a spoiler to point out and discuss something we know from the comic book, because that is what the show-runners are intending.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> well, I tend to agree. But it seems that technically, discussing that openly violates the strict letter of the rule


The strict letter of the rule indicates that previous episodes are allowed to be discussed. In the case of a prequel, the thing that it is a prequel of could be considered the same as previous episodes.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Azlen said:


> The strict letter of the rule indicates that previous episodes are allowed to be discussed. In the case of a prequel, the thing that it is a prequel of could be considered the same as previous episodes.


Wel, that's the debate, isn't it? Comic books aren't previous episodes of "Gotham". Many here say they are not.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Turtleboy said:


> In an episode of Gotham, there were circus performers known as the Flying Graysons. In the show, their son had a Romeo and Juliet story with a rival group in the circus. Jim Gordon solves whatever the issue is, and the boy and girl get together at the end of the show.
> 
> It is NOT a spoiler to say that these are Robin's future parents. Robin is Dick Grayson and his parents were circus performers. I'm sure that there are some of you who didn't know that, but that is 75 years old information.
> 
> ...


I agree. But it seems others debate that.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> Wel, that's the debate, isn't it? Comic books aren't previous episodes of "Gotham". Many here say they are not.


Yeah, but I still say that the expectation of the writers of Gotham is that you know who becomes what in the same way a regular show writer expects you to know what happened in previous episodes.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Azlen said:


> Yeah, but I still say that the expectation of the writers of Gotham is that you know who becomes what in the same way a regular show writer expects you to know what happened in previous episodes.


again, I agree. But there are people here arguing that "Gotham" is no different than any other TV show. A viewer can and would come into it totally blind. having no idea who Bruce Wayne is. Or Selina Kyle. Or Jim Gordon. and on and on. They will say "the rule is the rule" no matter what most of us agree are the intentions of the writer.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

For THIS FORUM, what Turtleboy posted most certainly is a spoiler. How does anyone here know that the show isn't going to go into more detail on that in a future episode? Someone not familiar with that from the comics has now had that possible storyline spoiled. How difficult is it to post "From the comics, the Flying Graysons"


Spoiler



are Robin's parents


. Then people who don't want to know stuff from the comics don't get it spoiled.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Is it a spoiler that that kid, Bruce Wayne, becomes Batman?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Who is Batman????!?!?!?!!!!


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

jsmeeker said:


> Who is Batman????!?!?!?!!!!


I'm Batman.

But technically, according to the rules that everyone is stating, "Bruce Wayne grows up to be Batman" is the biggest possible spoiler that you can give. It gives the ultimate ending of the show, and is not from in the show itself.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Turtleboy said:


> I'm Batman.
> 
> But technically, according to the rules that everyone is stating, "Bruce Wayne grows up to be Batman" is the biggest possible spoiler that you can give. It gives the ultimate ending of the show, and is not from in the show itself.


also, it's very likely you'll never ever see that happen in the show because A) The writers don't intend for you to see it. B) It gets cancelled long before it could even happen anyway


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

hummingbird_206 said:


> For THIS FORUM, what Turtleboy posted most certainly is a spoiler. How does anyone here know that the show isn't going to go into more detail on that in a future episode? Someone not familiar with that from the comics has now had that possible storyline spoiled. How difficult is it to post "From the comics, the Flying Graysons"
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


It is most certainly not a spoiler. The writers expect the audience of the show to already know that information and have said as much.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

astrohip said:


> And if so, that's because the vast majority of _comic book related TV series watchers_ have also read the comics.





Stormspace said:


> Also, the number of people in these threads without Comic Book knowledge is very small.


Totally disagree with both of these.



heySkippy said:


> I think it's a bit silly to think most of the audience of these comic book movies/series are comic book readers. Surely the hoped-for audience for a major television or movie production is much larger than that subset of humanity.


Skippy has it right. TV shows aired on a broadcast network are trying to reach a much larger audience than have ever read a comic book. I've never read a single comic book. When I was growing up, I heard comic books referenced and figured they were a thing from the past. I didn't know that comic were still being published and were more popular than ever until all of these second and third tier comic book characters started getting movie and TV franchises over the last 15+ years. For example, I'd never heard of X-Men, Avengers, Iron Man, Wolverine, or Daredevil before the respective movies were made.

However, I watched most of the run of Smallville and mostly enjoyed it (except for Lana Lang). I watch and enjoy Gotham. I may decide to check out Supergirl.

I think that in general, threads on this forum should follow the forum rules and that information from outside sources, including from comic books, should be spoilerized. HOWEVER, I think that there is certain information that is so basic and fundamental to the enjoyment of a show that it should not have to be spoilered. In those cases, I would suggest that the thread starter mention in the OP that certain background information is fair game for that thread.

For example, the OP of a Gotham thread could have the following disclaimer (spoilerized for inclusion in this thread, but wouldn't need to be spoilerized in the Gotham thread):



Spoiler



For purposes of this discussion about Gotham, the following back story about the Batman universe and the characters presented in the TV show is assumed to be common knowledge:

Bruce Wayne eventually becomes Batman
Jim Gordon will eventually become Commissioner of the Gotham City PD
Oswald Cobblepot will become a villain named The Penguin
Edward Nygma will become a villain named The Riddler
Harvey Dent will become a villain named Two Face
Selina Kyle will become a villain named Catwoman

Any other information regarding the Batman comic book universe should be placed in spoiler tags.



As additional information from the comics becomes part of the lore of the TV show, then that additional info could be added into the disclaimer.

But I think Gotham is a unique situation (as was Smallville), because it is taking well-known characters and then attempting to tell a story with those characters approximately ten years before what is generally well known. For the most part, viewers are expected to understand the connections between the current versions of the characters and the eventual versions of the characters.

I don't watch Flash or Arrow or S.H.I.E.L.D., but it's my understanding that those shows are presenting the stories in a manner that such information will be revealed as part of the show rather than expecting viewers to have that information already.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> For example, the OP of a Gotham thread could have the following disclaimer (spoilerized for inclusion in this thread, but wouldn't need to be spoilerized in the Gotham thread):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My Robin spoiler would be in there too.

But, the anti-spoiler rules say that you are wrong. All of those are MAJOR SPOILERS!!! that couldn't be posted openly, according to their rules.

Under the spoiler rules there is no such thing as common knowledge. Everything outside the show itself doesn't exist.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't watch Flash or Arrow or S.H.I.E.L.D., but it's my understanding that those shows are presenting the stories in a manner that such information will be revealed as part of the show rather than expecting viewers to have that information already.


I don't watch Flash or Arrow, so I can only speak for SHIELD... but how I'd describe SHIELD is that if you only watch the show, and have no knowledge of anything from the comics, it's sufficient... but if you DO know stuff from the comics, it adds considerably to the enjoyment.

That's why I'm so frustrated that some people are so militant about "rules! spoilers! RULES! SPOILERS!!!!!" that it's going to prevent those comic book fans who have been kind enough to share their knowledge in the threads from doing so.

I don't think there's been any issues with the SHIELD threads to date... this whole debate just seems like a way of causing a problem where there hasn't been one.

I'm not saying that spoilers are OK... I am saying definitively that discussing the comics cannot and does not qualify as a spoiler, since the TV show isn't directly based on the comics and in fact deliberately deviates from the comics in many significant ways. Any references to the comics are at best speculation, and speculation should be permitted without need for tagging.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

LoadStar said:


> That's why I'm so frustrated that some people are so militant about "rules! spoilers! RULES! SPOILERS!!!!!" that it's going to prevent those comic book fans who have been kind enough to share their knowledge in the threads from doing so.
> 
> I don't think there's been any issues with the SHIELD threads to date... this whole debate just seems like a way of causing a problem where there hasn't been one.


No one is saying that info from comics cannot be shared. All that's being asked is that it be shared using spoiler tags.

I disagree that there haven't been issues with the AoS threads. There was a lot of discussion about the comics that I would have rather have found out about from only the show such as the speculations about


Spoiler



Inhumans before it was revealed on the show.


. It wasn't a huge issue for me, but still, I would have liked it if that discussion had been tagged.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Turtleboy said:


> My Robin spoiler would be in there too.
> 
> But, the anti-spoiler rules say that you are wrong. All of those are MAJOR SPOILERS!!! that couldn't be posted openly, according to their rules.
> 
> Under the spoiler rules there is no such thing as common knowledge. Everything outside the show itself doesn't exist.


Anyone can create a thread with its own special rules. For example, we've had debates in the past about whether certain information could/should be discussed openly, and the suggestion was made that subsequent threads should clearly state in the thread title that certain information was allowed. Future threads had that disclaimer and then there wasn't a problem.

I'm suggesting that anyone creating a Gotham thread create the specific rules for that thread by posting something in the OP that clearly spells out what is considered "common knowledge" for purposes of that thread. For other shows where this is an issue, I would suggest the same thing.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

I think its OK to say lots to Gotham viewers haven't read the comics. I haven't. But to suggest a lot of them had no idea who Bruce Wayne was or Jim Gordon and so on? Come on.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> Anyone can create a thread with its own special rules. For example, we've had debates in the past about whether certain information could/should be discussed openly, and the suggestion was made that subsequent threads should clearly state in the thread title that certain information was allowed. Future threads had that disclaimer and then there wasn't a problem.
> 
> I'm suggesting that anyone creating a Gotham thread create the specific rules for that thread by posting something in the OP that clearly spells out what is considered "common knowledge" for purposes of that thread. For other shows where this is an issue, I would suggest the same thing.


The rules, if interpreted strictly, seems to suggest "common knowledge" can't exist. Certainly not for anything fictional.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

jsmeeker said:


> I think its OK to say lots to Gotham viewers haven't read the comics. I haven't. But to suggest a lot of them had no idea who Bruce Wayne was or Jim Gordon and so on? Come on.


But that's what the rules they are arguing for require.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

where can "common knowledge" come from?

Movies? TV shows? Books, but NOT comic books?


If movies, what if the movie is based on a comic book?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> I'm not saying that spoilers are OK... I am saying definitively that discussing the comics cannot and does not qualify as a spoiler, since the TV show isn't directly based on the comics and in fact deliberately deviates from the comics in many significant ways. Any references to the comics are at best speculation, and speculation should be permitted without need for tagging.


I think a lot of the issue that spawned this thread is from the Daredevil threads. I don't watch the show, nor have I read the comics, but my understanding is that people in the threads were discussing information about character back stories, motivations, origins, etc. from the comics without knowing whether that stuff was going to be revealed in future episodes of the series. That's essentially no different than someone discussing a certain spoiler about the Warden of the North in the threads for the first few episodes of GoT. If the show hasn't revealed it yet but there's a possibility that the show might still reveal it, then it should be treated as a spoiler.

Whereas, I would argue that by the very nature of the show, Gotham has revealed Bruce Wayne's eventual origin and that's knowledge that the writers expect all viewers to have from the start.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> where can "common knowledge" come from?
> 
> Movies? TV shows? Books, but NOT comic books?
> 
> If movies, what if the movie is based on a comic book?


The argument is that no common knowledge can exist outside of spoiler tags in order to cater to the least common denominator.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> I think a lot of the issue that spawned this thread is from the Daredevil threads. I don't watch the show, nor have I read the comics, but my understanding is that people in the threads were discussing information about character back stories, motivations, origins, etc. from the comics without knowing whether that stuff was going to be revealed in future episodes of the series. That's essentially no different than someone discussing a certain spoiler about the Warden of the North in the threads for the first few episodes of GoT. If the show hasn't revealed it yet but there's a possibility that the show might still reveal it, then it should be treated as a spoiler.
> 
> Whereas, I would argue that by the very nature of the show, Gotham has revealed Bruce Wayne's eventual origin and that's knowledge that the writers expect all viewers to have from the start.


I don't watch Daredevil either and know nothing about it. NOTHING. Really, I have no idea what is "common knowledge" about him.

And again, the rules don't have an exception for "if the writers intend for you to know certain things from the start".

so, if its about following the rules then


Spoiler



Bruce Wayne becomes batman



is a spoiler.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

LoadStar said:


> I am saying definitively that discussing the comics cannot and does not qualify as a spoiler, since the TV show isn't directly based on the comics and in fact deliberately deviates from the comics in many significant ways. Any references to the comics are at best speculation, and speculation should be permitted without need for tagging.


Are you only talking about SHIELD here?

You could say the same about GoT. There have been huge deviations from the books. For instance,


Spoiler



a character is dead on the show but still alive in the books. Is it okay to speculate which show character will take on the role of the book character?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> I think its OK to say lots to Gotham viewers haven't read the comics. I haven't. But to suggest a lot of them had no idea who Bruce Wayne was or Jim Gordon and so on? Come on.


That's not what I'm suggesting. In fact, I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying that this information should be considered "common knowledge" and is essential for someone viewing that show.



jsmeeker said:


> The rules, if interpreted strictly, seems to suggest "common knowledge" can't exist. Certainly not for anything fictional.


The rules of the forum are the general rules that cover all threads UNLESS THE THREAD TITLE OR THE THREAD OP CREATE SEPARATE, SPECIFIC RULES FOR THAT PARTICULAR THREAD. The forum has always operated in such a way that someone can create a thread where spoilers don't have to be tagged if that's the way the thread is titled and it's clearly understood from the start. That's how the GoT book reader threads can exist without the need for everything in those threads to be spoilerized.

I'm suggesting that for certain shows, especially comic book shows, there is certain information from "outside sources" that should be considered "common knowledge." What that information is will be different with every show. I already posted what I thought should be considered "common knowledge" for Gotham, and thus if I were to start a Gotham thread, I'd include that disclaimer in the OP and then nobody would have to worry about spoiler tagging any discussions about those specific things within that particular thread.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

so, who gets to decide what is "common knowledge"?

Not all the comic book guys here have the same level of knowledge. And even the knowledgeable ones will disagree about stuff because there can be variations and multiple arcs and those arcs can contradict each other. Who decides which is the "correct" arc ?


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

jsmeeker said:


> I think its OK to say lots to Gotham viewers haven't read the comics. I haven't. But to suggest a lot of them had no idea who Bruce Wayne was or Jim Gordon and so on? Come on.


Those I knew, but not


Spoiler



the Robin history or that Batgirl is a Gordon


, until I read it here.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Really?



Spoiler



I knew Barbara Gordon/Batgirl just from watching the campy Adam West TV show.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

cherry ghost said:


> Those I knew, but not
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


And neither of those would be spoilers for Gotham as both essentially occur post Batman.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> I'm not saying that spoilers are OK... I am saying definitively that discussing the comics cannot and does not qualify as a spoiler, since the TV show isn't directly based on the comics and in fact deliberately deviates from the comics in many significant ways. Any references to the comics are at best speculation, and speculation should be permitted without need for tagging.


There have been cases where the show appears to deviate from the comics, but then later changes course and gets in sync with the comics. For example on Arrow (including latest episode):


Spoiler



Oliver's nickname for Thea was "Speedy". In the comics "Speedy" is Green Arrows sidekick, Roy Harper. Since Oliver called The "Speedy" a discussion started about Roy before he even showed up on the show, so by the time he did show up people who hadn't read the comics already knew he would become Arrow's sidekick. It took nearly a whole season for that to happen. Later Thea, who was called "Speedy" as a nickname became Speedy the sidekick.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> so, who gets to decide what is "common knowledge"?
> 
> Not all the comic book guys here have the same level of knowledge. And even the knowledgeable ones will disagree about stuff because there can be variations and multiple arcs and those arcs can contradict each other. Who decides which is the "correct" arc ?


I'm saying that whoever creates the thread for that specific show would include a disclaimer about what is considered "common knowledge." Therefore, it's the OP that would make that decision. I suspect that within the thread, there will then be some discussion/debate about whether the OP's idea of "common knowledge" is appropriate, and then the thread for the next episode will hopefully include an updated disclaimer based on the consensus from the thread for the prior episode.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

I look forward to the endless debates about what is "common knowledge"


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

It's common knowledge what is and isn't "common knowledge."


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> It's common knowledge what is and isn't "common knowledge."




lol

seriously, though. It's a thread to thread thing? I.e. episode to episode?

One week, TB starts it. The Grayson thing is "common knowledge" The next week, someone else does. Now, it's not "common knowledge".

oy vey...


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> It's common knowledge what is and isn't "common knowledge."


Someone should come up with a lengthy quiz to determine everyone's common knowledge level and then every thread should simply state the common knowledge level required to read and post in each said thread.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> lol
> 
> seriously, though. It's a thread to thread thing? I.e. episode to episode? One week, TB starts it. The Grayson thing is "common knowledge" The next week, someone else does. Now, it's not "common knowledge".
> 
> oy vey...


The way I picture it working is that for the first couple threads where this practice is used, there would be debate about what's common knowledge. Hopefully the OP is conservative with what s/he he considers to be common knowledge. After the first 2-3 threads where it's debated hashed out, the disclaimer should pretty much become a cut-and-paste thing for each subsequent episode thread.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

who knew talking about TV shows was so complicated.


Good thing I don't watch too many comic book based TV shows.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

This is too hard.

The show has an easter egg. The comic book fans get excited and talk about the Easter Egg. None of us knows whether that's just there for us or if it's going to lead to something. A season later, that storyline happens. NOW we are in trouble for that speculation a year earlier when we literally didn't know.

Very few stories (none?) make it from the comics to TV/Movies unaltered. We don't KNOW what's going to happen. We may be guessing. We may just be excited about a cool easter egg.

There's a street corner referenced in this weeks Arrow. The corner of "O'Neill and Adams". These are comic book creators. That's knowledge from outside the show. By these rules, it's a spoiler, even though it can't possibly spoil anything. Denny O'Neill and Neal Adams aren't going to show up (if they do, we'll be even more surprised than you are). 

When you have 70 years of comics stories as background, it's very hard to remember whether something you know was actually in the show or not. Sometimes we'll remember wrong.

And sometimes it'll just be a cool easter egg that really doesn't affect the show at all. 

It's getting to be that you can't have a conversation with people who have similar interests and backgrounds, because other people might overhear. Well, what's the point of HAVING an Internet Forum if you can't have conversations with people of similar interests? It's the reason they were invented.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Ereth said:


> There's a street corner referenced in this weeks Arrow. The corner of "O'Neill and Adams". These are comic book creators. That's knowledge from outside the show. By these rules, it's a spoiler, even though it can't possibly spoil anything. Denny O'Neill and Neal Adams aren't going to show up (if they do, we'll be even more surprised than you are).


Like the Ferris Aircraft mention on The Flash, very cool for those of us who know where this is going, possibly. But we can't talk about it.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> I think a lot of the issue that spawned this thread is from the Daredevil threads. I don't watch the show, nor have I read the comics, but my understanding is that people in the threads were discussing information about character back stories, motivations, origins, etc. from the comics without knowing whether that stuff was going to be revealed in future episodes of the series. That's essentially no different than someone discussing a certain spoiler about the Warden of the North in the threads for the first few episodes of GoT. If the show hasn't revealed it yet but there's a possibility that the show might still reveal it, then it should be treated as a spoiler.


What happened was that in one Daredevil thread is that I made a comment about how I preferred the show's version of one character as opposed to how a particular comic book writer portrayed that character.

Someone else mentioned certain things about that writer's version of the character did and there was a little back and forth about how I felt that was really out of character.

Looking back, I understand the OP's frustration there and regret that it got revealed.
And if he had said something in that thread, I would have gone back and spoiler tagged the necessary comments without complaint.
At least the ones I made.

I'm not unsympathetic to those who don't like spoilers. I don't either and I got burned when people posted untagged spoilers about a critical plot point in Amazing Spider-Man 2 in a thread about The Flash Pilot episode.

A movie that had been released only five months earlier.

And yes, it was a plot point that I could have guessed at happening due my knowledge of the comic books but I didn't appreciate something that big being untagged in an unrelated thread.
(Never did get an apology for that one either.)

But some people think that things like "Dick Grayson was a circus acrobat" need to be spoiler tagged.

Really?

That's not a spoiler, that's background information.

If we start spoiler tagging everything some people think we should, threads are going to look like this:



Spoiler



This is a Game of Thrones spoiler





Spoiler



This is a Lost spoiler.





Spoiler



No, it isn't.





Spoiler



Yes, it is.





Spoiler



No, it isn't.





Spoiler



Yes, it is.





Spoiler



No, it isn't.





Spoiler



Yes, it is.





Spoiler



Isn't.





Spoiler



Is. Is. Is


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

I just can't abide by an ideal where comparative discussion on prior adaptations is restricted in favor of the sanctity of internal evidence.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

scandia101 said:


> realityboy said:
> 
> 
> > Is it though? There's no rules about discussing source material that may or may not become relevant in the future.
> ...


That's pretty ambiguous. All the other sources listed have information about the show. There is nothing about speculation based on how characters have been treated in other media.

Again, no one's talking about direct adaptations (although the rules are vague on that as well). For example, there is a Flash comic based in the same universe as the show. No one afaik has ever mentioned any spoiler information from this comic. They have referenced numerous other stories that included the Flash. Likewise, there is currently a SHIELD comic based loosely on the show which could be considered source material, but it's never been referenced.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

hummingbird_206 said:


> For THIS FORUM, what Turtleboy posted most certainly is a spoiler. How does anyone here know that the show isn't going to go into more detail on that in a future episode? Someone not familiar with that from the comics has now had that possible storyline spoiled. How difficult is it to post "From the comics, the Flying Graysons"
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


No.

If that's really a spoiler, then I won't post in the TV forum at all. It's impossible to have a conversation.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> No.
> 
> If that's really a spoiler, then I won't post in the TV forum at all. It's impossible to have a conversation.


In the example you posted, it may or may not be a spoiler for the TV show, but it's definitely a spoiler for a person who has never read any Batman comics, but might get interested enough to check them out.

But hey, how about not talking about the comics? Just talk about the TV show and the merits of the story and the characters as if they aren't connected to the comics (or books or whatever source material).

Or, if you can't actually follow pretty simple rules, maybe your solution is the best one.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Peter000 said:


> In the example you posted, it may or may not be a spoiler for the TV show, but it's definitely a spoiler for a person who has never read any Batman comics, but might get interested enough to check them out.
> 
> But hey, how about not talking about the comics? Just talk about the TV show and the merits of the story and the characters as if they aren't connected to the comics (or books or whatever source material).
> 
> Or, if you can't actually follow pretty simple rules, maybe your solution is the best one.


It's really not even a comic book spoiler unless someone is buying Detective Comics #38 from 1940. So in this hypothetical, the new reader starts by buying an expensive 75 year old comic and has never read any other Batman comics, seen the Batman TV show, either of the Batman movies with Chris O'Donnell as Robin, or watched any of the cartoons with Batman. I'm pretty sure the Gotham producers counted on their audience knowing that much in the same way that the Once Upon a Time producers count on their audience having knowledge of fairy tale characters.

I'm generally very sympathetic to the cries of spoiler, and I'll obviously abide by the rules, but Gotham really is a special case.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

So, the spoiler advocates seem to think that everyone that watches a tv show is a raving idiot and has never heard anything about anything ever outside the show. 

That is way too restrictive. This strict interpretation of the spoiler rule (that is not really applicable as worded for things like comic books) would kill a lot of conversation that has been enjoyable over the years. 

Guys, a spoiler is a plot point that WILL happen. Not might happen. Not happened in a different version. Not happened in the past. 

If you are so spoiler phobic that knowing Romeo and Juliet DIE while watching a modern adaptation, then Internet discussion of the show is not for you. 

Why make every one else lower their conversation to idiot level?

And don't tell me it is easy to spoiler stuff. Two things. It ain't that easy on mobile devices that modern people use and it becomes nothing but spoilers in a thread and makes the discussion tedious at best. 

The strict spoiler police will kill this forum. Enjoy it when no one is here.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Peter000 said:


> In the example you posted, it may or may not be a spoiler for the TV show, but it's definitely a spoiler for a person who has never read any Batman comics, but might get interested enough to check them out.
> 
> But hey, how about not talking about the comics? Just talk about the TV show and the merits of the story and the characters as if they aren't connected to the comics (or books or whatever source material).
> 
> Or, if you can't actually follow pretty simple rules, maybe your solution is the best one.


Just like Indy. Enjoy your forum. Soon you'll only be talking to yourself.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> Skippy has it right. TV shows aired on a broadcast network are trying to reach a much larger audience than have ever read a comic book. I've never read a single comic book. When I was growing up, I heard comic books referenced and figured they were a thing from the past. I didn't know that comic were still being published and were more popular than ever until all of these second and third tier comic book characters started getting movie and TV franchises over the last 15+ years. For example, I'd never heard of X-Men, Avengers, Iron Man, Wolverine, or Daredevil before the respective movies were made.


Exactly. I and most of my friends fall into this category. The only comic books I've rest are Buffy.



JYoung said:


> Looking back, I understand the OP's frustration there and regret that it got revealed.
> And if he had said something in that thread, I would have gone back and spoiler tagged the necessary comments without complaint.
> At least the ones I made.


Have you going back and edited it now?

I'm way behind on daredevil and I generally go back and read the threads after I finally watch an episode but if they're still full of untagged spoilers I won't.



realityboy said:


> It's really not even a comic book spoiler unless someone is buying Detective Comics #38 from 1940.


It's not about spoiling the comic book.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

TonyD79 said:


> The strict spoiler police will kill this forum. Enjoy it when no one is here.


I haven't read the "GoT season 5 and books" thread since I haven't read the books, but having that plus standard episode threads seems to be working well. There's no reason you couldn't do the same for any of the comic book shows.

If you're the OP and want a thread where the comics are fair game then start "S3E04 Arrow (comic books included)". If someone else wants to start a second thread " S3E04 Arrow *no comic book spoilers*" then they're welcome to.

Maybe the latter will get no posts and maybe it will. It doesn't matter.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Yes or no. Is the following a spoiler for _Gotham_, and if no, why not?

"That Bruce Wayne kid will grow up to be Batman."


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Robin said:


> I haven't read the "GoT season 5 and books" thread since I haven't read the books, but having that plus standard episode threads seems to be working well. There's no twin you couldn't do the same for any of the comic book shows. If you're the OP and want a thread where the comics are fair game then start "S3E04 Arrow (comic books included)". If someone else wants to start a second thread " S3E04 Arrow *no comic book spoilers*" then they're welcome to. Maybe the latter will get no posts and maybe it will. It doesn't matter.


Yes. Always quote the outlier. GoT episodes typically get HUNDREDS of posts each week. Most shows get dozens at most. The ones you are complaint about without comic references would've gotten five or so.

Again, the GoT wasn't about spoilers as much as the entire conversation became about the books themselves.

How about you adjusting a bit? Again this supposed unambiguous rule does NOT cover comparative literature. It is worded to talk about avoiding things that WILL happen based upon articles, etc, ABOUT the show. Odd how such strict spoiler people can't actually read what is written.

And odd that a TiVo forum is so concerned with spoilers to this level. The GUIDE DATA is one giant spoiler.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

I am getting deja vu.

You should not use that word, it is offensive to some.
You should not have untagged spoilers, they bother some.

Well, I don't think it's offensive, so I will go on using it.
Well, I don't think it's a spoiler, so I am not going to spoilerize it.

You can do that, but you would be considered a jerk by some.
You can do that, but you would be considered a racist by some.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Back to the discussion. We keep on looking for extreme cases where we can say "if that's a spoiler, everything is a spoiler!". But that is not what bothers people. Common knowledge items do not need spoilers. What is common knowledge? I admit it is slippery, but I would say anything a non-fan would know, historic events, etc.

What is a problem is when you discuss outside things to predict future plot twists, based on outside knowledge. That is what the spoiler rules are trying to prevent. The fact that Bruce becomes Batman is common knowledge, but who becomes Catwoman, the Penguin, or the Riddler, or how these characters develop in the future is not, until the show has something that points to that.

And you can still discuss things! Either use spoiler tags (hopefully with an clue) or have a separate thread to discuss the comic book aspects.

This is not rocket science, this is 98% common sense. I admit there is a 2% where someone will object, regardless of what you do.

Be aware that there are some that are not "in the know" and be nice. That's really all people are asking.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Robin said:


> It's not about spoiling the comic book.


I was replying to Peter000, and he said it was a spoiler for the comic book.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

eddyj said:


> What is a problem is when you discuss outside things to predict future plot twists, based on outside knowledge. That is what the spoiler rules are trying to prevent. The fact that Bruce becomes Batman is common knowledge, but who becomes Catwoman, the Penguin, or the Riddler, or how these characters develop in the future is not, until the show has something that points to that.


Some disagree with you about Bruce. I disagree about the others. The show is clearly being written assuming the audience has knowledge of who those characters are. As for knowledge of how they develop in the future, there is none. No one knows how the characters are going to develop. At best, there's speculation based on previous stories including these characters.

I think OUAT is a similar show. When Malificent or Cruella show up, the show runners expect you to be familiar with those characters.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> Totally disagree with both of these.
> 
> Skippy has it right. TV shows aired on a broadcast network are trying to reach a much larger audience than have ever read a comic book...


Of course the target audience is much bigger, but we were referring to the people that would be on TCF and bother to post to a comic book TV show thread. THAT audience is much smaller.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

Robin said:


> I haven't read the "GoT season 5 and books" thread since I haven't read the books, but having that plus standard episode threads seems to be working well. There's no reason you couldn't do the same for any of the comic book shows.
> 
> If you're the OP and want a thread where the comics are fair game then start "S3E04 Arrow (comic books included)". If someone else wants to start a second thread " S3E04 Arrow *no comic book spoilers*" then they're welcome to.
> 
> Maybe the latter will get no posts and maybe it will. It doesn't matter.


This is to comment not just on that particular quote, but the topic in general....

In all fairness, there's a difference between bringing up information from a book and bringing up information from the comics. The vast majority of book adaptions that make it to series or movies are based on _a_ book or a _single_ series of books. GoT is based on the books, of which there are currently five. The Flash, on the other hand, is based on a multiple series and characters spanning almost sixty years. During that time, the character has been rebooted and reimagined many times, with either the "main" version of the character appearing in many other series (even series belonging to other companies and publishers), or alternate versions popping up. There is a huge amount of trivia, the vast majority of it being in applicable to the show.

I'm with Ereth and TB and Realityboy. A spoiler should be something that actually spoils a surprise, not something that is merely something you didn't know. If people have to spoiler anything they post that somebody might not possibly know, why even engage in a conversation about the topic? If I see that a particular storyline is based on a comic and in the future, Barry Allen will be forced to kill Dr. Farfknuckle (I made that up, don't worry I spoiled anything), yeah, I'll spoiler it. If someone asks about how he can run so fast and I say "in the comics, he generates a special energy they sometimes call the Speed Force that lets him bend the laws of physics", is it really spoiling the show? Yes, they may mention that in the show at some point, but even if they did, was some kind of surprise ruined?

Really, something we comic book fans realize that non-fans don't is that all of the trivia we're privy to _can't_ be used in the show. It's often contradictory because of the multiple variations and reimaginings. Even if we know something about the comics, we'll likely be as surprised as people who don't know it if it appears in shows because shows deviate more than they adhere.

Yeah, we could make a special thread for show discussion that has no comic book references, but isn't it just as obnoxious to create a lot of empty threads cluttering up the screen? There's a small explosion of shows based on comics now, and that leads to a lot of threads where a single episode can possibly generate multiple threads: one for the episode without spoilers, one for the episode with spoilers, one for the episode with comic book references and spoilers, etc. Either that, or the thread itself is a long listing of spoiler tags, which is an annoying way to hold a conversation.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

realityboy said:


> Some disagree with you about Bruce.


The 2%ers. 



> I think OUAT is a similar show. When Malificent or Cruella show up, the show runners expect you to be familiar with those characters.


This show is a little bit different from most, and poses distinct challenges.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

bobcarn said:


> Yeah, we could make a special thread for show discussion that has no comic book references, but isn't it just as obnoxious to create a lot of empty threads cluttering up the screen?


What empty threads? If you want to discuss, you create a thread. No one should be creating empty threads.



> There's a small explosion of shows based on comics now, and that leads to a lot of threads where a single episode can possibly generate multiple threads: one for the episode without spoilers, one for the episode with spoilers, one for the episode with comic book references and spoilers, etc.


The first two are the same, you can have (internal) spoilers in the episode threads. In fact the rules state that specifically. It is only external spoilers that must be tagged. So max of two threads. I think GoT does this. If you want, you can even have a single thread with all the comic book stuff. Further reduce that clutter that you seem to be worried about.



> Either that, or the thread itself is a long listing of spoiler tags, which is an annoying way to hold a conversation.


So if there is a little discussion, use the tags. If a lot, use a separate thread. We are all big boys (and girls) here, we can handle this.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

tonyd79 said:


> so, the spoiler advocates seem to think that everyone that watches a tv show is a raving idiot and has never heard anything about anything ever outside the show.
> 
> That is way too restrictive. This strict interpretation of the spoiler rule (that is not really applicable as worded for things like comic books) would kill a lot of conversation that has been enjoyable over the years.
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

What some people think is common knowledge, others may not. 

It's common knowledge that Bruce becomes Batman, but in the show it's a spoiler to talk about who becomes Catwoman?


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> What some people think is common knowledge, others may not.
> 
> It's common knowledge that Bruce becomes Batman, but in the show it's a spoiler to talk about who becomes Catwoman?


I'm pretty sure everyone knows who Bruce Wayne is. I'm not sure that everyone knows who Selina Kyle or Oswald Cobblepot are. I'm not a Batman reader, and I only know those two from other movies, not the comics.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

bobcarn said:


> I'm with Ereth and TB and Realityboy...


I was actually against allowing comic spoilers at the beginning of this thread. Not really because I believe anything is spoiled, but just out of an abundance of caution for others that had that belief. As the thread's progressed, it was demonstrated that some will not be happy no matter what, but more importantly, I realized that I know nothing. Despite having read every comic book with Flash for the past 20+ years, I could not give a prediction for what's going to happen next season any more than I could give a prediction for Empire or How to Get Away with Murder. I'll still use spoiler tags if that's what people want, but I honestly do not believe that I could spoil things if I tried. Plus, I'm usually so far behind on these shows that I don't get to contribute anyway.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

allan said:


> I'm pretty sure everyone knows who Bruce Wayne is. I'm not sure that everyone knows who Selina Kyle or Oswald Cobblepot are. I'm not a Batman reader, and I only know those two from other movies, not the comics.


I have not read Batman comics since I was a little kid, and have not watched many of the movies. Most of my Batman knowledge was from the TV show. So neither of those names rang a bell with me, before I watched the show. So when the show started, those might have been a spoiler. Once the show gave plenty of hints (or outright stated) who they would become, then it is no longer a spoiler.

Hey, Selina climbs on things, is very stealthy and has good night vision. She will probably be Catwoman. Not a spoiler.

Hey, Selina is Catwoman in the comics. Spoiler


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

eddyj said:


> I have not read Batman comics since I was a little kid, and have not watched many of the movies. Most of my Batman knowledge was from the TV show. So neither of those names rang a bell with me, before I watched the show. So when the show started, those might have been a spoiler. Once the show gave plenty of hints (or outright stated) who they would become, then it is no longer a spoiler.


How about Ivy Pepper as Poison Ivy? Is that a spoiler?

You pretty much answered my question, but I'm curious what others think though. Ivy Pepper was never used in the comics at all.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

eddyj said:


> What empty threads? If you want to discuss, you create a thread. No one should be creating empty threads.


Well, Robin mentioned creating a thread labeled "(with comic book discussion)" and added "Maybe the latter will get no posts and maybe it will." That suggests empty or near-empty threads to me.



> The first two are the same, you can have (internal) spoilers in the episode threads. In fact the rules state that specifically. It is only external spoilers that must be tagged. So max of two threads. I think GoT does this. If you want, you can even have a single thread with all the comic book stuff. Further reduce that clutter that you seem to be worried about.


And we comic book fans feel that a comic book show discussion is not like a GoT discussion (or discussions on other shows based on a book). They're unique in their nature and should be treated as such.



> So if there is a little discussion, use the tags. If a lot, use a separate thread. We are all big boys (and girls) here, we can handle this.


As evidenced by this thread, we obviously can't. 

Why even come into a discussion about a comic-book-based show if you don't want to discuss the basis in the comics? The assumption should be that there _will_ be mentions of trivia from the comics, with potential spoilers tagged. Not "anything no matter how minor that someone may possibly not know must be hidden behind tags."


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

bobcarn said:


> Why even come into a discussion about a comic-book-based show if you don't want to discuss the basis in the comics?


Because I'm watching the show, despite not having picked up a comic book in 50 years. I really don't know or care about the source material. In the case of a show like The Walking Dead, I would much rather not know anything about the source material.



> The assumption should be that there _will_ be mentions of trivia from the comics, with potential spoilers tagged. Not "anything no matter how minor that someone may possibly not know must be hidden behind tags."


I don't see how that follows. It doesn't matter much to me, but I don't presume to think everyone else should feel the same.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

heySkippy said:


> Because I'm watching the show, despite not having picked up a comic book in 50 years. I really don't know or care about the source material. In the case of a show like The Walking Dead, I would much rather not know anything about the source material.


I'm surprised The Walking Dead hasn't come up more in the discussion here. It's a perfect example of how a show based on a comic book, even one where one of the executive producers is the writer of the comic book, can have a thread yet have no comic spoilers in it.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

David Platt said:


> I'm surprised The Walking Dead hasn't come up more in the discussion here. It's a perfect example of how a show based on a comic book, even one where one of the executive producers is the writer of the comic book, can have a thread yet have no comic spoilers in it.


It's closer to GoT than the shows being discussed here. It is just the one story being adapted. They don't have decades of material to pull from. No one ever has to my knowledge posted a spoiler from The Walking Dead comic. The difference isn't book vs comic book. The difference is telling new stories with existing characters vs adapting a story.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

I guess I am not seeing egregious spoilers since I am not watching the right shows or participating in the right threads. I only watch Gotham and I have always enjoyed the discussions where people brought up the comic. Is Batman different? I guess in theory, it should not be.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

realityboy said:


> It's closer to GoT than the shows being discussed here. It is just the one story being adapted. They don't have decades of material to pull from. No one ever has to my knowledge posted a spoiler from The Walking Dead comic. The difference isn't book vs comic book. The difference is telling new stories with existing characters vs adapting a story.


But it's diverged so far from the comics that it could be argued that it's not even the same story anymore. Plots and characters are made up out of whole cloth; other plots and characters are omitted completely or moved around chronologically so much that there's little relation to the story told in the comics.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

jsmeeker said:


> I guess I am not seeing egregious spoilers since I am not watching the right shows or participating in the right threads. I only watch Gotham and I have always enjoyed the discussions where people brought up the comic. Is Batman different? I guess in theory, it should not be.


IMO, spoilers in Flash and Arrow threads were much worse than Gotham threads and apparently there was something in the Daredevil threads as well. I haven't watched that yet. I did stop reading Gotham threads when discussion of


Spoiler



Red Hood


 came up. That's a character I was not familiar with. Maybe nothing was spoiled, but I didn't want to take any chances based on previous experience with Arrow threads.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

David Platt said:


> I'm surprised The Walking Dead hasn't come up more in the discussion here. It's a perfect example of how a show based on a comic book, even one where one of the executive producers is the writer of the comic book, can have a thread yet have no comic spoilers in it.


In WD discussions, people tag things that will spoiler the show, so there's not much to complain about. But even though that show is based on a comic, there's a difference between it and Gotham, Flash, Arrow, Supergirl, etc. The Walking Dead is a comic, but it's a single story that's not that old. The others are characters that have been integrated into pop culture for generations.

Hmmm. I think right there is the difference as to why these shows are different. These comic books shows deal with characters that have been a part of pop culture. GoT, while becoming part of pop culture _now_, wasn't a part before. The Walking Dead, while being part of pop culture _now_, wasn't before. If you're discussing a show that's based on things already in pop culture, and has been for generations, there's going to be references to things over the years.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

David Platt said:


> But it's diverged so far from the comics that it could be argued that it's not even the same story anymore. Plots and characters are made up out of whole cloth; other plots and characters are omitted completely or moved around chronologically so much that there's little relation to the story told in the comics.


The fact that there is a comic story to compare is what differentiates it even if it has deviated. For example, I'm not sure which comic I should even be comparing Flash to. It's not that it deviated. It was never telling a story that has been published in any comic.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

What about things that are inside jokes or call outs? Do those have to be spoiled even though it references outside material. For example on a recent sitcom one of the characters made an inside reference to the guest star and a show they were on in the 60s. If I brought that up in a discussion of the show, would that have to be spoiled? By the strictest definition of the rules it would but that would be ridiculous.

To explain further I will put the reference in spoiler tags in case you haven't seen that episode of the Middle.


Spoiler



Jerry Van **** plays the father of Patricia Heaton's character. In the episode they were expecting a visit from his brother who was played by Dick Van ****. When they were getting ready for him to arrive Jerry's character said. "You may want to move that ottoman or he is going to trip right over it." A joke that only those familiar with the Dick Van **** show would get but certainly not a spoiler at all for the Dick Van **** show.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Hmmm... Did I spoil anything when I discussed "12 Angry Men Inside Amy Schumer"?
(actually, I had never seen the source material)


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> Hmmm... Did I spoil anything when I discussed "12 Angry Men Inside Amy Schumer"?
> (actually, I had never seen the source material)


Nope, but I think Devdog did:



Spoiler






DevdogAZ said:


> You might be disappointed to find out there are no dildo-based arguments.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

heySkippy said:


> Because I'm watching the show, despite not having picked up a comic book in 50 years. I really don't know or care about the source material. In the case of a show like The Walking Dead, I would much rather not know anything about the source material.


And that's perfectly fair. In fact, I feel the same way about "The Walking Dead". I don't even watch previews for next week.

The Walking Dead is one comic series that, as far as I know, hasn't been rebooted. The show makes some attempt to be somewhat faithful.

The Flash has been ongoing since the 1940s. Everything has been rebooted at least 4 times just since I started reading. It's actually loosely based on a Flash story I didn't read, but includes not just references to comic book trivia, Flash stories upon which it is NOT loosely based, but the previous Flash TV show which aired in the 1990s.

All of these sentences are true.

The Flash's secret identity is Jay Garrick.
The Flash's secret identity is Barry Allen
The Flash's secret identity is Wally West
The Flash's secret identity is Bart Allen

To the best of my knowledge, none of those other Flashes will be in this show, ever. But I can conceive of a possibility, where the show runs for a really long time and they decide they want to bring in a new actor to shake things up, or for contract reasons, and a new Flash is created. Is it a spoiler to talk about characters that you truly believe won't be on the TV show, even if there's a tiny chance that some day, in the far distant future, they might? Would someone remember a conversation about this a decade from now and be "spoiled"?

These are true, too.

Amanda Pays plays Tina McGee, a Star Labs employee who helps Barry Allen learn to utilize his powers as The Flash.
Amanda Pays plays Tina McGee, head of Mercury Labs, who does not know the Flash.
Tina McGee works at S.T.A.R. Labs is a good friend and supporter of the Flash, who she knows is Wally West.

So, in the comic book world, Tina McGee has a similar but different job, working a Flash who absolutely will not appear in the TV show. She's been in both Flash TV shows, playing a character with the same name, but in a different role.

Can we talk about her?

As for Robins parents... I think declaring that a "spoiler" is silly. The show has told us we won't get to Batman. It's a prequel, about Gotham before there was a Batman. By definition, then, there won't be a Robin. So what, exactly, was spoiled by talking about the Flying Graysons?

TNT is starting up a new show, possibly named "Titans", that will star Dick Grayson after he's left the shadow of the Batman. Is discussion of the Flying Graysons in "Gotham" a spoiler because "Titans" might have Dick Grayson in it?

Interconnected series weren't very common in the past, so the idea that something that happens on "Arrow" can be a spoiler for "Flash" is a new one, and I think we should all be careful with that. I'm not so sure that this applies to background knowledge that may or may not ever be referenced.

Lets assume Dick does have a conversation, say in episode seven of "Titans" where the mentions he grew up in a Circus and his parents were the Flying Graysons. Is someone going to be upset that they learned that in "Gotham"?

I absolutely do not want to ruin anybodies enjoyment of the shows they like. I just think it's becoming harder and harder to know what IS a spoiler vs what might potentially be a spoiler or even a spoiler for a completely different show that takes place in a different time period.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

That's a good example. if someone says



Spoiler



It's dildos instead of guns!! hahahahaha.. That was great



is it a spoiler?

What plot points from well known movies are "common knowledge"

is that the same thing as knowing who Luke's father is? What Rosebud is?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Ereth said:


> As for Robins parents... I think declaring that a "spoiler" is silly. The show has told us we won't get to Batman. It's a prequel, about Gotham before there was a Batman. By definition, then, there won't be a Robin. So what, exactly, was spoiled by talking about the Flying Graysons?


I agree. But there will be people that will say that talking about what the show producers intend to show or not to show during a show's run is a spoiler in itself. Even if it's widely published and known before the show even airs. That it's "insider knowledge" exactly the same way it's insider knowledge if an actor or someone "leaks" some upcoming plot point in some interview and someone posts it in the clear in an episode thread.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

I haven't read the whole thread but when a show is renewed I find that interesting. I've watched more than one show assuming we are leading to an end game, where perhaps a "hero" will die. But then midseason you learn it's renewed and it takes away some of the tension from the current season.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

cherry ghost said:


> IMO, spoilers in Flash and Arrow threads were much worse than Gotham threads and apparently there was something in the Daredevil threads as well. I haven't watched that yet. I did stop reading Gotham threads when discussion of
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Yes, it is bad in those. And the reason I (and others) have stopped reading and participating on those threads.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

eddyj said:


> This show is a little bit different from most, and poses distinct challenges.


Why? It's based on outside material. According to your and other's arguments you shouldn't discuss ANYTHING related to the characters that hasn't happened on the show.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

DavidTigerFan said:


> Why? It's based on outside material. According to your and other's arguments you shouldn't discuss ANYTHING related to the characters that hasn't happened on the show.


Knowing the background material is never a spoiler for this show, since they use it as background, not as the source of the episodes. But if you want to spolerize stuff that you are not sure of, I encourage you to do so.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

eddyj said:


> Knowing the background material is never a spoiler for this show, since they use it as background, not as the source of the episodes. But if you want to spolerize stuff that you are not sure of, I encourage you to do so.


So in this case you make the determination about what is a spoiler? Maybe you should comment in each thread and explain what's allowed in each. 

There's simply too much material in a comic book show to keep track of and it's easy to misremember something thinking it was already discussed only to find out later it's a spoiler. It also requires the poster to have watched all previous episodes before posting. I think that model is untenable.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

There was a post in the current Survivor thread about the way someone acted while they were at Ponderosa (the place people go when they are voted out and CBS will frequently post clips from there on their website) It's not really a spoiler because it has no impact on future episodes and doesn't really need to be spoiler tagged but under the strict adherence to the rules it is from an outside source and should be spoiler tagged. That's how ridiculous things could get here.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Stormspace said:


> So in this case you make the determination about what is a spoiler? Maybe you should comment in each thread and explain what's allowed in each.
> 
> There's simply too much material in a comic book show to keep track of and it's easy to misremember something thinking it was already discussed only to find out later it's a spoiler. It also requires the poster to have watched all previous episodes before posting. I think that model is untenable.


Well, that's basically what was suggested earlier. The poster of the thread lays out what exactly is "common knowledge" in the first post. So, if eddyj starts the thread, then he gets to decide. If you start it, you do.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

I just can't tell what's "common knowledge" and what's not. Bruce Wayne becoming Batman is common knowledge, but the character specifically hired to be Catwoman as a young girl is a spoiler if we talk about it? 

Also, are some spoilers so famous, that they are part of our culture? Such as Darth Vader being Luke's father, or it being the sled? 

In a forum of sci-fi nerds, there is no one who will say that the first has to be spoilered, but I'm sure there are some of you who don't know the second. 

I understand the spoiler-phobics point, but it makes having conversations very difficult.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

I am not the arbiter of anything, I have an opinion like anyone else does. I try to use common sense, and be sensitive to what others have said were spoilers. But if someone called me out for spoiling stuff, I would just try to be more considerate, instead of trying to justify it.

Clearly, not everyone feels the same.

The reality is that it does not affect me much, since I have stopped reading those threads. So spoil away. If you drive people off, then screw them, right?


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

eddyj said:


> The reality is that it does not affect me much, since I have stopped reading those threads. So spoil away. If you drive people off, then screw them, right?


Extremists on either side will drive people off. I just happen to believe catering to the least common denominator, as has been argued, never results in a good product.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Posted an informal poll to see how many TCF members actually don't have comic book knowledge.

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=528547


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

eddyj said:


> I am not the arbiter of anything, I have an opinion like anyone else does. I try to use common sense, and be sensitive to what others have said were spoilers. But if someone called me out for spoiling stuff, I would just try to be more considerate, instead of trying to justify it.
> 
> Clearly, not everyone feels the same.
> 
> The reality is that it does not affect me much, since I have stopped reading those threads. So spoil away. If you drive people off, then screw them, right?


I agree that you should be considerate and use common sense, and not spoil things but every now and then, I see a complaint so outrageous that it baffles common sense. This is a discussion board, and it makes it difficult to discuss things.

And the "drive people off" happens both ways. If it's impossible to have a simple conversation without someone jumping on me, I'm not going to participate either.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

that's nice and all. But there can be background from other sources too. Movies. TV. Etc. Sure, those may sometimes draw on comics, but I don't have to read the comic.

I learned about Selina Kyle not from a comic, but a movie. Does that change anything? In theory, it should not.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Where I see people get upset is not when people spoil the show being discussed, but when they try to make a _comparison_ to another show, movie, or book that happened years ago, and is part of the common culture.

The person talking isn't trying to be a jerk. They're just having a conversation about our common culture. I'm not going to put up spoiler tags for Star Wars or the Godfather or Citizen Kane or Seinfeld or a 10 year old episode of the Simpsons, even if it is a thread about Gotham. Those aren't spoilers. Those are our common culture.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> Where I see people get upset is not when people spoil the show being discussed, but when they try to make a _comparison_ to another show, movie, or book that happened years ago, and is part of the common culture.
> 
> The person talking isn't trying to be a jerk. They're just having a conversation about our common culture. I'm not going to put up spoiler tags for Star Wars or the Godfather or Citizen Kane or Seinfeld or a 10 year old episode of the Simpsons, even if it is a thread about Gotham. Those aren't spoilers. Those are our common culture.


I was told that who shot JR and a character death on MASH that occurred in 1978 needed to be spoiler tagged and that I was being unkind for not doing so.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Azlen said:


> I was told that who shot JR and a character death on MASH that occurred in 1978 needed to be spoiler tagged and that I was being unkind for not doing so.


If you were in a Dallas or M.A.S.H thread that's understandable, but not in a thread about Cliffhangers in TV shows.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> Where I see people get upset is not when people spoil the show being discussed, but when they try to make a _comparison_ to another show, movie, or book that happened years ago, and is part of the common culture.
> 
> The person talking isn't trying to be a jerk. They're just having a conversation about our common culture. I'm not going to put up spoiler tags for Star Wars or the Godfather or Citizen Kane or Seinfeld or a 10 year old episode of the Simpsons, even if it is a thread about Gotham. Those aren't spoilers. Those are our common culture.


I mostly agree. I am arguing with the people that say "if anything is a spoiler, then I will not tag anything, since no matter what I do, someone will complain".

I would guess that 90% of the stuff that should be tagged as a spoiler is fairly clear. There will always be outliers, both jerks that refuse to ever tag and those complaining unreasonably. That should not keep us from trying to do it right 90% of the time.

We can't always get it right, so we should do nothing is not a good attitude.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

eddyj said:


> I mostly agree. I am arguing with the people that say "if anything is a spoiler, then I will not tag anything, since no matter what I do, someone will complain".
> 
> I would guess that 90% of the stuff that should be tagged as a spoiler is fairly clear. There will always be outliers, both jerks that refuse to ever tag and those complaining unreasonably. That should not keep us from trying to do it right 90% of the time.
> 
> We can't always get it right, so we should do nothing is not a good attitude.


Some things need spoiler tags. Lets take Daredevil as an example. I've only watched through ep 6. If someone were to reference something from ep 7 that would be wrong with out spoilerizing it. If they said that in the comics this and that happened I'd be cool with it. The reason? DC and Marvel have played with continuity so much you can't count on anything happening like it did in a previous story, so to me it comes across as speculation.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> And the "drive people off" happens both ways. If it's impossible to have a simple conversation without someone jumping on me, I'm not going to participate either.


Just wanted to go back to this. Just start a separate thread for the comic discussion, and you don't have to worry about complaints. It is easy for the spoilers to take it to another thread (or tag). But for the spoiled, the only choice is to leave. Hardly the same.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

Turtleboy said:


> I just can't tell what's "common knowledge" and what's not. Bruce Wayne becoming Batman is common knowledge, but the character specifically hired to be Catwoman as a young girl is a spoiler if we talk about it?
> 
> Also, are some spoilers so famous, that they are part of our culture? Such as Darth Vader being Luke's father, or it being the sled?
> 
> ...


Exactly. I'm all for tagging things that will actually, you know, _spoil_ a surprise, but conversations about some of these shows invariably brings up trivia and pieces of information that would make talking about them difficult if you had to keep hiding it all. DC is releasing a lot of shows now that not only are all based in the same universe, but span multiple networks. And they've said they will allow characters and events to span the shows and networks (though the networks themselves may not allow it).

There have been many times where I didn't say anything about something I wanted to talk about because I was afraid I'd get yelled at for "spoiling" something and it felt clumsy to tag it. Tagging it isn't clumsy, but explaining the reason for tagging it in a way that won't reveal anything so people know whether or not to open the tag is. So I just said "screw it" and left it out.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Stormspace said:


> Some things need spoiler tags. Lets take Daredevil as an example. I've only watched through ep 6. If someone were to reference something from ep 7 that would be wrong with out spoilerizing it. If they said that in the comics this and that happened I'd be cool with it. The reason? DC and Marvel have played with continuity so much you can't count on anything happening like it did in a previous story, so to me it comes across as speculation.


So if someone said "in the comics, he regains his eyesight", and this is something that does not happen in all the possible versions of the comic (only 9 of the 10 or something), do you think that is OK? Not a spoiler?


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

I completely understand the common knowledge/culture argument. Yes, Star Wars, Godfather(even though I've never seen it), and Gotham(to a degree) fall in that category. I think some are overestimating how much common knowledge there is of Flash, Arrow, Daredevil.

I knew of Flash before the TV show but had no background knowledge. I had never heard of Daredevil before the Affleck movie or Arrow before the TV show.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Robin said:


> Have you going back and edited it now?
> 
> I'm way behind on daredevil and I generally go back and read the threads after I finally watch an episode but if they're still full of untagged spoilers I won't.


Quite honestly, I haven't because I've been too busy here and what I believe the thread in question fell down the list and hasn't had any activity for the last few/several days.

But I'm not the only one that needs to fix things.



eddyj said:


> What is a problem is when you discuss outside things to predict future plot twists, based on outside knowledge. That is what the spoiler rules are trying to prevent. The fact that Bruce becomes Batman is common knowledge, but who becomes Catwoman, the Penguin, or the Riddler, or how these characters develop in the future is not, until the show has something that points to that.


But it was made clear in the pilot/first episode who these people were and who they were going to become.
Advertising for the show had shots/pictures of Robin Lord Taylor, Cory Michael Smith, and Camren Bicondova with captions saying "Penguin", "Riddler", "Catwoman".

So how is that a spoiler in the episode discussion thread?



bobcarn said:


> I'm with Ereth and TB and Realityboy. A spoiler should be something that actually spoils a surprise, not something that is merely something you didn't know. If people have to spoiler anything they post that somebody might not possibly know, why even engage in a conversation about the topic? If I see that a particular storyline is based on a comic and in the future, Barry Allen will be forced to kill Dr. Farfknuckle (I made that up, don't worry I spoiled anything), yeah, I'll spoiler it. If someone asks about how he can run so fast and I say "in the comics, he generates a special energy they sometimes call the Speed Force that lets him bend the laws of physics", is it really spoiling the show? Yes, they may mention that in the show at some point, but even if they did, was some kind of surprise ruined?


This.



eddyj said:


> The reality is that it does not affect me much, since I have stopped reading those threads. So spoil away. If you drive people off, then screw them, right?


Quite honestly, I didn't know you had stopped reading those threads because of what you consider spoilers.

You never said anything in the threads and this thread is the first time I'm hearing about it.

Wouldn't it have made sense to air your grievances in said thread at the time?


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

I would have problem if next season we have a thread

Gotham - Season 2 (no comics discussion)


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

eddyj said:


> So if someone said "in the comics, he regains his eyesight", and this is something that does not happen in all the possible versions of the comic (only 9 of the 10 or something), do you think that is OK? Not a spoiler?


Yes, because predicting that something is going to happen based on all the already published alternatives is nearly impossible. How many times has a Marvel hero character died and then brought back to life via some means? Hint: Every one of them that died. Sometimes it takes years to happen. (See Jean Grey in X-Men) So, it's all speculation.

Posting he regains his sight after actually seeing the deed in a subsequent show? That's a spoiler.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

JYoung said:


> But it was made clear in the pilot/first episode who these people were and who they were going to become.
> Advertising for the show had shots/pictures of Robin Lord Taylor, Cory Michael Smith, and Camren Bicondova with captions saying "Penguin", "Riddler", "Catwoman".
> 
> So how is that a spoiler in the episode discussion thread?


I don't remember that, but if that is the case, then obviously it is not a spoiler. Having said that, I never saw any of that that advertising. As to those specific examples, I used them to show that the the same comment (who they becaue) can be based on the show, or on external knowledge. I knew who Selina would be based on her behavior, and Penguin is called that (until then, it was not clear to me). E. Nygma was a gimme. So discussing these guys based on that is totally OK with me. But say they mention JYoung in the show, and show the guy, but don't say who he is. Coming in and saying that in the comics he is Green Lantern is most definitely a spoiler, at least until the time when he pulls out his glowing ring or whatever.



> Quite honestly, I didn't know you had stopped reading those threads because of what you consider spoilers.
> 
> You never said anything in the threads and this thread is the first time I'm hearing about it.
> 
> Wouldn't it have made sense to air your grievances is said thread at the time?


The complaint has been mentioned many times by a few people, and nothing changed. It was pretty clear which way the wind was blowing, so I just left. The only reason I am posting about it here is because someone started a thread specifically about it.

I get the feeling that if I had complained, the worst offenders would have just dismissed my comments as whining anyway.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

JYoung said:


> But it was made clear in the pilot/first episode who these people were and who they were going to become.
> Advertising for the show had shots/pictures of Robin Lord Taylor, Cory Michael Smith, and Camren Bicondova with captions saying "Penguin", "Riddler", "Catwoman".
> 
> So how is that a spoiler in the episode discussion thread?


I hear ya.

But some will say that advertising material and other promotional stuff, cast interviews and appearances and what not prior to the show airing is "outside knowledge' and since it doesn't occur or isn't shown within the bounds of the actual airing of the actual episodes, it can be included.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

eddyj said:


> So if someone said "in the comics, he regains his eyesight", and this is something that does not happen in all the possible versions of the comic (only 9 of the 10 or something), do you think that is OK? Not a spoiler?


That would be considered a spoiler because you're bringing up something that will very likely appear in a future episode. But saying something like "in the comics, he lost his eyesight because...." wouldn't be a spoiler.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

bobcarn said:


> That would be considered a spoiler because you're bringing up something that will very likely appear in a future episode. But saying something like "in the comics, he lost his eyesight because...." wouldn't be a spoiler.


Correct, because the series already showed how he lost it.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Moved from the other thread:

I do want to say this.

I think most of us with comic book knowledge actually try pretty hard to avoid posting things that we think might be spoilers in the show. We don't try as hard to put 70 years worth of comic stories that AREN'T likely to be in the show in spoilers.

"Oooh, nice call out to <character who is in the comics but will likely not ever show up on the TV show, if for budget costs if no other reason>" doesn't seem like the type of thing that's a "spoiler". That storyline isn't going to happen, so what is spoiled?

The discussion that (apparently) started this was about how a particular character had been handled poorly in one series of comics, and how we were grateful that this TV show didn't appear to be going that way, because that arc was annoying. Yay! We spoiled a plot that isn't going to happen.

"Things that aren't going to happen are spoilers, too".

Well, ok, but then you really can't talk about anything. Because after 70 years, pretty much everything has happened.

Superman dies
Superman comes back to life
Superman marries Lois Lane
Superman marries Lana Lang
Superman marries his cousin Supergirl
Superman has kids
Superman can't have kids
Superman had powers as a boy, and travelled to the future where he met the Legion of Superheroes, who only existed because they were inspired by him as a boy.
Superman didn't show his powers as a boy, but met the Legion of Superheroes anyway, who now where not inspired by him as a boy, but as an adult.
Mon-El, a member of the Legion of Superheroes, spent time on Krypton and was given his name by Superboy
Mon-El never met Superboy
Mon-El isn't even called Mon-El, because his name came from Superboy, who he never met.
Mon-El is called Mon-El because his name came from a completely different source.

You can't possibly have a conversation because every configuration probably has happened in one story or another, and been retconned out of existence.

Karen Page has some secret in the Daredevil TV show. NONE of us knows what it is. It doesn't match the storyline that JYoung talked about, and we are all very grateful. Whatever her secret is, even if it turns out to be similar to that, we can't have "spoiled" it, because we didn't know, either. We HOPE it's not the god-awful thing Miller did. (I can also say with certainty, I hope it's not the god-awful thing Conway did with Gwen Stacy and Norman Osborne). Some stories are so bad that fans despise them for years and years, and get very very angry about them ("One More Day" anybody) and we are just GLAD, oh so very glad, that that story is not the one we are being shown on TV.

So, yeah, I suppose, in a way, that's a spoiler. "This character you like? She isn't going to be dragged through this particular mud, we hope, because the last time that happened, the fans were very very angry. So we think she has different mud to crawl through. Don't know, though. Maybe it's the same mud and our heads will explode".

It's hard to think of spoilers of possibilities as spoilers in the same vein of things you actually do know.

Game of Thrones discussion below:


Spoiler



Ned Stark will lose his head.
I don't think Arya Stark will get grayscale.



These are not the same level of spoiler, to me. The first is a big deal, and I went out of my way not to spoil that during the first season of GoT. The second is speculation. I have book knowledge beyond the show, but it doesn't cover that specifically. I'm guessing. And the show has diverged from the books quite a bit, so even my guesses aren't as informed as they were in the first season.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

I'm going to post this again. This is the thread for S1E3 of Arrow and caused me to stop reading the Arrow threads. Is there a spoiler in the first eight posts?

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=495087&highlight=arrow

As soon as I saw similar discussion in the Gotham threads I stopped reading those.


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

While this thread has been very enjoyable to read through, I think this is being way over-thought.

I have never read a comic book. I didn't even know The Walking Dead was based on one until I read it in the threads. Based on many comments here, I am not alone (about having not read comic books). Like someone else, I know who Bruce Wayne and Batgirl are but that's a function of being a child of the 60s and watching Batman on TV.

The one thing I don't understand is the assertion that the omission of comic talk in an episode thread of a show based on a comic brings it down to "idiot level".

Does this by definition mean that discussions about shows that have no comic book background are idiotic since only what was aired can be discussed? Well this covers most of the threads in the forum.

Episode threads are about *what was actually aired on TV*. Why can't there be any control among the comic book readers to just not discuss parallels or other information not aired in a TV thread?

Since there is no way to objectively determine common knowledge, here's the simplest solution - relegate the episode talk as if there is no comic book (treat it like any other show).

If there is enough interest, have a separate thread, and it could be a season long one or by episode, for comic book (or other source material) talk regarding that show for those enthusiasts (or anyone who want to enter).


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

cherry ghost said:


> I'm going to post this again. This is the thread for S1E3 of Arrow and caused me to stop reading the Arrow threads. Is there a spoiler in the first eight posts?
> 
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=495087&highlight=arrow
> 
> As soon as I saw similar discussion in the Gotham threads I stopped reading those.


I remember that thread and it was all speculation, especially once Sarah was on the scene as the original. Nothing spoilery about it since in the short term it was all wrong.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Let me answer you a different way.

If you were watching a space show and a character named "Luke Skywalker" were to appear, with his caretakers, Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru, would you be able to avoid having any discussion whatsoever about that in the thread for that show, even if you knew that many of the other people in that thread also watched "Star Wars" and would love to have an interesting conversation about this young character?

Cherry Ghosts point about Black Canary notwithstanding, Laurel Lance has been the Black Canary since 1983. Seeing a character appear in the show named Laurel Lance and NOT wondering if the show will turn her into the Black Canary is very similar to seeing a character named Luke Skywalker and NOT being allowed to wonder if he'll become a Jedi or not.

It's really really hard to not have conversations with your friends about things that interest you just because some other people might also be around.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Ereth said:


> Cherry Ghosts point about Black Canary notwithstanding, Laurel Lance has been the Black Canary since 1983. Seeing a character appear in the show named Laurel Lance and NOT wondering if the show will turn her into the Black Canary...


Lets not forget that in the run up to showing Laurel as Black Canary we got Sarah as BC instead. At that point I was certain the writers were doing a thing.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

eddyj said:


> So if someone said "in the comics, he regains his eyesight", and this is something that does not happen in all the possible versions of the comic (only 9 of the 10 or something), do you think that is OK? Not a spoiler?


Actually,


Spoiler



he did.... in a "What If" story. I'm honesty dubious posting that in the clear in a Daredevil thread would be a spoiler.





eddyj said:


> I don't remember that, but if that is the case, then obviously it is not a spoiler. Having said that, I never saw any of that that advertising. As to those specific examples, I used them to show that the the same comment (who they becaue) can be based on the show, or on external knowledge. I knew who Selina would be based on her behavior, and Penguin is called that (until then, it was not clear to me). E. Nygma was a gimme. So discussing these guys based on that is totally OK with me. But say they mention JYoung Hal Jordan in the show, and show the guy, but don't say who he is. Coming in and saying that in the comics he is Green Lantern is most definitely a spoiler, at least until the time when he pulls out his glowing ring or whatever.


What if they drop hints about his Power Battery?

Here we have some common ground.
You agree that after viewing the pilot episode, these are not spoilers.

I'm not insensitive to the issue. If you go back to the Arrow pilot episode, I noted the introduction of the character of


Spoiler



Tommy Merlin


 and spoiler tagged the fact that in the comics, the character becomes a supervillain because from the way they portrayed the character, I knew that if they followed the comics for that character, it would be a surprise for the uninitiated viewer.

But that character didn't become a supervillain.

But is "Hal Jordan is Green Lantern" a spoiler?
Because there are literally *thousands* of characters called Green Lantern in the comics.



eddyj said:


> The complaint has been mentioned many times by a few people, and nothing changed. It was pretty clear which way the wind was blowing, so I just left. The only reason I am posting about it here is because someone started a thread specifically about it.
> 
> I get the feeling that if I had complained, the worst offenders would have just dismissed my comments as whining anyway.


I participate in almost all those threads and I don't recall seeing them.
If you had spoke up, I'd like to think that I would have at least listened.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

So you just spoiled that Lauren becomes Black Canary. Thanks.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Stormspace said:


> I remember that thread and it was all speculation, especially once Sarah was on the scene as the original. Nothing spoilery about it since in the short term it was all wrong.


In fact, that particular episode foreshadowed the character in question's eventual path.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

JYoung said:


> But is "Hal Jordan is Green Lantern" a spoiler?
> Because there are literally *thousands* of characters called Green Lantern in the comics.


Something I would not know, without reading the comics. If there was an origin type GL show, it might be a spoiler, as is the fact that there are thousands of them.



> I participate in almost all those threads and I don't recall seeing them.
> If you had spoke up, I'd like to think that I would have at least listened.


I don't think you are the problem demographic here.  Many of the comic book posters are aware and try to be good about stuff like this. Others are not.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Ereth said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


To be fair, I don't think you should be posting the first line unspoiled outside of a Game of Thrones thread.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

eddyj said:


> So you just spoiled that Lauren becomes Black Canary. Thanks.


Episode 1 I googled Laurel Lance and saw the spoiler. I was certain it was going to happen that way as did many others in the thread. Then all of a sudden Sarah shows up and we were ALL surprised. That's classic and it used the viewers previous knowledge against them. Eventually though they righted the ship, for what reason I don't know. I was perfectly happy with Sarah as BC.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

eddyj said:


> Something I would not know, without reading the comics. If there was an origin type GL show, it might be a spoiler, as is the fact that there are thousands of them.


Um, to be precise, 3600.

Didn't you see the Green Lantern movie!?! <sigh>


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

bobcarn said:


> Um, to be precise, 3600.
> 
> Didn't you see the Green Lantern movie!?! <sigh>


If you didn't, be thankful.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

eddyj said:


> So you just spoiled that Lauren becomes Black Canary. Thanks.


In 1983. Do we need to spoil comic book events from 1983? If you were going to read those comics, don't you think you would have by now? (And, by the way, that story is very confusing and convoluted and involves the previous Black Canary and magic and you really don't want to jump in THERE, but probably need to read several years of prior comics first for it to make sense.)

I also suggested that Luke Skywalker becomes a Jedi (though I didn't say outright). Is that a spoiler? People who are reading this forum but have yet to watch "Star Wars", which came out in 1977, but who plan to someday?



JYoung said:


> To be fair, I don't think you should be posting the first line unspoiled outside of a Game of Thrones thread.


And this is where I get confused. It's allowed in a GoT thread, but it should be spoilered outside it, even though it happened 5 years ago?

Are there people reading these threads who are going to watch GoT but haven't started yet? Who would those people be?

I'll go back and add tags, but this is one of those areas I don't understand. We all have TiVos (or DVRs of some ilk) I can see being a few episodes behind, maybe even a season, but 5 seasons?

Can we not talk about any media whatsoever, TV show, books, movies, records, you name it, without worrying about someone who has never seen it but plans to?

There was this TV show called "Lost"... "Shut up! Someone might not have seen it yet!"


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Ereth said:


> There was this TV show called "Lost"... "Shut up! Someone might not have seen it yet!"


That's what happens. If you post a _Lost_ spoiler in the Game of Thrones thread, people get pissed, b/c you're spoiling something else, and they weren't expecting it.

However, I believe that the statute of limitations has expired and it's part of our culture.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Spoiler



General Francisco Franco is still dead.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Langree said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> General Francisco Franco is still dead.


Seriously?


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

Ereth said:


> Cherry Ghosts point about Black Canary notwithstanding, Laurel Lance has been the Black Canary since 1983. Seeing a character appear in the show named Laurel Lance and NOT wondering if the show will turn her into the Black Canary is very similar to seeing a character named Luke Skywalker and NOT being allowed to wonder if he'll become a Jedi or not.


At the time, my thought was "oh great, these guys all read the comics and I just learned something I'd rather not know."

As I said before, I had never heard of Arrow before the show and some may be overestimating how many people have common knowledge of something like Arrow vs something like Star Wars.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

Ereth said:


> And this is where I get confused. It's allowed in a GoT thread, but it should be spoilered outside it, even though it happened 5 years ago?
> 
> Are there people reading these threads who are going to watch GoT but haven't started yet? Who would those people be?


There's a thread on the first page from someone who just got Showtime for three months. He's asking for suggestions on what to watch. Some of the suggestions are shows that are no longer on but he can get them onDemand.

Many HBO shows are now available on Amazon.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Ereth said:


> And this is where I get confused. It's allowed in a GoT thread, but it should be spoilered outside it, even though it happened 5 years ago?
> 
> Are there people reading these threads who are going to watch GoT but haven't started yet? Who would those people be?
> 
> ...


You agree that


Spoiler



Ned Stark getting his head chopped is a key plot point


 and you would have been displeased/disappointed if someone had spoiled it for you before you saw it, yes?
It's probably not polite to discuss big spoilers untagged in a mixed audience.

Game of Thrones is an HBO exclusive. Not everyone watches it right away because not everyone has HBO.

If you don't watch it on HBO, you have to wait a minimum of about a year before you can watch it legitimately elsewhere.

And even then, not everyone watches it right away. With optical discs, media libraries, streaming options, people can watch movies and tv series they've never seen years after they were released.

On this very forum, people are starting shows like The Wire, years after production stopped. My brother just started watching Breaking Bad because he can stream it on Netflix.
Would you go ahead and spoil things for them?



Turtleboy said:


> That's what happens. If you post a _Lost_ spoiler in the Game of Thrones thread, people get pissed, b/c you're spoiling something else, and they weren't expecting it.
> 
> However, I believe that the statute of limitations has expired and it's part of our culture.


What is the statue of limitations then?
A month?
Six months?
A year?
Five years?

On this very forum, people posted untagged spoilers about a critical plot point for The Amazing Spider-Man 2 in the thread for The Flash pilot episode, _five months_ after the movie was released in the theaters.

Were those people being inconsiderate or was it totally my fault for not seeing it in the theater and waiting for the home video release?

What if it's a foreign TV show that's just now coming to the US or a second run situation like the Stargate serieses?


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

cherry ghost said:


> At the time, my thought was "oh great, these guys all read the comics and I just learned something I'd rather not know."
> 
> As I said before, I had never heard of Arrow before the show and some may be overestimating how many people have common knowledge of something like Arrow vs something like Star Wars.


No, it's not really that. Sure, I think a lot of people don't know Black Canary.

But if you are a comic book fan and you see a character name pop up that you recognize, and you know other comic book fans will also recognize it, you want to talk to them about it.

The corner of O'Neil and Adams is a safe one, I think. Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams wrote and drew, respectively, a very well regarded run in a book called "Green Lantern/Green Arrow". Neal still charges quite a bit for sketches of those characters, even though that book came out in the 1960s. It's rather famous for, among other things, bringing relevance to comics, and a drug issue that came out at a similar time to the one Marvel published in Spider-Man.

This panel sequence, which came out in 1968, I think, is referenced many times, including in comic histories. There isn't a Green Lantern TV show, so I hope this doesn't need spoiler tags.










Anyway, that's a shout out to comics fans. I bought that issue new, as a kid. It's been reprinted many, many times.

So here's something I've been aware of for 40 years, but I can't talk about it in a forum discussion? That's hard!

I said it before, nobody wants to ruin your experience, at least nobody I know. It's just that "OMG! Did you see that? Captain Atomic reference!" is hard not to shout out (and no, there's no Captain Atomic, I made that up for this discussion).


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

eddyj said:


> Something I would not know, without reading the comics. If there was an origin type GL show, it might be a spoiler, as is the fact that there are thousands of them.


From my knowledge of the lore, I honestly don't see how that could be the case.



eddyj said:


> I don't think you are the problem demographic here.  Many of the comic book posters are aware and try to be good about stuff like this. Others are not.


Thank you for that.
I'm not sure that others agree with you.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Ereth said:


> The corner of O'Neil and Adams is a safe one, I think. Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams wrote and drew, respectively, a very well regarded run in a book called "Green Lantern/Green Arrow".


I am 100% certain that's a safe reference and spoils nothing.



Ereth said:


> I said it before, nobody wants to ruin your experience, at least nobody I know. It's just that "OMG! Did you see that? Captain Atomic reference!" is hard not to shout out (and no, there's no Captain Atomic, I made that up for this discussion).


Agreed that most participating in these threads don't want to ruin the fun for those who aren't as familiar with the lore.

BTW, Lore is Data's brother.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Ereth said:


> So here's something I've been aware of for 40 years, but I can't talk about it in a forum discussion? That's hard!
> 
> I said it before, nobody wants to ruin your experience, at least nobody I know. It's just that "OMG! Did you see that? Captain Atomic reference!" is hard not to shout out (and no, there's no Captain Atomic, I made that up for this discussion).


I think, for the most part, you are correct, no one wants to ruin anyone else's experience here. No one is saying you cannot discuss references from comics. What is being asked is that in the TV show threads that comic book references be enclosed in tags so that those not familiar with the comics, and who don't want to know about the comics, can still participate the the TV show thread. Easy peasy.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Langree said:


> If you didn't, be thankful.


I once thought of watching it, and then I saw the ratings, and chose wisely!


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

JYoung said:


> You agree that
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


No, not on purpose, but wouldn't you agree that it's difficult to have a discussion about spoilers without examples of spoilers?



> On this very forum, people posted untagged spoilers about a critical plot point for The Amazing Spider-Man 2 in the thread for The Flash pilot episode, _five months_ after the movie was released in the theaters.


I don't remember that. But then, I don't remember that much plot in that movie. I did all my ranting in the movie thread (I hope) and I don't know how a Spider-Man 2 reference was relevant in the Flash thread, but I'm guessing it was a toss away and the poster didn't even realize it was a spoiler when they made it? (and gosh, I hope it wasn't me!)



> Were those people being inconsiderate or was it totally my fault for not seeing it in the theater and waiting for the home video release?
> 
> What if it's a foreign TV show that's just now coming to the US or a second run situation like the Stargate serieses?


I'm not sure anybody is saying it's OK to do spoilers, it's just that, after a while, things become "normal" and you don't realize they are spoilers any more. They are just conversation.

I can only speak for myself. I try hard to avoid what are clear spoilers, but clearly I don't always succeed. Heck, I wrote a comic strip about "Spoiler Free Zone". So I'm on that side. I don't like being spoiled any more than the next guy.

But sooner or later you kind of have to accept that the show you haven't watched for 5 years, someone might say something about it. How many "Red Wedding" videos do you think there are on Youtube?

IF a guy named "Jay Garrick" shows up on the Flash, I'm going to get all excited and giddy. Then I'm going to think "Well, damn. Can't talk about THAT on the TiVo forum". So the only people who can participate in the threads are those who have not only never seen the show, but who have never read a comic, or watched any of the other TV shows, going back to the 1960s, that include these characters. Watched Super-Friends? Sorry, can't comment on The Flash threads. You know too much about The Flash's history and possible villains.

I suppose the argument is that there's only a handful of us (and the rash of "stopped reading comics in grade school" implies that there's something wrong with that handful) and we should just shut the heck up and let the people who have no interest in superheroes discuss the superhero TV shows.

Seems backwards to me, but ok. I'll miss these discussions about the minutiae and hidden references. I enjoyed them quite a bit.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> I remember that thread and it was all speculation, especially once Sarah was on the scene as the original. Nothing spoilery about it since in the short term it was all wrong.


Actually I would say post #8 is a spoiler, especially since it turned out to be correct in the long run.

If a character shows up on a show, it's not okay to say "can't wait until he/she becomes xxxx", unless the show is strongly hinting at that (like Gotham). In that case there were no hints at all.

As for it being okay to talk about comics sincere there are multiple versions of characters, TV shows tend to pick the most popular, well known or recent incarnation of a character, so I would say discussing that version of the character before he/she shows up would be a spoiler.



Ereth said:


> Cherry Ghosts point about Black Canary notwithstanding,
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


The difference is nearly everyone knows who Luke Skywalker is as more people watch movies and watch TV than read Black Canary comics. Ask the average person on the street who Luke Skywalker is and I'm sure the vast majority will know. The same cannot be said of Black Canary. Even if someone has heard of Black Canary, it's unlikely that person knows her secret identity.

I'd say ask the average person on the street who Tony Stark is prior to the Iron Man movie coming out and most would not know the answer. 5 movies later and I'm pretty sure nearly everyone knows.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

I'm not sure what the _statute_ of limitations should be, but if something is several years old, I hold no hard feelings if I'm made aware of a piece of information or plot development in a story. I'd expect people to not put out spoilers when a movie hasn't even made it to DVD yet or is still only viewable on HBO, but I wouldn't expect people to walk on egg shells around me because I chose only now to start watching the Sopranos or Lost, or even Breaking Bad. That's the chance you take when you wait a long time to see something.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

hummingbird_206 said:


> I think, for the most part, you are correct, no one wants to ruin anyone else's experience here. No one is saying you cannot discuss references from comics. What is being asked is that in the TV show threads that comic book references be enclosed in tags so that those not familiar with the comics, and who don't want to know about the comics, can still participate the the TV show thread. Easy peasy.


But the thing is, references don't necessarily give away future plot points.
Ereth's example of "O'Neil and Adams" is one that doesn't.

In Agents of SHIELD, we met


Spoiler



Skye's mother who's the leader of a group of Inhumans.



And yet in the comics,


Spoiler



she's a prostitute that her father was a client of


.

That's what you're saying is a spoiler and yet didn't happen on the show.



Ereth said:


> No, not on purpose, but wouldn't you agree that it's difficult to have a discussion about spoilers without examples of spoilers?


Well, that would be why I've been using the spoiler tags. 



Ereth said:


> I don't remember that. But then, I don't remember that much plot in that movie. I did all my ranting in the movie thread (I hope) and I don't know how a Spider-Man 2 reference was relevant in the Flash thread, but I'm guessing it was a toss away and the poster didn't even realize it was a spoiler when they made it? (and gosh, I hope it wasn't me!)


Uhm, well, you were there.
Although you weren't one of the ones that really annoyed me.
(spoilers)
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=10270982#post10270982

Yes, due to my familiarity with the comics lore, I knew that it was a possibility but I didn't appreciate seeing it in the clear.

I'm guessing that now you would agree that it was kind of rude to post that not in the spoiler tags.



Ereth said:


> I'm not sure anybody is saying it's OK to do spoilers, it's just that, after a while, things become "normal" and you don't realize they are spoilers any more. They are just conversation.
> 
> I can only speak for myself. I try hard to avoid what are clear spoilers, but clearly I don't always succeed. Heck, I wrote a comic strip about "Spoiler Free Zone". So I'm on that side. I don't like being spoiled any more than the next guy.
> 
> But sooner or later you kind of have to accept that the show you haven't watched for 5 years, someone might say something about it. How many "Red Wedding" videos do you think there are on Youtube?


I don't know, I didn't watch them before I watched the necessary episode.
(I was several weeks behind at that point.)

Sure the longer you wait, the harder it is to avoid spoilers.
Part of the reason I moved up my GOT watching schedule is because I was afraid some dumbass would spoil key things for me.

And I had to duck spoilers with Battlestar Galactica because I had to wait a few years to finish watching the DVDs.
(Long story involving personal time constraints and the cable company alternately giving and taking away the Sci Fi channel due to mergers.)

My brother didn't like the movie Psycho that much because pop culture has given most of the shocks in the movie.

On the other hand, it would seem that some people feel that _any_ discussion of Psycho should be for in spoiler tags for the Bates Motel threads and I'd disagree with that contention.

It is a tricky judgement sometimes on what is common knowledge and what isn't.
Last weekend, I accidentally spoiled a key plot point for this season of Once Upon a Time for my sister-in-law because I mistakenly thought she was farther along in the season than she was.
And although she didn't grasp my full meaning, I felt bad that I did.

On the other hand, my brother had a blank look on his face when I made a comment about Jason Todd and Nightwing.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

morac said:


> The difference is nearly everyone knows who Luke Skywalker is as more people watch movies and watch TV than read Black Canary comics. Ask the average person on the street who Luke Skywalker is and I'm sure the vast majority will know. The same cannot be said of Black Canary. Even if someone has heard of Black Canary, it's unlikely that person knows her secret identity.
> 
> I'd say ask the average person on the street who Tony Stark is prior to the Iron Man movie coming out and most would not know the answer. 5 movies later and I'm pretty sure nearly everyone knows.


Yes, but if you say to someone, "Tony Stark is Iron Man" before they see the first movie, does it spoil anything for them?


----------



## justen_m (Jan 15, 2004)

JYoung said:


> But is "Hal Jordan is Green Lantern" a spoiler?
> Because there are literally *thousands* of characters called Green Lantern in the comics.


How many characters named Hal Jordan do NOT become a Green Lantern?

Calling out a character in a show (Arrow, Flash, whatever) named Hal Jordan and saying that he might be a Green Lantern is a spoiler. Not that I care, but it definitely is.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

hummingbird_206 said:


> I think, for the most part, you are correct, no one wants to ruin anyone else's experience here. No one is saying you cannot discuss references from comics. What is being asked is that in the TV show threads that comic book references be enclosed in tags so that those not familiar with the comics, and who don't want to know about the comics, can still participate the the TV show thread. Easy peasy.


But not every mention of something from the comic book is a spoiler. If you don't want me to spoil something from the show for you, that's reasonable. But to ask people to put everything regarding the comic book in spoiler tags just because you're not interested in it, is not reasonable.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

JYoung said:


> Yes, but if you say to someone, "Tony Stark is Iron Man" before they see the first movie, does it spoil anything for them?


If they didn't know and would be surprised at that fact, then I'd say that, yes it does. Especially considering the fact for the first half of the movie, he isn't and they make a big deal about the scene where he does.

Would it ruin the movie, I don't think so, but it's still revealing something before it was shown.

Think of it this way. If you are seeing a movie that you know nothing about and someone tells you something about that happens to the main character before you see it, would you consider that a spoiler?


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

morac said:


> If they didn't know and would be surprised at that fact, then I'd say that, yes it does. Especially considering the fact for the first half of the movie, he isn't and they make a big deal about the scene where he does.
> 
> Would it ruin the movie, I don't think so, but it's still revealing something before it was shown.
> 
> Think of it this way. If you are seeing a movie that you know nothing about and someone tells you something about that happens to the main character before you see it, would you consider that a spoiler?


So they are going into a movie called Iron Man starring Robert Downey Jr as Tony Stark and it would be a surprise plot twist that he actually becomes Iron Man?


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

Ereth said:


> I'm not sure anybody is saying it's OK to do spoilers


I will be that guy. I have never understood the spoiler thing or why it is a big deal. Now I don't go around trying to spoil anything since people are so sensitive about it these days, but I am also not going to stop and debate with myself if something I post will spoil something.

It is why I generally avoid TV and movie discussion these days. The whole tip toeing around spoilers just annoys me. I don't know where it came from, but I think like most things it is way overblown.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

bobcarn said:


> Well, Robin mentioned creating a thread labeled "(with comic book discussion)" and added "Maybe the latter will get no posts and maybe it will." That suggests empty or near-empty threads to me.


My point was that we won't know if there's a market for it unless we try. Two threads could potentially generate more traffic than one because people can just discuss the way they want to without fear of being spoiled or posting spoilers.

I doubt it'll happen: I certainly won't lead the charge because I'm so far behind. But it's a possible solution.



Stormspace said:


> It also requires the poster to have watched all previous episodes before posting. I think that model is untenable.


You don't?



Ereth said:


> Are there people reading these threads who are going to watch GoT but haven't started yet? Who would those people be?


That was me a year ago. We watched it all summer and are now watching the current season live. It happens a lot.

I have very little time for TV. There's a lot on my "I know I'd love it but I don't have time" list.



Ereth said:


> But sooner or later you kind of have to accept that the show you haven't watched for 5 years, someone might say something about it. How many "Red Wedding" videos do you think there are on Youtube?


I was very fortunate: I was completely unspoiled. I hadn't even heard the phrase. I was shocked.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> I've never read a single comic book. When I was growing up, I heard comic books referenced and figured they were a thing from the past. I didn't know that comic were still being published and were more popular than ever until all of these second and third tier comic book characters started getting movie and TV franchises over the last 15+ years. For example, I'd never heard of X-Men, Avengers, Iron Man, Wolverine, or Daredevil before the respective movies were made.


As much as the part of your post above makes me want to say:

  

because I know _about_ the existence of most of these books, even if I haven't read them, the fact that you are making such a post is the reason I want to see a solution like Robin's:



Robin said:


> If you're the OP and want a thread where the comics are fair game then start "S3E04 Arrow (comic books included)". If someone else wants to start a second thread " S3E04 Arrow *no comic book spoilers*" then they're welcome to.
> 
> Maybe the latter will get no posts and maybe it will. It doesn't matter.


If the episode threads were marked "S3E04 Arrow (and comics)" then people could tell from the thread title alone that the default for the thread includes discussion from the fans who also know the books.

The obnoxious thing about the episode thread that was referred to earlier is that there is no indication either way.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

> Any spoiler information from other sources, such as articles, websites, webisodes, personal friendships with producers, etc., must also be tagged.





TonyD79 said:


> I guess I read that differently. Those words are about articles, etc, ABOUT the show. Like articles from EW or EW.com. I see nothing there about comic book references or, even, novels.


The rules state "other sources" so if it's not from the episode (or previous episodes), how could it be from anyplace other than an "other source"?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

really, then it should not be "S3E04 Arrow (and comics)" it should be "S3E04 Arrow (and ALL other sources)" 

I think the most interesting thing would be to see is something like a "Gotham" thread where you can't ever mention who the characters will (may) become in the future.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

I'm going to toss this out as a possible counter-example.

How many of you are going to see the new Star Wars movie? When you start a thread about it, will you want to talk about the movie itself? Have you followed all the books and comics and whatnot that have come out since Episode IV: A New Hope wasn't even Episode IV, but was the only Star Wars there was?

There is a crap-ton of other Star Wars stuff out there -- so much so that all the books published by Bantam (or Penguin/RandomHouse/whoever the hell owns them now) have a chronology in the front pages showing where the books fit into the timeline and where the events of the various movies fit in. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Wars_books

If you do just want to talk about the film, and not the rest of the universe, think about what it would be like entering a discussion filled with blow-by-blow descriptions of how, in this scene in the movie, they violate (or don't) something that happens in some-number-of-years *BBY* or *ABY* in one of these books that you haven't read yet.

Do have a smidgen of compassion for the newcomers who may be entering your comic universes for the first time. Be good party hosts and make it easier for them to participate in the conversation.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

The only Star Wars I know is the movies.

When episode VII is released and the thread is started, I will participate. if something happens in the movie happened in or was hinted at or whatever in some Star Wars comic or novel or something that wasn't a past film, I would expect that someone would probably point it out. And I would probably appreciate it because it may give insight into


----------



## whoknows55 (Jun 17, 2001)

Ereth said:


> Let me answer you a different way.
> 
> If you were watching a space show and a character named "Luke Skywalker" were to appear, with his caretakers, Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru, would you be able to avoid having any discussion whatsoever about that in the thread for that show, even if you knew that many of the other people in that thread also watched "Star Wars" and would love to have an interesting conversation about this young character?
> 
> Cherry Ghosts point about Black Canary notwithstanding, Laurel Lance has been the Black Canary since 1983. Seeing a character appear in the show named Laurel Lance and NOT wondering if the show will turn her into the Black Canary is very similar to seeing a character named Luke Skywalker and NOT being allowed to wonder if he'll become a Jedi or not.


The idea is that you aren't spoiling the 1983 comic, you're spoiling the natural character development in the show.

I'm also not sure your Star Wars prequel comparison is apt: Luke Skywalker is in the zeitgeist. If the show was a Batman origin and they introduced a character called Dick Grayson who's parents died then it might be appropriate to wonder if he'll become Robin as that's been part of our culture for a while.

But Laurel Lance and Black Canary? I'm a DC comics guy and I don't know that one off of the top of my head. That back story isn't anywhere near popular enough that most people would see it coming, and you're likely going to spoil the surprise for them.

If a show introduced a character called Hari Seldon who ran an encyclopedia factory would it be appropriate to 


Spoiler



Ask if there is a second hidden group secretly controlling everything?


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

bobcarn said:


> Um, to be precise, 3600.
> 
> Didn't you see the Green Lantern movie!?! <sigh>


7200 now in the comics.

In fact, in the first few minutes of the Green Lantern movie, there's a narration by Geoffrey Rush explaining how the Guardians created the Green Lantern Corps with 3600 members.

Is this a spoiler if you know this before you see the movie?

I'd argue no because this is information they want you to know before they tell you their story.



justen_m said:


> How many characters named Hal Jordan do NOT become a Green Lantern?
> 
> Calling out a character in a show (Arrow, Flash, whatever) named Hal Jordan and saying that he might be a Green Lantern is a spoiler. Not that I care, but it definitely is.


Only if it's a surprise which I doubt would be the case.

Like I said earlier, the showrunners are either huge comic geeks or they hire them for their lieutenants.

They know their core audience knows the lore and sometimes they count on it.

In fact, in Marvel comics there's a long time supporting character named Jasper Sitwell.

He's a SHIELD agent who's one of Nick Fury's long time loyal lieutenants.
In the Marvel Cinematic Universe, he's appeared in multiple movies, one shots, and episodes of Agents of SHIELD played by Maximiliano Hernandez.

In Captain America: Winter Soldier


Spoiler



it's revealed that he's a traitor, working directly against Captain America and Nick Fury.

I'd argue that knowing the character's comics history didn't spoil anything.

In fact, I'd wager that the MCU guys were counting on the belief who knew the lore to be more shocked at Sitwell's betrayal.



It sounds like some people would be up in arms if "Clark Kent becomes Superman" was posted in the first Smallville thread.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

murgatroyd said:


> If the episode threads were marked "S3E04 Arrow (and comics)" then people could tell from the thread title alone that the default for the thread includes discussion from the fans who also know the books.


And if that was the only thread, then you would likely lose even more people, that want to discuss the show, not the comics.

That's why I suggested a regular thread for the show, and a separate season long thread for the comics discussion.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

whoknows55 said:


> The idea is that you aren't spoiling the 1983 comic, you're spoiling the natural character development in the show.
> 
> I'm also not sure your Star Wars prequel comparison is apt: Luke Skywalker is in the zeitgeist. I*f the show was a Batman origin and they introduced a character called Dick Grayson who's parents died then it might be appropriate to wonder if he'll become Robin* as that's been part of our culture for a while.


Careful now. Some people have already said that spoils the natural character development in the show.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

JYoung said:


> Uhm, well, you were there.
> Although you weren't one of the ones that really annoyed me.
> (spoilers)
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=10270982#post10270982
> ...


Me? Or the person I replied to? Or both?

In my defense, I was just reading the thread and responding to a question. I am quite certain I didn't know what the subject of the thread was. I just open threads I've posted in and read them. Someone asked about comic book physics and I responded. Then they made a special case note, and yes, I referenced Amazing Spider-Man 121. Even today I'm not sure that Amazing Spider-Man 121 needs to be in spoiler tags, but I can see your point about the overall conversation. I suppose without my response, his question would have been open-ended enough to leave doubt. So, ok, I apologize. I'm a schmuck, though I didn't intend to be. Nor was I aware until this conversation that I had been. Even when you talked about it, I didn't remember that conversation had ever happened. Sorry.



Robin said:


> I was very fortunate: I was completely unspoiled. I hadn't even heard the phrase. I was shocked.


That is plain awesome. And exactly the experience you should have, and I support finding a way to keep it that way. I honestly do.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Ereth said:


> Me? Or the person I replied to? Or both?
> 
> In my defense, I was just reading the thread and responding to a question. I am quite certain I didn't know what the subject of the thread was. I just open threads I've posted in and read them. Someone asked about comic book physics and I responded. Then they made a special case note, and yes, I referenced Amazing Spider-Man 121. Even today I'm not sure that Amazing Spider-Man 121 needs to be in spoiler tags, but I can see your point about the overall conversation. I suppose without my response, his question would have been open-ended enough to leave doubt. So, ok, I apologize. I'm a schmuck, though I didn't intend to be. Nor was I aware until this conversation that I had been. Even when you talked about it, I didn't remember that conversation had ever happened. Sorry.


Really more the guy responded to and the others who continued the conversation down thread, even posting pictures!

I thank you for the apology though I don't really blame you.
I was irritated more at others, especially since I voiced my displeasure in that thread and got no response.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

Seriously Robin?

The fact that GoT doesn't have a particular plot line this season doesn't spoil one iota of plot for this season. I can't conceive of any way that knowing that diminished your viewing pleasure of this season or revealed ANY plots going on.

For the spoiler nazis:



Spoiler



The fact that Bran is not featured in this season is now considered a spoiler to some. Not that he dies or flies or kisses white walkers, but just the fact that he doesn't appear this season.



INSANITY! If you don't want to know ANYTHING EVER RELATED TO ANYTHING within a pop culture medium, why even read this forum? I know if I don't get to watch big series finales for a day or so, I stay off facebook, twitter, etc.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

whoknows55 said:


> But Laurel Lance and Black Canary? I'm a DC comics guy and I don't know that one off of the top of my head. That back story isn't anywhere near popular enough that most people would see it coming, and you're likely going to spoil the surprise for them.


Now I'm expected to know what you are likely to know?

Dude, I've been reading comics since the early 1960s. My personal collection numbered over 13,000 before I was forced to sell it, 20 years ago now. My very first letter, published in a Justice League in 1968 (I think) concerned the Black Canary and Green Arrow. (I was 10. It's an awful letter. I'm embarrassed by it.) 


Spoiler



In the comics. BC and GA were dating for MOST OF MY LIFE.


 To be a self-professed DC guy and not be aware of that is simply mind-boggling. It's only referenced in nearly every appearance they ever made.

This isn't obscure knowledge, this is something I've literally known for over 40 years. If I have to stop and think about whether "normal people" know this information, I can't hope to succeed. I don't know any normal people. I'm certainly not one.

If we had a conversation about something you've known for 40 years, I bet you'd have a hard time knowing which parts were common knowledge, too. DC has a habit of explaining the secret identity of their characters in nearly every appearance they've ever made. In fact, it was a running joke for a while that Marvel expected you to know that 


Spoiler



Peter Parker is Spider-Man


But DC explained to you, in every single issue that


Spoiler



Chuck Taine is Bouncing Boy


.

(Those spoilers are stupid, in my mind. One, everybody should know, and the other will likely never ever be in a movie or TV show. But this is what people want, so I'm trying to be good.)

50 years. I've known Black Canary's secret identity longer than I've known the name of Mickey Mouses dog. 


Spoiler



It's Pluto



I don't know how to deal with this. This isn't a single book, or even a series of books, this is the tapestry of my life.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

I haven't known anything for forty years. ;-) 

FWIW I have no idea who black canary is. I'm still in the first session of Arrow. I guess I'll find out.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

Turtleboy said:


> But not every mention of something from the comic book is a spoiler. If you don't want me to spoil something from the show for you, that's reasonable. But to ask people to put everything regarding the comic book in spoiler tags just because you're not interested in it, is not reasonable.


This. It's not that the information is a spoiler, it's that we're supposed to put in extra effort and make a clumsier discussion because someone doesn't want to see it.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

morac said:


> If they didn't know and would be surprised at that fact, then I'd say that, yes it does. Especially considering the fact for the first half of the movie, he isn't and they make a big deal about the scene where he does.
> 
> Would it ruin the movie, I don't think so, but it's still revealing something before it was shown.
> 
> Think of it this way. If you are seeing a movie that you know nothing about and someone tells you something about that happens to the main character before you see it, would you consider that a spoiler?


If you enter a discussion regarding the movie, I think you'd be foolish to expect something as basic as that not being mentioned.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Ereth said:


> I don't know how to deal with this. This isn't a single book, or even a series of books, this is the tapestry of my life.


I'm not sure what you are debating. You clearly have a broad and deep knowledge of comics. Certainly you can agree that not all comic book fans have the same level of knowledge. And them not knowing as much as you doesn't diminish your knowledge.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

murgatroyd said:


> I'm going to toss this out as a possible counter-example.
> 
> How many of you are going to see the new Star Wars movie? When you start a thread about it, will you want to talk about the movie itself? Have you followed all the books and comics and whatnot that have come out since Episode IV: A New Hope wasn't even Episode IV, but was the only Star Wars there was?
> 
> ...


Here's the thing though. When Disney bought Star Wars they said that all the other stuff is no longer canon. So I wouldn't mind at all if after I saw the movie I saw people comparing what happened in the movie vs what happened in the books etc. The books are no longer any sort of spoiler for what is going to happen in the Star Wars universe going forward.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Ereth said:


> Now I'm expected to know what you are likely to know?
> 
> Dude, I've been reading comics since the early 1960s. My personal collection numbered over 13,000 before I was forced to sell it, 20 years ago now. My very first letter, published in a Justice League in 1968 (I think) concerned the Black Canary and Green Arrow. (I was 10. It's an awful letter. I'm embarrassed by it.)
> 
> ...


If I don't want to be spoiled about something, I just don't go there. I avoided Avengers movie spoilers and was fairly successful. You just have to make the effort to not expose yourself to them.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> I'm not sure what you are debating. You clearly have a broad and deep knowledge of comics. Certainly you can agree that not all comic book fans have the same level of knowledge. And them not knowing as much as you doesn't diminish your knowledge.


And I'm not sure how 40 years of comic knowledge is even relevant to a TV talkback thread. When talking about a comic based TV show, I expect someone to be able to differentiate between what was on the show that just aired from things they read about many years ago.

I wouldn't expect someone to post about potential future comic based plot points in a thread for a show based on comic books any more than I would expect a post about the Red Wedding in a season one thread of GoT. I had that spoiled the day after it aired when I was still several episodes behind. No specifics were given, but even the generic spoiler I heard was enough to lessen the impact it would have had if I saw it spoiler free, so I wasn't shocked.

It doesn't matter that there are multiple versions of a comic book plot, if one of them matches the show and the plot is revealed in a thread, the narrative is still spoiled at that point. Something along the lines of I wonder if character a does thing b like in book x or thing c like in book y. I would consider that a show spoiler as it's likely the writers based the plot off one of those (assuming there were only two).

That said, if something is well known enough to enter popular culture, I would think it would be okay to talk about. I'd recommend the "mom test". If what you plan to post about is something your mother would know, it's probably okay to post it without spoiler tags, if not it probably should be considered a spoiler.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Really, I am thinking the easiest solution really is having [at least] two threads per show.  One where you can let knowledge from other sources (not just comic books, but also movies, TV shows, novels, etc) to be discussed openly. Then another where you can't mention ANYTHING from ANY source. Not even if your Grandmother knows Bruce Wayne is Batman. Can't say anything about it unless the show shows Bruce getting into the suit. Or him telling someone "I'm Batman!"


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

justen_m said:


> How many characters named Hal Jordan do NOT become a Green Lantern?
> 
> Calling out a character in a show (Arrow, Flash, whatever) named Hal Jordan and saying that he might be a Green Lantern is a spoiler. Not that I care, but it definitely is.


Well, at least one. Oddly enough there is another DC superhero named Hal Jordan.


Spoiler



Airwave


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

Echoing on Ereth's "tapestry of my life", somewhere upthread someone said they know Bruce Wayne is Batman, but have no idea of the villains or supporting characters. This is unfathomable to me. 

Batman has been adapted in mass market outside comic books almost since the character's inception: radio, daily newspapers, movie serials, film tv, film again, spinoff films, film AGAIN, etc. Catwoman has been featured three different "Batman" movie incarnations, including the third Nolan film, plus her own spinoff movie. When Batman an adult vigilante, the police commissioner is one James Gordon. 

I don't know how it's possible to be alive in the 20th/21st centuries, be generally aware of pop culture, and not have soaked this in.


To me it comes back to being an adaptation: Is it the *first* adaptation of a single work, such as Game of Thrones? (Plus, the Fire and Ice books weren't genre breakouts by themselves.) If so, then I can see how source material knowledge can be very material to developments in the adaptation. But for characters that have existed and been adapted many times, for decades? That's just cultural background. 

I can no more fathom someone not knowing that James Gordon becomes police commissioner than I can someone not knowing that the Titanic sinks.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Drewster said:


> the Titanic sinks.


When?!


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

To add to the confusion, even the "obscure" character of Black Canary has been in 2 other live action shows on the CW/WB. Does watching one show spoil the others?

Edit: 3 other shows besides the 1 that she's regularly in now. I was just thinking of the 2 past shows.


Spoiler



Smallville & Birds of Prey


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

eddyj said:


> And if that was the only thread, then you would likely lose even more people, that want to discuss the show, not the comics.
> 
> That's why I suggested a regular thread for the show, and a separate season long thread for the comics discussion.


That makes sense to me, eddy.



DavidTigerFan said:


> For the spoiler nazis:
> 
> INSANITY! If you don't want to know ANYTHING EVER RELATED TO ANYTHING within a pop culture medium, why even read this forum? I know if I don't get to watch big series finales for a day or so, I stay off facebook, twitter, etc.


And I resent people calling me a Nazi when all I want to do is talk about WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS IN THE SHOW and not read about how they killed someone off on _The Good Wife_ when I opened a thread to read about _Grey's Anatomy_.



Azlen said:


> Here's the thing though. When Disney bought Star Wars they said that all the other stuff is no longer canon. So I wouldn't mind at all if after I saw the movie I saw people comparing what happened in the movie vs what happened in the books etc. The books are no longer any sort of spoiler for what is going to happen in the Star Wars universe going forward.


You're missing my point, though, which is how annoying it is to go into a thread expecting to talk to other people about what was actually shown in a movie or episode of a show and most if not all of the discussion is about something else that isn't in the episode or movie. So those of us who want to talk about what's in an episode, how are we supposed to label the episodes? "Talk about [episode title] and nothing else I'm not ****ing kidding"?



jsmeeker said:


> Really, I am thinking the easiest solution really is having [at least] two threads per show. One where you can let knowledge from other sources (not just comic books, but also movies, TV shows, novels, etc) to be discussed openly. Then another where you can't mention ANYTHING from ANY source. Not even if your Grandmother knows Bruce Wayne is Batman. Can't say anything about it unless the show shows Bruce getting into the suit. Or him telling someone "I'm Batman!"


The thing that puzzles me is this: if everyone is so busy speculating about what is going to happen next or how the showrunners are going to get to some event in the future, when/where are people supposed to talk about what is in the show?



realityboy said:


> To add to the confusion, even the "obscure" character of Black Canary has been in 2 other live action shows on the CW/WB. Does watching one show spoil the others?


I tried to watch both the UK and US version of _Life on Mars_ at the same time and gave up because it got too confusing. But there's a big difference between whether your watching the two different shows yourself, and insisting on talking about them both with a friend who is only watching one of them.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

murgatroyd said:


> You're missing my point, though, which is how annoying it is to go into a thread expecting to talk to other people about what was actually shown in a movie or episode of a show and most if not all of the discussion is about something else that isn't in the episode or movie. So those of us who want to talk about what's in an episode, how are we supposed to label the episodes? "Talk about [episode title] and nothing else I'm not ****ing kidding"?


Don't read any of the Big Bang Theory threads here then because they can go off the rails quickly. 
Anyway, what you seem to be saying is that you are primarily upset with the fact that people are talking about something other than what happened on the show and you would prefer that the threads be more on topic. Is that a correct assumption? If that is the case, I think that is a completely different conversation than what does or doesn't constitute a spoiler.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

realityboy said:


> To add to the confusion, even the "obscure" character of Black Canary has been in 2 other live action shows on the CW/WB. Does watching one show spoil the others?


Come to think of it, this has the potential to get way worse.
There's a trend for shows to share characters these days.

It's my understanding that the DC comics shows that are all in the same Universe. 
They're also doing crossovers.

Gotham, Flash, Arrow, Titans, Supergirl, and Legends of Tomorrow are supposed all part of the same Universe.
Certainly Flash and Arrow mention or make reference to events that happened on the other show and have appeared on each show.
Characters from Flash and Arrow are appearing on Legends of Tomorrow.
(In fact, a potentially key plot point about the lead character on Arrow was revealed on The Flash.)

Marvel's Agents of Shield often makes references to the other Marvel movies and has talked about the events of at least two of movies which would be considered spoilers if you hadn't seen either.
Characters from the movies have appeared on the show.
Even Daredevil has talked about the Battle of New York and the Hulk in Harlem.

The Dick Wolf productions seem to be going this route as well.
Law & Order: SVU, Chicago Fire, and Chicago PD all share characters frequently and have done major crossovers.
I understand the upcoming Chicago Medical will also be in this universe and other Wolf-verse characters will appear on this show and vice versa.

It's not going to be easy for everyone to always spoiler tag events that didn't happen in the thread title show that are relevant to discussion.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Drewster said:


> Echoing on Ereth's "tapestry of my life", somewhere upthread someone said they know Bruce Wayne is Batman, but have no idea of the villains or supporting characters. This is unfathomable to me.


It's not that they haven't heard the names, it's that they don't know the names of the alter egos. I watched the batman cartoon as a kid and some of the movies but didn't know the alter ego names until I started watching Gotham.



JYoung said:


> It's not going to be easy for everyone to always spoiler tag events that didn't happen in the thread title show that are relevant to discussion.


Speaking just for myself: it's not a big deal when someone accidentally lets a small spoiler slip. It happens. It's a risk you take when you venture into show discussions. The problem is when someone points out "hey, that's a spoiler, could you please put it in tags?" and the response is "no, you're being stupid, that's not a spoiler." and then of course the pages of "is it or isn't it" debate that follow.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Robin said:


> Speaking just for myself: it's not a big deal when someone accidentally lets a small spoiler slip. It happens. It's a risk you take when you venture into show discussions. The problem is when sunshine points out "her, that's a spoiler, could you please put it in tags?" and the response is "no, you're being stupid, that's not a spoiler." and then of course the pages of "is it or isn't it" debate that follow.


That's the sensible approach. I'm pretty sure that's not allowed here. If people pointed out things that they thought were spoilers, I don't think we'd be having this conversation. (Or we would've had it years ago talking about Smallville). Even in the Daredevil thread that started this, there's not a single complaint that the info might be a spoiler.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

realityboy said:


> That's the sensible approach. I'm pretty sure that's not allowed here. If people pointed out things that they thought were spoilers, I don't think we'd be having this conversation. (Or we would've had it years ago talking about Smallville). Even in the Daredevil thread that started this, there's not a single complaint that the info might be a spoiler.


What Robin describes does happen. Someone complains, and instead of the poster adding the tags, s/he complains that it is not a spoiler and refuses. Or the tags are added, and others ***** and moan that it wasn't a spoiler. I don't know how often it happens, since I avoid most threads due to the spoiler potential, but I have seen it in the past, more than once.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

eddyj said:


> What Robin describes does happen. Someone complains, and instead of the poster adding the tags, s/he complains that it is not a spoiler and refuses. Or the tags are added, and others ***** and moan that it wasn't a spoiler. I don't know how often it happens, since I avoid most threads due to the spoiler potential, but I have seen it in the past, more than once.


I've seen it happen, too. Most recently in the Greys Anatomy thread & with Robin in the Game of Thrones threads. (She's right, that's a spoiler). It's annoying, but it gets the job done & the info is eventually put into spoilers. At the very least, the offending party has been made aware. People have been discussing source material in superhero shows for over a decade and most of the offenders are blissfully unaware that they've ever spoiled anything. It needs to be called out if it's happening so frequently.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

It happens a lot. I've experienced it multiple times. I've also tried PMing the offender to politely ask them to edit it out since my goal is to get the spoiler removed so others aren't spoiled by it and not derail the thread, so there may have been complaints but they just weren't in the thread.

I'd guess I have about a 50% success rate.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Robin said:


> The problem is when sunshine points out "her, that's a spoiler, could you please put it in tags?" and the response is "no, you're being stupid, that's not a spoiler." and then of course the pages of "is it or isn't it" debate that follow.


As long as it's not cloudy.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

sunshine is Robin's nickname, for her hair and sunny disposition. Don't you know that?


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

It still seems that for some people, it's not the _spoiler_ that bothers them, but the discussion itself. They want to control the thread and limit people from discussing things that they are not interested in.

Threads here drift. They always have. But for some people are taking more offense to discussions of the comic, and wanting those non-spoiler discussions hidden (or really banned).


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Turtleboy said:


> It still seems that for some people, it's not the _spoiler_ that bothers them, but the discussion itself. They want to control the thread and limit people from discussing things that they are not interested in.
> 
> Threads here drift. They always have. But for some people are taking more offense to discussions of the comic, and wanting those non-spoiler discussions hidden (or really banned).


Exactly. Someone actually posted the full description of Greyscale over in the GoT thread. I said it was a spoiler and they said Stannis said it. I'm pretty sure Stannis didn't have a soliloquy the length and breadth of the description that was posted. No one there thought that much information was a spoiler. I did.

My conclusion? Spoilers are subjective.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

murgatroyd said:


> The thing that puzzles me is this: if everyone is so busy speculating about what is going to happen next or how the showrunners are going to get to some event in the future, when/where are people supposed to talk about what is in the show?


Since this discussion started about comic book based shows and the only one I am watching is "Gotham", I can really only comment about how it works in those threads

It seems to me the major point about the show ("Gotham") is to show people you already know. You are looking at the past of a known future. Or a future you think you know. Talking about the now (what happens in the episode ) and then the future seems only natural


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

morac said:


> And I'm not sure how 40 years of comic knowledge is even relevant to a TV talkback thread. When talking about a comic based TV show, I expect someone to be able to differentiate between what was on the show that just aired from things they read about many years ago.


I was talking about names. If a character named Bruce Wayne shows up, I know where he's going. Same with Dinah Laurel Lance. Since I've known that name for 50 years, it's hard for me to remember that not everybody does. If Chuck Taine shows up, I'm going to be excited. Same with Jim Corrigan. And because they are names that I've known for so long, it's not immediately obvious to me that other people watching this show won't know them. I can't possibly keep track of which ones are meaningful to "normal people" and which aren't. Harvey Dent was played by a different person in nearly every Batman movie. In most of them, he didn't become a villain. But that potential was there as soon as his name was mentioned, every single time. Is Billy Dee Williams portrayal of Harvey Dent in "Batman" a spoiler for Tommy Lee Jones portrayal of Harvey Dent in "Batman Forever" or Aaron Eckharts portrayal in "Dark Knight"? Probably, to some people, but not to others. Somewhere there's a 6 year old kid who has no Batman knowledge at all and is eventually going to watch these movies for the first time. I can't really help that.

The problem here is that the showrunners know that Comic geeks watch the shows, and so they pepper their shows with names of characters from the comics. Nearly every character on The Flash, for instance, has a name that means something in the comics. Most of those won't go anywhere. Some of them do. We don't know which ones will pay off and which ones won't.



> I wouldn't expect someone to post about potential future comic based plot points in a thread for a show based on comic books any more than I would expect a post about the Red Wedding in a season one thread of GoT.


The difference here is that we knew the Red Wedding would definitely happen. We don't have a clue whether or not Killer Frost is ever going to show up. Those are different in that one is an actual spoiler, and the other is speculation and guesswork. (My guess, by the way, is no).


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Ereth said:


> I was talking about names. If a character named Bruce Wayne shows up, I know where he's going. Same with Dinah Laurel Lance. Since I've known that name for 50 years, it's hard for me to remember that not everybody does. If *Chuck Taine* shows up, I'm going to be excited. Same with *Jim Corrigan*. And because they are names that I've known for so long, it's not immediately obvious to me that other people watching this show won't know them.


I haven't followed the DC comics (I read a few as a kid), but I've watched most of the DC character movies as well as the animated DCU shows and I have absolutely no idea who those two people are, which means they must be rather fringe characters. Maybe they have their own comic books, I don't know, but they obviously aren't as well know as the major DC characters (Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Flash, etc).

Again, I think a good rule of thumb would be to ask, "would my Mom know who that is?".


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

eddyj said:


> sunshine is Robin's nickname, for her hair and *sunny disposition.* Don't you know that?


I call shenanigans.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Turtleboy said:


> It still seems that for some people, it's not the _spoiler_ that bothers them, but the discussion itself. They want to control the thread and limit people from discussing things that they are not interested in.
> 
> Threads here drift. They always have. But for some people are taking more offense to discussions of the comic, and wanting those non-spoiler discussions hidden (or really banned).


There are some people who haven't read comics yet who are interested in the comic references. If people would post comic info in spoiler tags, as they should be since they are outside of the TV show episode, then everyone would get what they want. People who haven't read the comics and don't want that info, (for whatever reason, don't care, don't want spoilers, whatever) won't see it, yet people who do want comic info and discussion can get it. too.


----------



## SoBelle0 (Jun 25, 2002)

I think it would be nice if there was some limitation or designation of spoilers in these comic book threads - or as has been suggested ad nauseum, two threads. 

I learned pretty quickly that I can't read or participate in the Daredevil threads. I am LOVING that show - although, it's kind of rough so I'm only watching one at a time... but, I have no idea who these people are or who they might become and that is all that was being discussed. "I wonder if we'll see X or Y, now that we've seen Z?" or "When this thing happened I thought about that thing - will that happen?"

I understand y'all wanting to talk about that - and if it were in spoiler tags, I could still play along. But, unlike Batman, Daredevil hasn't had 17 movies or whatever - so many of us (many) might not know much of anything, much less 40 years worth of history. 

I don't think it's too much to ask that that be taken that into consideration. I personally find this comparison to Bruce Wayne to be ridiculous. The comparison to Dinah Laurel Lance seems fitting - because I have never seen nor heard that name (that I can recall) in any of the Batman movies... 

I want to learn these characters as the writers introduce them - not be watching for them because now I know just about all there is to know about them... that loses a whole lot of the fun. I watch TV for fun.

Well, that's my opinion on it. I did read this whole thread and had marked a few - but the cycle seems to have moved along from those... so I just rambled anyway.


----------



## SoBelle0 (Jun 25, 2002)

Wanted to add:

What I miss most is when someone is able to point out something that may have been missed - or a bit of interesting, yet related, trivia. I know that I don't notice everything, and have always loved coming here to find out if it was Goth or Gaunt. Did the yellow scarf harken back to the yellow jacket from Ep6? (I made that one up.) 

There was an earlier mention that I can't find now about an aviation logo on a mug, or something similar, and how that may take them down such-and-such path. That's the kind of thing that I would prefer to find out when or if they go there... 

There was another mention about streets being named after comic book writers. My personal common sense workings see a difference here. I see the first as being something that could affect a future storyline, and the second as a bit of interesting trivia. 

I try not to worry about spoilers too much and am not terribly phobic (except about GoT, and maybe the Walking Dead). These nuances though, while obvious to me, are apparently not obvious to everyone else. I get that. We're all different and coming from different knowledge and backgrounds. I just like to think that if we take a second we can all find a way to enjoy talking about these shows. 

Instead, those of us who don't know things, or don't want to yet know what may come, are kept out of the discussion altogether.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

hummingbird_206 said:


> There are some people who haven't read comics yet who are interested in the comic references. If people would post comic info in spoiler tags, as they should be since they are outside of the TV show episode, then everyone would get what they want. People who haven't read the comics and don't want that info, (for whatever reason, don't care, don't want spoilers, whatever) won't see it, yet people who do want comic info and discussion can get it. too.


Spoiler tags should be used for spoilers. Not to hide conversation from people who might not be interested in it.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Azlen said:


> Spoiler tags should be used for spoilers. Not to hide conversation from people who might not be interested in it.


Seriously, people are getting hung up on the word 'interest'? Yes, some people are not interested in discussion of anything from outside sources. Per the forum rules, outside source info should be tagged.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

hummingbird_206 said:


> Seriously, people are getting hung up on the word 'interest'? Yes, some people are not interested in discussion of anything from outside sources. Per the forum rules, outside source info should be tagged.


Do you think the discussion of Ponderosa videos in the Survivor threads should be tagged? Because technically they are from an outside source and not part of the show.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Azlen said:


> Do you think the discussion of Ponderosa videos in the Survivor threads should be tagged? Because technically they are from an outside source and not part of the show.


Mention of the fact they exist, no. Discussion of what they contain, yes.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

hummingbird_206 said:


> Mention of the fact they exist, no. Discussion of what they contain, yes.


Based on the feedback I received for mentioning it, not everyone agrees with you on that.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Azlen said:


> Based on the feedback I received for mentioning it, not everyone agrees with you on that.


Shocking!


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

hummingbird_206 said:


> Mention of the fact they exist, no. Discussion of what they contain, yes.


Should all discussion of the movie Psycho be spoiler tagged or in a separate thread for discussion of the series Bates Motel?

Technically, that's outside material as well.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

JYoung said:


> Should all discussion of the movie Psycho be spoiler tagged or in a separate thread for discussion of the series Bates Motel?
> 
> Technically, that's outside material as well.


I don't know specifics. I don't watch that show nor read any associated threads. But if it's outside material then per the forum rules it probably should be tagged. The forum rules cover this stuff. People are just asking that the rules be followed. I don't get why that's so difficult to understand?


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

hummingbird_206 said:


> I don't know specifics. I don't watch that show nor read any associated threads. But if it's outside material then per the forum rules it probably should be tagged. The forum rules cover this stuff. People are just asking that the rules be followed. I don't get why that's so difficult to understand?


Because threads drift. It happens. And it's unreasonable to ask people to spoilers non-spoilers, just because you are not interested in them.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I think that what constitutes a "spoiler" is different for every show. But since we can't have a giant treatise listing all the different rules, the forum settled on one general rule that applies to everything.

I don't think most people would care about posting about Ponderosa videos in a Survivor thread. Technically, per the forum rules, it's a spoiler and should be tagged, but having participated in every Survivor thread in this forum for over 12 years, I don't think I've ever seen anyone complain about discussion of Ponderosa videos or exit interviews. Therefore, the unwritten rules of the Survivor threads are that such discussion is OK. However, if someone were to complain about it, they would be right and the offending poster should then edit their post to include spoiler tags.

People are afraid to complain that something is a spoiler because past history has shown that the offending poster isn't going to edit their post and the thread will devolve into a multi-page argument about the forum's spoiler rules. Instead, people simply decide to stop participating in the threads and the Now Playing forum becomes a poorer place because of it.

Basically, I think we all just need to be sensitive to other people. If someone asks that something be put into spoiler tags, simply comply with the request and don't argue. That will give more people the courage to speak up when they are bothered rather than simply leaving. If there are specific things you know you want to discuss without needing to use spoiler tags, then simply create a thread where that talk is explicitly allowed. Very easy.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

We are never going to get 100% agreement on what is a spoiler, that has been said many times. That should not stop people from trying to be sensitive, and reacting well when someone asks for spoiler tags. Again, just because we cannot get it 100% right should not mean that we should do nothing.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Turtleboy said:


> Because threads drift. It happens. And it's unreasonable to ask people to spoilers non-spoilers, just because you are not interested in them.


It's not about interest. It's about the fact that this battle was fought 15 years ago and the consensus was that "outside sources" constitutes a spoiler. It may not actually "spoil" anything about the show, but per the rules, it should be spoilerized.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Turtleboy said:


> Because threads drift. It happens. And it's unreasonable to ask people to spoilers non-spoilers, just because you are not interested in them.


I think it's unreasonable for people to not follow the forum rules just because they don't want to.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> I think that what constitutes a "spoiler" is different for every show. But since we can't have a giant treatise listing all the different rules, the forum settled on one general rule that applies to everything.
> 
> I don't think most people would care about posting about Ponderosa videos in a Survivor thread. Technically, per the forum rules, it's a spoiler and should be tagged, but having participated in every Survivor thread in this forum for over 12 years, I don't think I've ever seen anyone complain about discussion of Ponderosa videos or exit interviews. Therefore, the unwritten rules of the Survivor threads are that such discussion is OK. However, if someone were to complain about it, they would be right and the offending poster should then edit their post to include spoiler tags.
> 
> ...


Well said.

Except for the Ponderosa stuff. I don't watch Survivor, so I have no clue about what you are talking about.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

DevdogAZ said:


> It's not about interest. It's about the fact that this battle was fought 15 years ago and the consensus was that "outside sources" constitutes a spoiler. It may not actually "spoil" anything about the show, but per the rules, it should be spoilerized.


People are getting hung up on my, probably unfortunate, use of the word 'interest'. I've tried to explain I'm just asking that the rules be followed, but they'd rather focus on "interest' than the real issue of following the rules.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> It's not about interest. It's about the fact that this battle was fought 15 years ago and the consensus was that "outside sources" constitutes a spoiler. It may not actually "spoil" anything about the show, but per the rules, it should be spoilerized.


Do you read the Big Bang Theory threads? There's all sorts of thread drift in those. Should all that be spoilerized?


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

hummingbird_206 said:


> People are getting hung up on my, probably unfortunate, use of the word 'interest'. I've tried to explain I'm just asking that the rules be followed, but they'd rather focus on "interest' than the real issue of following the rules.


What rule? Where is it?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> Do you read the Big Bang Theory threads? There's all sorts of thread drift in those. Should all that be spoilerized?


Only when related to stuff that can be considered a spoiler.


----------



## SoBelle0 (Jun 25, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> Do you read the Big Bang Theory threads? There's all sorts of thread drift in those. Should all that be spoilerized?


Can you give an example of one that you think is questionable?

I'd consider the BBT thread drifts to be more like off-topic drifts, not discussion of material related to the show that has come from outside sources. It's almost like a completely different conversation comes to life. That's not a spoiler.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

eddyj said:


> Only when related to stuff that can be considered a spoiler.


Thank you! That's what I think too, and that's reasonable, makes sense, and is the rule.

I don't think that's what hummingbird_206 is arguing though.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

SoBelle0 said:


> Can you give an example of one that you think is questionable?
> 
> I'd consider the BBT thread drifts to be more like off-topic drifts, not discussion of material related to the show that has come from outside sources. It's almost like a completely different conversation comes to life. That's not a spoiler.


I agree. But I don't think that's what hummingbird_206 is saying. Maybe I'm misinterpreting her.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

I don't think that conflicts at all with what she is saying.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Turtleboy said:


> What rule? Where is it?


There is a sticky in the TV Show Talk area with the rules for posting in that area.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

hummingbird_206 said:


> I don't know specifics. I don't watch that show nor read any associated threads. But if it's outside material then per the forum rules it probably should be tagged. The forum rules cover this stuff. People are just asking that the rules be followed. I don't get why that's so difficult to understand?


And I'm pretty sure that the producers of Bates Motel have the expectation that viewers of the show know what happened in the movie Psycho.

Like Gotham, Bates Motel is a prequel to the movie Psycho although Bates Motel is not set in the past.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> It's not about interest. It's about the fact that this battle was fought 15 years ago and the consensus was that "outside sources" constitutes a spoiler. It may not actually "spoil" anything about the show, but per the rules, it should be spoilerized.


This argument seems to be stating that everything from outside sources whether or not they spoil anything should be in spoiler tags per the forum rules.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Turtleboy said:


> Thank you! That's what I think too, and that's reasonable, makes sense, and is the rule.
> 
> I don't think that's what hummingbird_206 is arguing though.


Where did I ever address thread drift? I've just been talking about outside source material related to the specific TV show which a thread is discussing.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Turtleboy said:


> Do you read the Big Bang Theory threads? There's all sorts of thread drift in those. Should all that be spoilerized?


Yes, I watch TBBT and participate in the threads. And I love the way they drift nearly every week to something completely unrelated. And I don't believe I've ever seen anything discussed in that thread that I would personally consider to be a spoiler. But then again, it's difficult to spoil a sitcom that is not based on source material. The only possible spoilers would be what's shown in previews or of someone goes to a taping so they know what's happening in an upcoming episode.

This goes back to my previous post about how what constitutes a spoiler will be different for every show. Since the rules can't really accommodate that, we have a general rule. But each thread can kind of operate under it's own unwritten rules. If someone posts something that might technically be considered a spoiler per the forum rules, and nobody complains about it, then future threads about that show include more such discussion. But if someone were to complain, I'd say then the post should be edited and that discussion should be spoilerized (or taken to a separate thread where it's explicitly authorized).

Essentially, we need to be sensitive and police ourselves. In a Gotham thread, nobody is going to complain about references to Batman, Catwoman, Riddler, etc. since that's what the show is built on. But in a Flash thread, apparently people do have a problem with discussion about Character X having the same name as Villain Y from the comics.

Bottom line, if someone complains that something is a spoiler, and it came from an "outside source," then edit the post and don't argue. But if nobody complains, then we can assume it's not bothering anyone and everyone is comfortable with that discussion.

And for those of you who have stopped participating in threads because you don't want to see spoilers and don't want to derail the thread by complaining, *please speak up*, because it would be much better to edit a few posts or create separate threads and keep you participating than to have you leave the forum because you're frustrated and don't feel you can say anything.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Azlen said:


> This argument seems to be stating that everything from outside sources whether or not they spoil anything should be in spoiler tags per the forum rules.


Exactly. The rule has nothing to do with whether the material actually "spoils" anything about the show. The rule is there so that, if the rule is followed, those who want to read a thread that only contains discussion about what was shown on the screen can do so.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Essentially, we need to be sensitive and police ourselves. In a Gotham thread, nobody is going to complain about references to Batman, Catwoman, Riddler, etc. since that's what the show is built on.


I agree with you that nobody should complain but people have complained about this exact thing.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

hummingbird_206 said:


> There is a sticky in the TV Show Talk area with the rules for posting in that area.


I just read them.

Please clarify if you want all off-topic discussions that aren't directly and specifically about the show spoilerized.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Turtleboy said:


> I just read them.
> 
> Please clarify if you want all off-topic discussions that are directly and specifically about the show spoilerized.


I don't understand the question your honor, could you please rephrase?  I don't understand what you mean by 'off-topic discussions that are directly and specifically about the show'? What is an off-topic discussion directly and specifically about the show? How is that even possible?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Azlen said:


> I agree with you that nobody should complain but people have complained about this exact thing.


Please show me where someone has complained about discussion that E. Nygma will become Riddler or that Selina Kyle will become Catwoman. If someone is complaining about that, they're not paying attention to the show, because the show has beat us over the head with that info since the pilot.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

hummingbird_206 said:


> I don't understand the question your honor, could you please rephrase?  I don't understand what you mean by 'off-topic discussions that are directly and specifically about the show'? What is an off-topic discussion directly and specifically about the show? How is that even possible?


He's trying to goad you into saying that any discussion in a thread that's not specifically about the show that thread is about must be spoilerized, i.e. if a TBBT thread veers off into discussion about trains, then all train discussion must be spoilerized. He wants you to say that's what the rules require so he can then use that ridiculous interpretation of the rules to point out how ridiculous the rule is.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> Please show me where someone has complained about discussion that E. Nygma will become Riddler or that Selina Kyle will become Catwoman. If someone is complaining about that, they're not paying attention to the show, because the show has beat us over the head with that info since the pilot.


I know at least someone thought the Selina Kyle thing was "spoilery". Some place in this thread. People have said talking about Grayson story lines are spoilery too.

I'll try to find it.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I should read the BBT threads I guess. The only thing that could spoil my enjoyment of that show would be to actually watch it. Sounds like the perfect threads for me.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

DevdogAZ said:


> He's trying to goad you into saying that any discussion in a thread that's not specifically about the show that thread is about must be spoilerized, i.e. if a TBBT thread veers off into discussion about trains, then all train discussion must be spoilerized. He wants you to say that's what the rules require so he can then use that ridiculous interpretation of the rules to point out how ridiculous the rule is.


Wow, no, that's not what I want nor asked for at all!


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

hummingbird_206 said:


> For THIS FORUM, what Turtleboy posted most certainly is a spoiler. How does anyone here know that the show isn't going to go into more detail on that in a future episode? Someone not familiar with that from the comics has now had that possible storyline spoiled. How difficult is it to post "From the comics, the Flying Graysons"
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Here is the claim about the Graysons


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> He's trying to goad you into saying that any discussion in a thread that's not specifically about the show that thread is about must be spoilerized, i.e. if a TBBT thread veers off into discussion about trains, then all train discussion must be spoilerized. He wants you to say that's what the rules require so he can then use that ridiculous interpretation of the rules to point out how ridiculous the rule is.


The rule is ridiculous as it is written. It really needs to state that information from outside sources that spoils or could potentially spoil future plot events should be in spoiler tags. I don't think the intention ever was that everything from outside sources should be spoiler tagged.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> It's not about interest. It's about the fact that this battle was fought 15 years ago and the consensus was that "outside sources" constitutes a spoiler. It may not actually "spoil" anything about the show, but per the rules, it should be spoilerized.


That's not quite true. See below.



hummingbird_206 said:


> I think it's unreasonable for people to not follow the forum rules just because they don't want to.


I just looked over the rules that appear in the TV Talk section, and it said the use of the word "Spoiler" in the title or the use of spoiler tags is for things that reveal or spoil plot points. There's a natural amount of ambiguity in that merely talking comic book lore doesn't imply that these _will_ be plot points for the show. Someone mentioning that Hal Jordan is likely at Oa training to be a Green Lantern is definitely not a spoiler because nobody has any idea if Green Lantern will _ever_ be in any of the shows and him being away for training absolutely does not look like any plot point. Having to tag _anything_ that's not in the show is not what the guidelines state, they just say that things that _will_ reveal or spoil the show are considered spoilers.

It could be intuited, for example, the direction of Laurel Lance if she appears as a regular on a show based on comic book sources. I would have made that one tagged.

It comes down to, again, that if something is likely going to be a _future_ event or plot point, play it safe and tag it. If it's trivia or comic book talk, unless you feel the knowledge is really going to spoil a future event, it shouldn't have to be tagged.

Also, the guidelines state that the thread title should contain the word "Spoilers" in it if you wish to openly discuss spoilers, and once that is in the title, you don't need to tag anything. I've been using the "Spoiler" line in threads I've created, but I still tag things I think will be a large reveal.

---edit---
I'm not sure I wrote clearly.

The guidelines state that _previews_ for next week are considered spoilers. Right beneath that, material pulled from other sources are considered spoilers, but that's mentioned in the _Preview_ section of the guide. That means that if it's _preview material_ you're pulling from other sources (and they give examples such as interviews, webisodes, previews on other shows, etc.), it needs to be spoilered.

Further down, it deals with the inclusion of discussion and material from other sources, and it states that items only need to be tagged if they function as spoilers by revealing future events.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

realityboy said:


> I agreed that it shouldn't be allowed. I was just pointing out that it would generally only offer character spoilers as opposed to plot spoilers, and even with those, there's no way to know which particular parts of their backstory may be used. These are 50+ year old characters so there are lots of stories to pull from.
> 
> Also, the same rule should probably apply to movies. Quoting Catwoman's origin from Batman Returns is equally as spoilery as talking about any of her comic book origins.


And I think this suggests the Selina Kyle thing


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

hummingbird_206 said:


> I don't understand the question your honor, could you please rephrase?  I don't understand what you mean by 'off-topic discussions that are directly and specifically about the show'? What is an off-topic discussion directly and specifically about the show? How is that even possible?


D'oh. *AREN'T*. Sorry.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

hummingbird_206 said:


> Wow, no, that's not what I want nor asked for at all!


Thank you.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> I know at least someone thought the Selina Kyle thing was "spoilery". Some place in this thread. People have said talking about Grayson story lines are spoilery too.
> 
> I'll try to find it.


I specifically didn't include the Grayson thing in my post because that's a little more of a grey area since those characters aren't regularly part of the show and the show hasn't clued us in to their identity.

I personally was glad to have someone post the info about the Graysons as I didn't make the connection. It's not something I would have ever complained about. But I think that by the strict interpretation of the rule, it technically could be considered a spoiler, and thus if someone complained, it shouldn't be discussed openly.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Philosofy said:


> The funny thing about the comic book TV shows is that the comics may or may not be spoilers, but for the people who read the comics, it makes the show that much more interesting, and that much better. But for those that don't read the comics, that comic book knowledge seems to take away from the experience. For instance, in Agents of Shield, I had no clue who the Daisy character was, and I was kind of bummed that a big light bulb didn't go off over my head when they revealed her real name, like it did with some others here.
> 
> As for the speculation of that Daredevil character, we know the character did something significant, and something not on the up an up. My comic book knowledge allowed me to make an educated guess, but I have no real knowledge. Is it really a spoiler to guess where they are going with a character?
> 
> ...





eddyj said:


> I would say that yes, they are spoilers.
> 
> No one is saying knowing/discussing the stuff in books/comics is bad, just keep it to a separate thread.


and here too


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

I see several thread titles that are spoilers in themselves. 

How about we talk like real people rather than spoiler drones?

We all live in the real world and try not to spoil things when we talk movies, TV, books. And yet somehow the standard rules of decorum in real life don't work here. That's a bit sad to me. 

As for the comic book shows, it looks like it is coming down to how comic book readers don't thing a whole bunch of stuff is a spoiler because we know how diverse the comics themselves are. If only the non comic book readers would appreciate that and understand that these are not spoilers but a form of comparison and conjecture. 

None of us are going to spoil things we KNOW are going to happen. But over the 75 year tapestry of superheroes, nothing is written in stone so we don't view them as spoilers. 

Guess what, Hal Jordan is a green lantern in the comics. He is the biggest one. BUT, that does not mean that he will be in a Flash TV series. Things change. Arrow is dealing with storylines and villains that either done exist in the comics or are not his normal opponents. 

I maintain it ain't a spoiler unless it is real for that topic. 

Another example. Fury is black in the movies and TV. Is it a spoiler to say, "I remember when he was white in the comics?"


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Here's something from the Flash that may be considered conjecture by comic book readers but in interviews with people involved with that show, it looks like they are going to go there so any info on it should be considered a spoiler.



Spoiler



Killer Frost could very well be part of the show. 
http://flashtvnews.com/danielle-panabaker-interview-killer-frost-coming-sooner-than-you-think/19939


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

Azlen said:


> Here's something from the Flash that may be considered conjecture by comic book readers but in interviews with people involved with that show, it looks like they are going to go there so any info on it should be considered a spoiler.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler



There was some speculation regarding that after the pilot episode. Some people recognized her name and knew her from the comics. Cisco is also a character that could undergo similar changes like Caitlin, as in the comics, he's Vibe. Though they may or may not ever realize that. I kind of like each of them just the way they are, so I'm not in any rush to see them change.



That would definitely be tag-worthy as it quotes an article dealing directly with the future of the show. I usually put the word "Spoilers" in the thread title when I create the threads because I know we'll be talking speculation and things from comic books. But even though I don't need to do it because the thread is titled with spoilers, I still tag things I know would be a major reveal.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

bobcarn said:


> That would definitely be tag-worthy as it quotes an article dealing directly with the future of the show. I usually put the word "Spoilers" in the thread title when I create the threads because I know we'll be talking speculation and things from comic books. But even though I don't need to do it because the thread is titled with spoilers, I still tag things I know would be a major reveal.


The word "Spoilers" in the thread title simply means that discussion of the events of that particular show and all prior shows can be discussed without spoiler tags. Including the air date of the episode in the thread title does the same thing. In fact, including both the OAD and "spoilers" is redundant (although I typically do it when I create threads just to be safe). Including "spoilers" in the thread title doesn't mean discussion of outside sources are OK. If you want to make a thread where discussion of outside source material is OK, it needs to say something more that "spoilers" in the title, since "spoilers" in the title has a specific meaning here at this forum.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

DevdogAZ said:


> The word "Spoilers" in the thread title simply means that discussion of the events of that particular show and all prior shows can be discussed without spoiler tags. Including the air date of the episode in the thread title does the same thing. In fact, including both the OAD and "spoilers" is redundant (although I typically do it when I create threads just to be safe). Including "spoilers" in the thread title doesn't mean discussion of outside sources are OK. If you want to make a thread where discussion of outside source material is OK, it needs to say something more that "spoilers" in the title, since "spoilers" in the title has a specific meaning here at this forum.


I agree, this is my understanding of the TV Talk rules as well.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

One issue is that whoever starts the thread gets to decide. If the person who starts it wants comic book spoilers, then that's the rule of the thread, and if they don't, then that's the rule of the thread.

Dueling threads never work.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

morac said:


> I haven't followed the DC comics (I read a few as a kid), but I've watched most of the DC character movies as well as the animated DCU shows and I have absolutely no idea who those two people are, which means they must be rather fringe characters. Maybe they have their own comic books, I don't know, but they obviously aren't as well know as the major DC characters (Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Flash, etc).
> 
> Again, I think a good rule of thumb would be to ask, "would my Mom know who that is?".


I don't know your mom. My mom probably would. She read a lot of my comics.

Chuck Taine is in the Legion of Superheroes, set in the 30th Century. I'd bet real money that we will never encounter him. That's kind of why I chose that name.

Jim Corrigan, however, was on Constantine last season. The first appearance of that character was in 1940. He's not obscure at all, in comics. Not so much on TV or movies because nobody really has a clue how to do his character in that medium. If you think Superman is boring because he's too powerful (hi Rob!) then Corrigans alter ego would be worse, as he is far more powerful than Superman. And no, I won't spoiler him here, even though Constantine is cancelled. (Though now that I think about it, a show like iZombie would actually work for Corrigan, with most of it being the police detective work...).

ANYWAY... I guess the point I was trying to make (poorly it appears) is that when you get comic geeks talking about comics, they are going to talk about comics, and we probably aren't trying to ruin your enjoyment of the show, but these are things that don't seem like spoilers to us. JYoung just showed me that I made a spoilery comment that I was completely unaware of, nearly a year ago. Not a clue that it was a spoiler. Robs comment about Laurel in fishnets didn't strike me as a spoiler either, because everybody I know knows


Spoiler



that Laurel is the Black Canary


. Never once crossed my mind that you guys wouldn't know that. Sure I understand that now, but I'm just saying that when you are talking you aren't editing for other people, you are editing for your target audience, and the comic book geeks in the comic book shows are mostly talking to one another.

I gotta be honest, there's a part of me that finds this all very strange. For years those of us who read comics were looked down upon, ostracized, even made fun of or bullied. Now, suddenly, those same people who think "comics are for kids" and "I would never read comics" are watching comic book TV shows and they STILL don't want us around. It's like they want to coop the thing they detested for so many years, and the people who were there all along aren't welcome.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Turtleboy said:


> One issue is that whoever starts the thread gets to decide. If the person who starts it wants comic book spoilers, then that's the rule of the thread, and if they don't, then that's the rule of the thread.


Agreed. The OP can designate a thread to be able to include spoilers from "outside sources" if it's clearly stated in the thread title and/or OP.



Turtleboy said:


> Dueling threads never work.


While in practice that's probably going to be true most of the time, I don't think it's a hard and fast rule. If a show has enough interest, it's entirely possible that a non-spoiler thread and a spoiler thread could co-exist. GoT is a perfect example.

But it would certainly be beneficial for the health of the forum if people kept the majority of the episode discussion in the thread that's most inclusive (the non-spoiler thread), and then reserved the spoiler thread for discussion of specific spoilery things and not just for general episode discussion. Again, the GoT threads are a perfect example.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

You jumped pretty far between "don't want you to post untagged spoilers" to "don't want you around."


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

TAsunder said:


> You jumped pretty far between "don't want you to post untagged spoilers" to "don't want you around."


Right. As long as we sit quietly and don't say anything unless specifically asked we are fine.

Screw that. We've been talking about the Flash since before you knew he existed. I don't think it's fair that we should be muzzled just because people who don't care about comics came along and are suddenly interested.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Turtleboy said:


> One issue is that whoever starts the thread gets to decide. If the person who starts it wants comic book spoilers, then that's the rule of the thread, and if they don't, then that's the rule of the thread.
> 
> Dueling threads never work.


I think in some cases, maybe it would.

I think for "Gotham", an outside source free thread would get minimal activity. Though it would be interesting to read it as a lurker.

Other shows? Maybe. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any show that I watch and talk about here where two threads would work well.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Ereth said:


> Right. As long as we sit quietly and don't say anything unless specifically asked we are fine.
> 
> Screw that. We've been talking about the Flash since before you knew he existed. I don't think it's fair that we should be muzzled just because people who don't care about comics came along and are suddenly interested.


This is where you have two threads.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> This is where you have two threads.


Quite honestly, only the most popular shows can support two threads.
And traffic in this forum had decreased quite a bit over the years.

In this forum, I think that's only Game of Thrones and The Big Bang Theory and since The Big Bang Theory doesn't "need" an outside source thread, it's not going to get two threads per episode.
(Although I'd think that non comics geeks would want the comics geeks around to explain some of the jokes.)

Half the time, Arrow doesn't get an episode thread. I don't think that Gotham got a thread for every episode.
Agents of SHIELD has historically been hit and miss as well.

Daredevil is definitely low traffic (but that's an issue with all of the "release the season all at once" streaming shows).

Game of Thrones episode threads doesn't seem to populate as fast and as much as it used to, not like Lost did.

And Heaven help you if you start a thread for a far less popular show in these parts. You'll be lucky to get 10-15 responses.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Ereth said:


> I gotta be honest, there's a part of me that finds this all very strange. For years those of us who read comics were looked down upon, ostracized, even made fun of or bullied. Now, suddenly, those same people who think "comics are for kids" and "I would never read comics" are watching comic book TV shows and they STILL don't want us around. It's like they want to coop the thing they detested for so many years, and the people who were there all along aren't welcome.


I understand the feeling of being an outsider and how this might dredge up those feelings again. Please know that nobody is wanting comic book fans to stay away and not participate in the threads. It's the true fans that make this forum vibrant and one of the best places on the internet to have intelligent discussions of TV shows.

All that's being asked is that comic book fans be sensitive to the fact that these TV shows are aimed at both long-time fans as well as those who have zero background knowledge about the source material. So in a discussion about the show, err on the side of being respectful to those who may not have that depth of knowledge and may want to watch the show as it's being presented on TV.



Ereth said:


> Right. As long as we sit quietly and don't say anything unless specifically asked we are fine.
> 
> Screw that. We've been talking about the Flash since before you knew he existed. I don't think it's fair that we should be muzzled just because people who don't care about comics came along and are suddenly interested.


Nobody is asking you to sit quietly or be muzzled. Just be respectful. You've already stated in previous posts that you weren't even aware that some of your discussion might be viewed as spoilery and now you are more aware of the concern. That's all we're asking. Be aware of how others are viewing the show and be respectful of those who don't have the same background you do.

As has been said multiple times in this thread, there's absolutely no reason why you couldn't start a separate thread for discussion of these shows that would specifically allow discussion of the background source material. Frankly, I suspect that if you do this, they will end up being the dominant threads for these shows since I imagine the majority of viewers either have background knowledge, or aren't bothered by discussion of it. But to be respectful of all viewers, if it's just a general thread for the show and doesn't specifically mention that outside source material can be discussed openly, then put that stuff in spoiler tags.

Thanks.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

With regards to two threads, we had the same debate over having a thread per episode, or having a single season thread. Often, if someone started a single season thread first, then that OP made the decision for everyone else, killing the ability to have per episode threads.

Now, some shows don't need per episode threads, but that's not really the point. It's one of the main reasons why Indy left.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> While in practice that's probably going to be true most of the time, I don't think it's a hard and fast rule. If a show has enough interest, it's entirely possible that a non-spoiler thread and a spoiler thread could co-exist. GoT is a perfect example.


Is it? The episode thread for this week's GoT has 6 pages of comments. The thread that also includes book info has 6 pages for the entire season, and no ones commented in over a week.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Turtleboy said:


> With regards to two threads, we had the same debate over having a thread per episode, or having a single season thread. Often, if someone started a single season thread first, then that OP made the decision for everyone else, killing the ability to have per episode threads.
> 
> Now, some shows don't need per episode threads, but that's not really the point. It's one of the main reasons why Indy left.


I don't think we can make rule decisions based on the fear that someone will leave.

For outside source vs. all sources, I don't see why having one precludes having the other.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Ereth said:


> Right. As long as we sit quietly and don't say anything unless specifically asked we are fine.
> 
> Screw that. We've been talking about the Flash since before you knew he existed. I don't think it's fair that we should be muzzled just because people who don't care about comics came along and are suddenly interested.


Who said you have to say nothing? All people are asking is if discussing likely upcoming events about the character based on comic history that haven't occurred on the show, to spoiler tag them.

If you want to point out that they named the streets in the show after comic book writers or that xxx is the name a city in comic yyy, I don't think anyone would complain as those aren't plot points.

On the other hand, if say for example, a character is introduced in an episode as a good character with no hints of being evil and you know that character is usually portrayed a supervillain in the comics and want to comment on it, be respectful an spoiler tag it.

A semi-valid example of this not being followed is in the Agents of Shield threads where lately there have been some posts about the basic plot of the upcoming Marvel movies, years before they are scheduled for release.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

Again, I'm with Ereth and TB and the others. I understand that some things that should have been tagged as spoilers weren't. That's nothing that's unique to the threads about shows based on comics and shouldn't be used as a reason why we need to limit what we say. To state that everyone should walk on egg shells and pretend the show _didn't_ have a basis in comics by never mentioning anything from those comics is unbelievably inconsiderate to all of the fans of this genre.

I'm of the belief that if you're talking about a show based on comic lore that's older than most of us here, it's to be expected that there will be talk of that lore too. And while we'll tag and avoid saying things that could spoil a plot surprise in the works, merely bringing up trivia and knowledge should be encouraged, not discouraged.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

In other words, do it our way. No attempt to understand what Ereth or I are saying. No acknowledgement that this information is not a spoiler unless it is known that it will happen. 

Yup. Be kind to you but not to us. Kindness and consideration goes both ways. Not just toward the spoiler phobic. It is annoying when all these spoilers are all over and you have to drill into them on a mobile devices and most of the time they aren't spoilers at all. 

But who cares about ease and convenience except for the lowest common denominator.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> Basically, I think we all just need to be sensitive to other people. If someone asks that something be put into spoiler tags, simply comply with the request and don't argue. That will give more people the courage to speak up when they are bothered rather than simply leaving. If there are specific things you know you want to discuss without needing to use spoiler tags, then simply create a thread where that talk is explicitly allowed. Very easy.


QFT



DevdogAZ said:


> And for those of you who have stopped participating in threads because you don't want to see spoilers and don't want to derail the thread by complaining, please speak up, because it would be much better to edit a few posts or create separate threads and keep you participating than to have you leave the forum because you're frustrated and don't feel you can say anything.


*raises hand*



Ereth said:


> Right. As long as we sit quietly and don't say anything unless specifically asked we are fine.
> 
> Screw that. We've been talking about the Flash since before you knew he existed. I don't think it's fair that we should be muzzled just because people who don't care about comics came along and are suddenly interested.


I'm baffled by this.

I think you're projecting a bias against comic books onto these threads.

As I said I've only read the Buffy comics (and only some of those.) I don't have any problem with comics, it's just not what I typically read.

Asking you not to post about information gleaned from the comics is no different from not posting about a book in its movie thread.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Robin said:


> QFT *raises hand* I'm baffled by this. I think you're projecting a bias against comic books onto these threads. As I said I've only read the Buffy comics (and only some of those.) I don't have any problem with comics, it's just not what I typically read. Asking you not to post about information gleaned from the comics is no different from not posting about a book in its movie thread.


 You are not trying to understand. Or least it appears that way. We keep telling you that comic books have so much conflicting information that they are not spoilers but you continue to be stubborn in that regard.

Not going to even try to see the other side are you?

From my viewpoint on this topic, you are the considerate one as you seem to only care about your spoiler phobia.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

morac said:


> Who said you have to say nothing? All people are asking is if discussing likely upcoming events about the character based on comic history that haven't occurred on the show, to spoiler tag them.
> 
> If you want to point out that they named the streets in the show after comic book writers or that xxx is the name a city in comic yyy, I don't think anyone would complain as those aren't plot points.
> 
> ...


I understand this, and even agree with it. But others are stating that if we want to discuss comic lore, even trivia like you mentioned, it should be a separate thread, and that makes for an awkward discussion. Are we supposed to have episode threads for the shows we like, then jump back and forth into another one to say "Oooooh. Did you hear the callout to the Green Lantern in The Flash?"

I want it to be like you just mentioned.... if it's something you know of that will likely be part of the story later in the show, tag it. If it's something that's just trivia or a piece of information that makes things more interesting, it should be OK to talk about it without having to jump out to another thread. Talking about the physics as to how Barry runs so fast is a good example. The whole show is about him moving fast. Discussing the various explanations in the past for that speed is interesting and doesn't affect how the episodes are viewed when they air.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

morac said:


> A semi-valid example of this not being followed is in the Agents of Shield threads where lately there have been some posts about the basic plot of the upcoming Marvel movies, years before they are scheduled for release.


I'm way behind on Agents of Shield, but this seems odd. No one here has any knowledge of the plots of any of the upcoming Marvel movies. It's just speculation. I think in some cases people may be mistaking this speculation for spoilers.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

TonyD79 said:


> You are not trying to understand. Or least it appears that way. We keep telling you that comic books have so much conflicting information that they are not spoilers but you continue to be stubborn in that regard.
> 
> Not going to even try to see the other side are you?
> 
> From my viewpoint on this topic, you are the considerate one as you seem to only care about your spoiler phobia.


Do you mean inconsiderate?

I fail to see how asking people obey the rules of the forum is inconsiderate.

I understand what you're saying. I just don't agree.

It doesn't matter though since I've all but given up on the comic book show threads.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Ereth said:


> Right. As long as we sit quietly and don't say anything unless specifically asked we are fine.
> 
> Screw that. We've been talking about the Flash since before you knew he existed. I don't think it's fair that we should be muzzled just because people who don't care about comics came along and are suddenly interested.


I agree. I hope that you will not feel unwelcome or muzzled and will continue to post in comic threads. And I assume that no one wants you to feel that way. That was my only point.

I for one have already said I think we are doing a pretty good job in the threads I read and would rather keep it the way it is than make those of you with significant knowledge who are adding to my enjoyment of stuff like SHIELD go away.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

Robin said:


> Do you mean inconsiderate?
> 
> I fail to see how asking people obey the rules of the forum is inconsiderate.
> 
> ...


If you watch the Flash, our threads tend to pretty well self-moderated. We tag a lot and try not to bring up things that we think will be part of the plot. Heck, even though I create threads with "Spoilers" in the title, I still tag things I think will be spoilers.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

realityboy said:


> Is it? The episode thread for this week's GoT has 6 pages of comments. The thread that also includes book info has 6 pages for the entire season, and no ones commented in over a week.


That's exactly how it should be. The vast majority of the discussion is in the thread that is most inclusive for everyone, and then only those things that need to be discussed in the context of the books get talked about in the book thread. That way, the largest amount of people can participate in the threads with the most activity, and the stuff that will only be of interest to a smaller subset of those people obviously gets fewer replies.



TonyD79 said:


> In other words, do it our way. No attempt to understand what Ereth or I are saying. No acknowledgement that this information is not a spoiler unless it is known that it will happen.


But how can you possibly know what will or won't become a spoiler for future episodes? Obviously, as has been discussed ad naseum in this thread, the comic books include countless possible back stories and versions for the showrunners to draw from. Or they could come up with their own stuff and not use any of what's been in the comic books. But if you're discussing something from the comics because you don't think it could become a future plot point in the show, how could you possibly know that? The very fact that comic books frequently reboot and retcon and resurrect characters and turn good characters bad and give different characters the same alter ego should be evidence that virtually anything is possible for future episodes of the TV show, so discussion of anything that happened in previous comic book stories may or may not eventually happen on the TV show. Thus, it should be spoilerized unless it's in a thread that specifically allows outside source spoilers.



bobcarn said:


> If you watch the Flash, our threads tend to pretty well self-moderated. We tag a lot and try not to bring up things that we think will be part of the plot. Heck, even though I create threads with "Spoilers" in the title, I still tag things I think will be spoilers.


As we pointed out above, the word "spoilers" in the title of an episode thread has a specific meaning here at TCF and does not mean it's OK to bring in discussion of outside sources into that thread.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

realityboy said:


> I'm way behind on Agents of Shield, but this seems odd. No one here has any knowledge of the plots of any of the upcoming Marvel movies. It's just speculation. I think in some cases people may be mistaking this speculation for spoilers.


That's why I said "semi-valid" as there were no plot specifics and the information was very basic, like a plot premise. Most of what I've seen posted appears to have been based off of web articles and the respective comic stories. Neither of which I know enough detail about to comment on.

Since there is a source material which is being drawn upon though, I'm assuming the basic plot of the movies will follow the comics, even if certain specifics be be different.

For example (minor basic upcoming Marvel movie spoiler):


Spoiler



Captain America - Civil War will pit Captain America against Iron Man.


I've never read the comic this is based off of, though I have heard of it so the post didn't bother me. Others may not have heard of it.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

morac said:


> That's why I said "semi-valid" as there were no plot specifics and the information was very basic, like a plot premise. Most of what I've seen posted appears to have been based off of web articles and the respective comic stories. Neither of which I know enough detail about to comment on.
> 
> Since there is a source material which is being drawn upon though, I'm assuming the basic plot of the movies will follow the comics, even if certain specifics be be different.
> 
> ...


Web articles should definitely be out of bounds. As for the other spoiler, I wouldn't post it, but even if that is the end result, the movie will get there in a completely different way. It might not even happen at all. Sometimes titles don't correlate to the comics they're based on. For example the Age of Ultron story in the comics is about


Spoiler



Wolverine & Invisible Woman traveling back in time to prevent Hank Pym from creating Ultron.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

Turtleboy said:


> With regards to two threads, we had the same debate over having a thread per episode, or having a single season thread. Often, if someone started a single season thread first, then that OP made the decision for everyone else, killing the ability to have per episode threads.
> 
> Now, some shows don't need per episode threads, but that's not really the point. It's one of the main reasons why Indy left.


I'm not a fan of season threads, especially when they're created before its determined if individual threads will thrive.

However,



realityboy said:


> Is it? The episode thread for this week's GoT has 6 pages of comments. The thread that also includes book info has 6 pages for the entire season, and no ones commented in over a week.


as I said earlier, I'd be fine with a no-outside-sources season 2 thread for Gotham. Leave the individual threads for all discussion. It would just be the opposite of what we do for GoT.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Turtleboy said:


> With regards to two threads, we had the same debate over having a thread per episode, or having a single season thread. Often, if someone started a single season thread first, then that OP made the decision for everyone else, killing the ability to have per episode threads.
> 
> Now, some shows don't need per episode threads, but that's not really the point. It's one of the main reasons why Indy left.


I wanted to go back and address this, because if that's really one of the main reasons Indy left, that's pretty lame. Because anyone can start any thread in this forum. If Indy was unhappy that a show was being discussed in a season thread (and I know there are lots of others who shared that opinion because it's been hashed out here multiple times), he could have easily started his own episode-specific thread(s) for the shows and then let the forum decide democratically which type of thread they prefer.

The problem is that most posters don't really care one way or the other. They just want to participate in a thread where other fans of the same show are willing to congregate and discuss it. So if a thread is created, that's where people go to talk about it. Unless someone else starts a competing thread and gives people a reason to think about it and make a decision, the sheep are simply going to choose the easiest option, and that's the thread that already exists.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

bobcarn said:


> If you watch the Flash, our threads tend to pretty well self-moderated. We tag a lot and try not to bring up things that we think will be part of the plot. Heck, even though I create threads with "Spoilers" in the title, I still tag things I think will be spoilers.


I don't watch Flash, but thanks.

I likely wouldn't even open a thread with "spoilers" in the title.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

It's not that easy to start a thread here. The rules are arcane and confusing. And if you don't do it right, you get yelled at.

Or even a thread discussing how it should have been done, like this one.

Frankly, I've been here since 2001 and I'm TERRIFIED of creating a thread in this forum. Happy Hour, sure, but the rules police are all over you here in TV Talk. IF you don't list the title, the date, in the correct format, someone complains.

I can't count the number of times I've come here to talk about a show I've just watched, discovered there's no thread, and simply left, because I knew no matter how hard I tried, I wouldn't get the thread right. I can't remember all the rules. Most of the time I don't know the episode title or air date (I'd have to work back to when it aired, and a lot of TV I simply don't even know what day it airs, I watch it when it shows up in my DVR). 

I'm not exaggerating here. I'm literally afraid to create a thread in this forum.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Robin said:


> I don't watch Flash, but thanks.
> 
> I likely wouldn't even open a thread with "spoilers" in the title.


that seems to mean you wouldn't be opening any episode thread.

Really?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Ereth said:


> It's not that easy to start a thread here. The rules are arcane and confusing. And if you don't do it right, you get yelled at.
> 
> Or even a thread discussing how it should have been done, like this one.
> 
> ...


I think this is one reason single season threads are popular. Getting a new thread started is a PITA. It's not as bad when it's a very very popular show that has lots of people watching and wanting to talk about it. Someone will "take one for the team" so to speak. But for less popular shows? Ugh...


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Ereth said:


> It's not that easy to start a thread here. The rules are arcane and confusing. And if you don't do it right, you get yelled at.
> 
> Or even a thread discussing how it should have been done, like this one.
> 
> ...


I can understand your concern, and obviously a lot of other people share that concern because very few people are willing to start threads (which is surprising in itself since ten years ago it used to be viewed as some kind of badge of honor and there were always people creating competing threads for upcoming shows which is the reason the "one hour before" rule had to be implemented).

But in reality, the only thing you really need in the thread title is the show title and the air date. If you can also include the episode title, that's great. And if you want to also include the word "spoilers," that's great as well. But the only essential info is the show title and the OAD.

I know Doug (dswallow) used to have a program that indexed the NP forum and created a separate list of all threads for each show so that one could easily find threads for specific episodes. And I know he preferred threads to have a specific title sequence (Show Title - Episode Title - OAD) so that his indexing program would work well. But I don't know that any of that stuff was ever a "rule." And I haven't seen a link to Doug's program in years, so I don't even know if that's an issue anymore.

I don't have any fear of creating threads, and I occasionally do so. But usually my issue with creating a thread is I don't really have much to say to start the discussion. I'm usually much better off reading the first several posts and then finding something to respond to rather than trying to come up with a decent OP to start the thread.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

DevdogAZ said:


> I can understand your concern, and obviously a lot of other people share that concern because very few people are willing to start threads (which is surprising in itself since ten years ago it used to be viewed as some kind of badge of honor and there were always people creating competing threads for upcoming shows which is the reason the "one hour before" rule had to be implemented."
> 
> But in reality, the only thing you really need in the thread title is the show title and the air date. If you can also include the episode title, that's great. And if you want to also include the word "spoilers," that's great as well. But the only essential info is the show title and the OAD.
> 
> I know Doug (dswallow) used to have a program that indexed the NP forum and created a separate list of all threads for each show so that one could easily find threads for specific episodes. And I know he preferred threads to have a specific title sequence (Show Title - Episode Title - OAD) so that his indexing program would work well. But I don't know that any of that stuff was ever a "rule." And I haven't seen a link to Doug's program in years, so I don't even know if that's an issue anymore.


I've never before understood why people were so reluctant to start TV show threads. Maybe this is it? Must have been before my time, or else it's CRS kicking in. Huh, learn something new every day!


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

I don't know if you are using a TiVo or not, Ereth. The TiVo will give me everything I need. It works out well if I start the thread right away. I sometimes keep the show on the TiVo just so I can get at this information. But the specific format? I probably do it different every single time. . 

And yes, there have been shows that I wanted to talk about, looked for threads, then just said "eff it" and didn't bother.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Robin said:


> I'm baffled by this.
> 
> I think you're projecting a bias against comic books onto these threads.


Perhaps it's from the OTHER spoiler thread about comic book shows.



> Stopped reading comics in grade school....





> In the case of comics, I know nothing since I haven't picked one up since the 60s.





> I have never read a comic book in my life.





> I do not read comics





> I haven't read comics since I was a kid.





> I was a huge comic fan when I was a kid..





> I wasn't allowed to read comic books when I was a kid.





> Most of my comics came to me second-hand when I was a kid.





> Never read a comic book.


When I say people who don't care about comics, I mean people like that. They never read them, or read them as a kid and "grew out of them". It's the same thing I've heard my entire life. "Oh. You STILL read comic books?" We've all heard it. Usually with a sneer.

I had a girl I thought I was in love with once tell me that wanting to CREATE comic books was fine, but for an adult to READ them was just wrong. You could see her estimation of my value plummeting as the sentence came out. Obviously, we didn't work out.

It's kids stuff.
Comics are for kids.
Adults who read comics are probably losers who live in their mothers basement.

These are the things we've heard our whole lives. To hear them again in this context, the context of comic book movies and TV shows finally being successful and not being that awful Captain America movie from the 1970s, hurts.

I'm in the minority here. I know that. Movie/TV fans greatly outnumber comic book fans. They always will. So I'll shut up. And I'll try just as hard as I have in the past to try not to reveal anything, but I'm human and I'm certain that, just as I have in the past, sometimes things will come out. Things that don't seem like spoilers to me, but will upset someone, somewhere. I can only apologize in advance for that.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

I'm one of the people that said "I don't read comic books" But I can assure you I don't say that with a sneer. I truly appreciate the insight I have received from you and others in the Gotham thread. And in other similar discussions. Like the thread about the upcoming Supergirl series. And I look forward to similar discussions about that show once it airs.


Edit to add : Though to be fair to you, I think some of those comments by some people were said in the way you interpreted them.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> With regards to two threads, we had the same debate over having a thread per episode, or having a single season thread. Often, if someone started a single season thread first, then that OP made the decision for everyone else, killing the ability to have per episode threads.
> 
> Now, some shows don't need per episode threads, but that's not really the point. It's one of the main reasons why Indy left.


Except that I started Person of Interest episodes threads after a Season 4 thread was started and I'm not aware of any complaints about that.

Of course the Season 4 thread was started by eddy and he's a nice guy.

As for thread titles, I do <Name of Show> - S#E## - Episode title" - <OAD>.

I do not put "Spoilers" in the title because I assume that anyone who wants to participate has watched said episode and won't complain that the events of the episode and previous episodes are spoilers.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Ereth said:


> Perhaps it's from the OTHER spoiler thread about comic book shows.
> 
> When I say people who don't care about comics, I mean people like that. They never read them, or read them as a kid and "grew out of them". It's the same thing I've heard my entire life. "Oh. You STILL read comic books?" We've all heard it. Usually with a sneer.
> 
> ...


I'm probably one of those people you quoted. I've never read a comic book. But please don't interpret that as me having disdain for those that do. In fact, I feel kind of ashamed of the fact that I was so unaware of comic books and all the pop culture stuff that they have now turned into. I'm envious of your deep knowledge of all the characters and stories.

Frankly, I didn't make a conscious choice not to read comic books. I simply didn't know they existed. When I was growing up, my only knowledge of comic books was the occasional reference to some Superman or Batman or Spider Man comic book from the 40s or 50s. Since anytime I heard about them was always about something in the past, and since I never saw a comic book for sale or being read by anyone, I guess I just never realized that they were even still a thing.

So imagine my surprise (even still) when these movies or TV shows get announced and there's this huge anticipation and excitement and I'm left sitting here saying, "Who the hell is Iron Man? (or Daredevil, or Ant Man, or Guardians of the Galaxy, or Suicide Squad, or Constantine, or Hell Boy, or Punisher, iZombie, or Green Hornet, or Green Arrow, or Watchmen, or The Walking Dead, or [insert comic book character here that was not part of the Super Friends TV show from the 70s]).


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

JYoung said:


> Except that I started Person of Interest episodes threads after a Season 4 thread was started and I'm not aware of any complaints about that.
> 
> Of course the Season 4 thread was started by eddy and he's a nice guy.
> 
> ...


I don't watch that show, but sounds like what I've said all along about season threads: If people want episode threads and start them, then season threads will die out.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> I'm probably one of those people you quoted. I've never read a comic book. But please don't interpret that as me having disdain for those that do. In fact, I feel kind of ashamed of the fact that I was so unaware of comic books and all the pop culture stuff that they have now turned into. I'm envious of your deep knowledge of all the characters and stories.
> 
> Frankly, I didn't make a conscious choice not to read comic books. I simply didn't know they existed. When I was growing up, my only knowledge of comic books was the occasional reference to some Superman or Batman or Spider Man comic book from the 40s or 50s. Since anytime I heard about them was always about something in the past, and since I never saw a comic book for sale or being read by anyone, I guess I just never realized that they were even still a thing.
> 
> So imagine my surprise (even still) when these movies or TV shows get announced and there's this huge anticipation and excitement and I'm left sitting here saying, "Who the hell is Iron Man? (or Daredevil, or Ant Man, or Guardians of the Galaxy, or Suicide Squad, or Constantine, or Hell Boy, or Punisher, iZombie, or Green Hornet, or Green Arrow, or Watchmen, or The Walking Dead, or [insert comic book character here that was not part of the Super Friends TV show from the 70s]).


Did you grow up in a foreign country or something? They didn't have comic books at the supermarket? You never saw them in a magazine rack in an airport? You never saw a comic book store?

Were your parents crazy religious people who thought comics were evil?


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

There are a lot of places to talk about TV on the internet but one of the reasons I like reading and posting here is posters like Ereth who can add background and exposition to the conversation. I would hate to think that this community became so spoiler phobic that it stifled conversation to the point that this forum loses its flavor.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Turtleboy said:


> Did you grow up in a foreign country or something? They didn't have comic books at the supermarket? You never saw them in a magazine rack in an airport? You never saw a comic book store?


I simply never saw comic books when I was growing up. If they were for sale at the supermarket or airport, I wasn't aware of it. Frankly, even to this day I've never seen comic books for sale at a grocery store or airport, but then again, I've never looked for them, either.

But these are all realizations that I've come to over the past 10-15 years as comic book characters have taken over pop culture. When I was a kid, I had no idea I was missing out on these things because I simply didn't know they existed.



Turtleboy said:


> Were your parents crazy religious people who thought comics were evil?


Nope. As I said, I never saw a comic book. Never had any friends that read comic books. Never saw anyone at school reading them. Never saw them available to check out from the library. Never saw them for sale. I only knew of them in the sense that "DC Comics No. 1 is priceless," so I guess I always just assumed that comic books were something from a bygone era that people collected.

I remember when I was in my late teens, my dad borrowed a book from a (very wealthy) family friend that was a really nice, leather-bound book full of Scrooge McDuck comics. I was told it was a collector's edition. My dad read it and I read it. I always liked the Uncle Scrooge character. Anyway, I think that reinforced for me the idea that comic books weren't still published, because that was the only time I ever saw them, and it was presented to me as some kind of priceless collector's thing that wasn't available to the average human.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

I should also add that I really don't read ANY fictional stuff. And when I want some "inside" scoop on a movie based on book, then I ask for it and am thankful when I get a helpful receive.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Turtleboy said:


> Did you grow up in a foreign country or something? They didn't have comic books at the supermarket? You never saw them in a magazine rack in an airport? You never saw a comic book store?
> 
> Were your parents crazy religious people who thought comics were evil?


To be fair, the advent of the Direct Market in the early 1980s pretty much took comic books out of public places and moved them specifically to Comic Book shops. For a while they were printing for both, and Direct Market got stories several months before newsstand vendors, and on better paper (remember the Baxter Paper?) and I think that most of those old style comics racks died out not too long after that, as the publishers preferred the Direct Market model where you couldn't send comics back if they didn't sell.

So part of that is a problem of their own making, by making it harder to find comics, they made it less likely that a new reader would encounter them by accident.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> I simply never saw comic books when I was growing up. If they were for sale at the supermarket or airport, I wasn't aware of it. Frankly, even to this day I've never seen comic books for sale at a grocery store or airport, but then again, I've never looked for them, either.


Did you grow up here in Arizona? They were always in a rack right next to the door inside the Circle K or 7-11 or whatever it was in my neighborhood. Most of my initial comics knowledge came from the collectible Slurpee cups they had. They had a character on the front with a short bio in the back. Actually kept those for a long time thinking they would be worth something. They probably would be today so I wish I would have kept them longer.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

hummingbird_206 said:


> I don't watch that show, but sounds like what I've said all along about season threads: If people want episode threads and start them, then season threads will die out.





Azlen said:


> There are a lot of places to talk about TV on the internet but one of the reasons I like reading and posting here is posters like Ereth who can add background and exposition to the conversation. I would hate to think that this community became so spoiler phobic that it stifled conversation to the point that this forum loses its flavor.


I get what Ereth is saying about getting jumped on in starting a thread though.
The atmosphere seems more hostile around here in recent years.

You can come here, excited about something and want to talk about with people who have similar (or maybe not so similar) interests. 
So you start a thread about it and get few responses and/or the first response is someone denigrating the subject matter.

I can understand why one would be discouraged.

To be fair, there are a lot good, smart people here.
And I read/participated in a number of good discussions over the years.
There's also the assbutts.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

JYoung said:


> I get what Ereth is saying about getting jumped on in starting a thread though.
> The atmosphere seems more hostile around here in recent years.
> 
> You can come here, excited about something and want to talk about with people who have similar (or maybe not so similar) interests.
> ...


I can't say I've ever had that experience when I start a thread, though I don't do so all that often.

The worse I've seen is like two responses and the thread dies. I've never had anyone denigrate me for starting a thread.


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> I simply never saw comic books when I was growing up. If they were for sale at the supermarket or airport, I wasn't aware of it. Frankly, even to this day I've never seen comic books for sale at a grocery store or airport, but then again, I've never looked for them, either.


You never looked through the magazine rack at the grocery store, or 7-11? Once I was old enough to be allowed, I hung out at the magazine rack whenever my mom hauled me to the grocery store.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Maybe he is like 12.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

hummingbird_206 said:


> I don't watch that show, but sounds like what I've said all along about season threads: If people want episode threads and start them, then season threads will die out.


And for the record, I was thrilled when episode threads got popular and the season one that I started withered.

BTW, I am one who said I had not read comic books since I was a kid. No sneer. In fact, one of the reasons I have not jumped in is that it is daunting, with all the interwoven stuff that goes back years. So the exact opposite of what Ereth thinks I mean.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

I might be contradicting myself, but one thread I don't feel spoiled anything for me, and I did appreciate some of the insight, was "Agent Carter." That worked pretty well as a season thread.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

JYoung said:


> I get what Ereth is saying about getting jumped on in starting a thread though.
> The atmosphere seems more hostile around here in recent years.
> 
> You can come here, excited about something and want to talk about with people who have similar (or maybe not so similar) interests.
> ...


Some people live just to yuck other people's yum. It is baffling.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Azlen said:


> Did you grow up here in Arizona? They were always in a rack right next to the door inside the Circle K or 7-11 or whatever it was in my neighborhood. Most of my initial comics knowledge came from the collectible Slurpee cups they had. They had a character on the front with a short bio in the back. Actually kept those for a long time thinking they would be worth something. They probably would be today so I wish I would have kept them longer.


No, I grew up in Utah. Didn't spend a lot of time at the local convenience store, but when I did, it was to play video games, not look at magazines.



Ereth said:


> To be fair, the advent of the Direct Market in the early 1980s pretty much took comic books out of public places and moved them specifically to Comic Book shops. For a while they were printing for both, and Direct Market got stories several months before newsstand vendors, and on better paper (remember the Baxter Paper?) and I think that most of those old style comics racks died out not too long after that, as the publishers preferred the Direct Market model where you couldn't send comics back if they didn't sell.
> 
> So part of that is a problem of their own making, by making it harder to find comics, they made it less likely that a new reader would encounter them by accident.


This probably has a lot to do with it. It would have been mid-80s when I would have started being old enough to notice comic books for sale on my own, and if they had mostly been pulled from regular grocery store magazine racks and were then being sold in a comic book shop, that would make sense, as I don't recall knowing about any comic book shops.

There was a store in the local mall called Games People Play that catered to the D&D crowd, and if I had to guess, that's probably where comic books were sold in my city, but I don't recall ever going into that store.



Drewster said:


> You never looked through the magazine rack at the grocery store, or 7-11? Once I was old enough to be allowed, I hung out at the magazine rack whenever my mom hauled me to the grocery store.


I don't recall spending a lot of time at the magazine racks, but when I did, I was probably looking at magazines about sports or cars.



jsmeeker said:


> Maybe he is like 12.


Close. Just change the 1 to a 4.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

Ereth said:


> When I say people who don't care about comics, I mean people like that. They never read them, or read them as a kid and "grew out of them". It's the same thing I've heard my entire life. "Oh. You STILL read comic books?" We've all heard it. Usually with a sneer.


And then there are folks like me that only ever dabbled in comic books when I was young but gained a respect for them later in life, I may not read anything current but I've really enjoyed being able to get some of the Silver Age DC stuff in hardcover collections.



Ereth said:


> I had a girl I thought I was in love with once tell me that wanting to CREATE comic books was fine, but for an adult to READ them was just wrong. You could see her estimation of my value plummeting as the sentence came out. Obviously, we didn't work out.


Clearly she was not worthy.. it's her loss


----------



## whoknows55 (Jun 17, 2001)

Ereth said:


> It's not that easy to start a thread here. The rules are arcane and confusing. And if you don't do it right, you get yelled at.
> 
> Or even a thread discussing how it should have been done, like this one.
> 
> ...


PM me when you want to start a thread. I'd be happy to do it for you.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

jsmeeker said:


> that seems to mean you wouldn't be opening any episode thread.
> 
> Really?


No, I mean that if it says "spoilers" I tend to assume they mean for things other than the named episode.



DevdogAZ said:


> I simply never saw comic books when I was growing up. If they were for sale at the supermarket or airport, I wasn't aware of it. Frankly, even to this day I've never seen comic books for sale at a grocery store or airport, but then again, I've never looked for them, either.


Yup. I knew my dad read comic books as a kid but I didn't know they were still a thing. When I learned Buffy was coming back as a comic I had to find out how you bought one.

I have absolutely no bias against them. There are tons of things I don't read, not because I think they're bag, bit because they don't interest me, or I haven't discovered them, or whatever. I have read a couple of graphic novels without much success because I only focus on the text and forget I'm supposed to be looking at the pictures, too. That's my failing, not the comic book's.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Robin said:


> No, I mean that if it says "spoilers" I tend to assume they mean for things other than the named episode.
> 
> .


Oh... well, normally it's just there as extra precaution. But episode threads can talk about previous episodes too. But not later ones. Even if it is not tagged "Spoilers" in the thread. Also you see it on seasons threads too to officially say that there will be talk about all episodes. Either all seasons or a specific season if the thread is labeled as such. Because technically, if you don't put "spoilers" in a season thread, you really aren't supposed to talk about what happens in the show.



The Rules said:


> Official Episode Threads:
> When starting a discussion about a specific show episode, please put the air date and name of the program (and title if you know it) in the subject line. (ie: Lost, "Man of Science, Man of Faith," 11/16.)
> 
> This will be the "official" thread for that week, and anything within that thread may contain spoilers for that show. *It is also okay to mention a plot point from any previous episode. If you are not caught up on this show, and do not wish to read spoilers, do not open this thread.*


Note that no where does it say you have to add ***SPOILERS*** to the title to get extra allowances. It's just something people do.

I don't know of threads for any show where people start it to intentionally talk about other shows. I know it happens by accident or carelessness. But if you start a thread and it says "mad men -- all seasons -- ***SPOILERS***" I don't think it gives anyone free reign to talk about, say, Breaking Bad or whatever.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

Azlen said:


> There are a lot of places to talk about TV on the internet but one of the reasons I like reading and posting here is posters like Ereth who can add background and exposition to the conversation. I would hate to think that this community became so spoiler phobic that it stifled conversation to the point that this forum loses its flavor.


 too late


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> From my viewpoint on this topic, you are the considerate one as you seem to only care about your spoiler phobia.


Do you realize you've just insulted one of the nicest people on this forum?

This kind of attitude is why participation in the TV Show Talk forum has gone into the toilet here.


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

Robin said:


> I have read a couple of graphic novels without much success because I only focus on the text and forget I'm supposed to be looking at the pictures, too. That's my failing, not the comic book's.


That's how I tend to read them too. I can send a list of ones with (IMHO) notable writing, if you'd like.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Thanks for the offer! I'm going to pass for now since these days I struggle to finish my one book a month for book club. 

It kills me since as a kid I was a voracious reader but I only like to read in blocks of uninterrupted time which of highly incompatible with my life ATM.;-)


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

I was listening to an Outlander podcast last night and had a spoiler realization: it's kind of like "once a cheater, always a cheater". Once someone has posted a spoiler, even a minor one, I'm nervous that there will be more.

In the case of the podcast it was a showrunner who made a comment about something in the books that would show up in the second season and THEN said " oops! Spoiler! Ha ha."

It's not that that one piece of information has ruined the show, it's that now I'm left wondering if I need to stop listening to it because there will be more. (Answer: yes, there was at least one more in that episode alone. :-\ )

(I'll save some of you some typing: "if the showrunner doesn't consider it a spoiler then it isn't!")


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

morac said:


> I can't say I've ever had that experience when I start a thread, though I don't do so all that often.
> 
> The worse I've seen is like two responses and the thread dies. I've never had anyone denigrate me for starting a thread.


Lol! Try starting a poll. 😏


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Let's say someone has never seen or read about Star Wars before, but was vaguely familiar with some of the characters. The person starts watching from Episode I, instead of Episode IV. After Episode I you say to them, "You know, that Anakin kid grows up to be Darth Vader."

Is that a spoiler?

Subjectively, to that person, yes. However, it is NOT a spoiler. The writers/producers and everyone involved with Episode I, made it with the intention and expectation that every single person who was going to watch Episode I, knew that Anakin was going to be Darth Vader. The prequels make no sense if you don't already know that Anakin is going to be Darth Vader*. The whole point of the prequels is to show people who already knew that Anakin becomes Darth Vader how it happens. If you don't already know that information, you are missing out on understanding of a lot of what is going on.

Likewise, a lot of these comic references, aren't spoilers of upcoming episodes. They aren't spoilers of anything. But they are explanations of things that the writers and producers assume that you already know. 

Yes, as some will say, "RULES RULES RULES!! I COME FROM A UNIVERSE WHRE COMICS DON'T EXIST AND I DON'T WANT TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THEM!!!!" 

Fine, ok. But know that people are trying to give context and background, which aren't spoilers. 






*Yes, the prequels make no sense anyway.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> ...
> As we pointed out above, the word "spoilers" in the title of an episode thread has a specific meaning here at TCF and does not mean it's OK to bring in discussion of outside sources into that thread.


I have no idea why you seem to think this is inappropriate. It's not dissuaded in the guidelines in any manner. The guidelines in no way say that the only talk that is allowed is what occurs in a show.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Turtleboy said:


> The writers/producers and everyone involved with Episode I, made it with the intention and expectation that every single person who was going to watch Episode I, knew that Anakin was going to be Darth Vader.


Do you think the writers of Daredevil, Arrow, etc. made them with the expectation that every single person who was going to watch those shows had read, or even had any real familiarity with, the comics?

It would be interesting (thought not interesting enough for me to make a poll right now) to take a multiple option poll with options something like:

*I read comic books
*I don't, but I'm familiar with the backstory of Arrow
*I don't, but I'm familiar with the backstory of Daredevil
...


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Robin said:


> Do you think the writers of Daredevil, Arrow, etc. made them with the expectation that every single person who was going to watch those shows had read, or even had any real familiarity with, the comics?
> 
> ...


With Gotham most assuredly, but not with specific stories but more along the lines of who the characters would become. 
With the other shows it is a mix, they know that a certain percentage of the audience has familiarity with many of the stories and characters so they will throw Easter eggs in but also want to give something new and provide some surprises to those readers. Which is why most of the time they are going to tell stories completely different from the comics.
But they also know that there are people watching that aren't familiar with the stories as well, so they are not going to be too inside or complicated and provide exposition when required.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

bobcarn said:


> I have no idea why you seem to think this is inappropriate. It's not dissuaded in the guidelines in any manner. The guidelines in no way say that the only talk that is allowed is what occurs in a show.


It's a difference in the interpretation of the rules, but I think Devdog is correct.

There's no difference in these examples

*The Flash S01E22 "Rogue Air" (spoilers)*

*The Flash S01E22 "Rogue Air" *

Technically neither is correct, but putting "spoilers" in the title doesn't allow for info beyond that particular episode.



> *Official Episode Threads:*
> When starting a discussion about a specific show episode, please put the air date and name of the program (and title if you know it) in the subject line. (ie: Lost, Man of Science, Man of Faith, 11/16.)
> 
> This will be the official thread for that week, and anything within that thread may contain spoilers for that show. It is also okay to mention a plot point from any previous episode. If you are not caught up on this show, and do not wish to read spoilers, do not open this thread.


There are instances where the rules state that you should use "spoilers" in the title of the thread.



> *Posting other content/discussions:*
> If you are posting a published article or just a general discussion about a show/actor/director, and it contains spoilers for anything that has happened in the current season, please put the word spoilers in the subject line.
> 
> Example: If you post a discussion or article entitled ER has really gone downhill and it refers to current helicopter crashes or new romances, please put spoilers in the title. eg: ER has really gone downhill - Spoilers
> ...


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

cherry ghost said:


> There are instances where the rules state that you should use "spoilers" in the title of the thread.
> 
> Posting other content/discussions:
> If you are posting a published article or just a general discussion about a show/actor/director, and it contains spoilers for anything that has happened in the* current season*, please put the word "spoilers" in the subject line.
> ...


One thing of note that the rules mention posting about something in the current season. It would seem to imply that there is a statute of limitations on spoilers and anything in previous seasons would not require spoiler tags.
It also seems to imply that outside sources that do not spoil plot points also do not require spoiler tags.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Azlen said:


> One thing of note that the rules mention posting about something in the current season. It would seem to imply that there is a statute of limitations on spoilers and anything in previous seasons would not require spoiler tags.
> It also seems to imply that outside sources that do not spoil plot points also do not require spoiler tags.


There was an edit to the rules on May 6th (10 days ago). I wonder if some restrictions were removed?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

I believe some were added, after an argument about, you guessed it, what is a spoiler.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

morac said:


> There was an edit to the rules on May 6th (10 days ago). I wonder if some restrictions were removed?


What was added that anything discussing a plot point from another TV show should be in spoiler tags as well.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

murgatroyd said:


> Do you realize you've just insulted one of the nicest people on this forum? This kind of attitude is why participation in the TV Show Talk forum has gone into the toilet here.


That "nicest" person is not being reasonable or discussing the topic but instead is forcing her view of the world and the rules on us and just keeps closed mindedly repeating "follow the rules" without any discussion of what the rules mean so SHE can avoid any and all spoilers. I see this "nicest" person as being selfish in this discussion. That is not nice.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Wrong. The nice people have just stopped reading and posting. And this thread shows the attitudes that have caused that to happen.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Azlen said:


> What was added that anything discussing a plot point from another TV show should be in spoiler tags as well.


And, of course, the "community" voted on this change.

So, unilateral rules that are open to various levels of interpretation that change obscurely is what we are discussing?


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Azlen said:


> It also seems to imply that outside sources that do not spoil plot points also do not require spoiler tags.


Bingo. And that is what 75 years of comics history comes under. Not spoiling plot points. Any reference to a comic is a conjecture no different than if I presented it as an idea.

But no discussion from the non comics crowd. They just reject that idea and repeat a very strict (and non literal) interpretation of the rules.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

eddyj said:


> Wrong. The nice people have just stopped reading and posting. And this thread shows the attitudes that have caused that to happen.


You mean the one that says we need to cater to the LCD? Because that could make many of us stop reading and posting.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

You say that like it's a bad thing.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Bingo. And that is what 75 years of comics history comes under. Not spoiling plot points. Any reference to a comic is a conjecture no different than if I presented it as an idea.
> 
> But no discussion from the non comics crowd. They just reject that idea and repeat a very strict (and non literal) interpretation of the rules.


One faction is proposing compromises and solutions that will allow the most possible people to participate in episode threads.

The other faction is demanding "my way or the highway."

Can you guess which side you fall on?


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> One faction is proposing compromises and solutions that will allow the most possible people to participate in episode threads.
> 
> The other faction is demanding "my way or the highway."
> 
> Can you guess which side you fall on?


There are people on each side that want compromise & people on each side that want "my way of the highway". The majority on both sides want compromise.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Robin said:


> Do you think the writers of Daredevil, Arrow, etc. made them with the expectation that every single person who was going to watch those shows had read, or even had any real familiarity with, the comics?


No. And when people give background information to help explain something that may not be readily apparent to someone who doesn't know the comic book, that's not a spoiler.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> No. And when people give background information to help explain something that may not be readily apparent to someone who doesn't know the comic book, that's not a spoiler.


You can't possibly claim that in all cases. For example, there is a guy in a show that seemed like a perfectly nice guy. Maybe they foreshadow that he will be evil, but do not make it clear. Coming in and "explaining" how the foreshadowing really means that he is an evil bastard certainly is a spoiler.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Bingo. And that is what 75 years of comics history comes under. Not spoiling plot points. Any reference to a comic is a conjecture no different than if I presented it as an idea.


I'm not sure how you rationalize that talking about comic history plots is "conjecture". Conjecture would be if someone with no comic history knowledge, widely guessed at a future plot. Once you have backstory knowledge, it's no longer conjecture, it's at least partial foreknowledge.

It doesn't matter if there multiple versions of the same story in the comics, if the show is following the basic plot of one of them, then it would be considered a spoiler to reveal where that plot is going before the show airs it.

I'll give an example using Flash (spoilers for those who haven't watched the show or who aren't caught up):


Spoiler



There were vague hints throughout the season to Grodd. It wasn't until the third to last episode that he showed up. Talking about him prior to that, especially mentioning who he is, what his powers are, etc, would be considered a spoiler in the context of the Flash TV show.


From a comics standpoint, he has been around awhile so talking about him 
In a comic talkback thread would be fine, but until he was revealed in the TV show, talking about him in a TV talkback thread, would be considered a spoiler, even if he wasn't used exactly the same way he was used in the comics.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

morac said:


> I can't say I've ever had that experience when I start a thread, though I don't do so all that often.
> 
> The worse I've seen is like two responses and the thread dies. I've never had anyone denigrate me for starting a thread.


It hasn't happened to me personally but I've seen it happen to other numerous times.



Robin said:


> Do you think the writers of Daredevil, Arrow, etc. made them with the expectation that every single person who was going to watch those shows had read, or even had any real familiarity with, the comics?


I think that the writers of these shows write with the expectation that the core audience will know the comics backstory and the general audience does not and try to write it to include both audiences.



realityboy said:


> There are people on each side that want compromise & people on each side that want "my way of the highway". The majority on both sides want compromise.


+1


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

morac said:


> It doesn't matter if there multiple versions of the same story in the comics, if the show is following the basic plot of one of them, then it would be considered a spoiler to reveal where that plot is going before the show airs it.
> 
> I'll give an example using Flash (spoilers for those who haven't watched the show or who aren't caught up):


The thing is, it's not following the basic plot line of one of them. They are making a brand new one. Even the example you mention is completely different in the show. The only thing known by comic readers was that there was a known character that would be on the show at some point. How they were going to use this character or what is powers may or may not be was nothing more than conjecture.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

morac said:


> I'll give an example using Flash (spoilers for those who haven't watched the show or who aren't caught up):
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


I would have spoilered it too but to be fair, there were plenty of hints and foreshadowing in previous episodes on how he was going to be used even if you hadn't heard about the character.

Flash also introduced the character of


Spoiler



Dr. Harrison Wells


 because if they introduced the character of


Spoiler



Dr. Eobard Thawne or even Dr. Adrian Zoom


 comic book fans would know right away what was up with that character and anyone who typed either name into Google would find out in seconds.

In Agents of SHIELD, I correctly speculated early on that Skye was a member of a group


Spoiler



known as the Inhumans


.
But I also speculated that based on the evidence that the show had given us, she could also be a member of a group


Spoiler



called the Eternals


.

And those weren't the only possibilities I considered, she could have been


Spoiler



a mutant if I already didn't know that Fox wouldn't let them use mutants or simply an enhanced human


.

The writers were dropping hints about the character so is that a spoiler or speculation?

Is a speculation about what ultimately didn't happen to a character a spoiler?

What about murder mysteries?
The writer(s) will usually leave clues point to one or more suspects.
Is it a spoiler if you post who you think the murderer is based on the clues the writer left?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

JYoung said:


> In Agents of SHIELD, I correctly speculated early on that Skye was a member of a group
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


If those groups have not even been mentioned in the show, then yes, those would be spoilers, since I do not know from the show that they exist. Maybe finding out that one of those exists is an important plot point in the future.



> Is a speculation about what ultimately didn't happen to a character a spoiler?


Technically no, but you have no way to know that when you post the possible spoiler.



> What about murder mysteries?
> The writer(s) will usually leave clues point to one or more suspects.
> Is it a spoiler if you post who you think the murderer is based on the clues the writer left?


If they are based on the clues show, then they are absolutely fair game. If they are based on you reading something else about it elsewhere, then it is a spoiler.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

JYoung said:


> I would have spoilered it too but to be fair, there were plenty of hints and foreshadowing in previous episodes on how he was going to be used even if you hadn't heard about the character.
> 
> Flash also introduced the character of
> 
> ...


What's a spoiler, imo, is if you typed


Spoiler



Inhumans or Eternals


 outside of spoiler tags before either was mentioned on the show.

There's a character in the GoT books that has not yet appeared on the show. I'm extremely certain this character will be on the show eventually. I would never type that characters name in an episode thread prior to being mentioned on the show.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

What about historical spoilers? Does "everybody know" that the Titanic sunk? 

Or that Wild Bill Hickok was murdered in Deadwood playing poker while holding a pair of Aces and Eights?


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

realityboy said:


> There are people on each side that want compromise & people on each side that want "my way of the highway". The majority on both sides want compromise.


Exactly, and then there are people that just want to stir the pot, I was in another thread and someone who had not yet participated came in and said


> that should be in spoiler tags and any discussion of it should also be in spoiler tags


 I disagreed with them and posted as such, but there was no discussion of the show, it was just a "drive by" IMNSHO since no one else has complained about discussion of the item in question in that show's threads.

Well intentioned or not, that sure felt like someone who just wanted to kick the hornets nest.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

Turtleboy said:


> Or that Wild Bill Hickok was murdered in Deadwood playing poker while holding a pair of Aces and Eights?


It's a spoiler if it was in a "Deadwood" thread and hadn't yet happened on the show. What would be the point of bringing it up before it happened on the show?


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

dianebrat said:


> Exactly, and then there are people that just want to stir the pot, I was in another thread and someone who had not yet participated came in and said I disagreed with them and posted as such, but there was no discussion of the show, it was just a "drive by" IMNSHO since no one else has complained about discussion of the item in question in that show's threads.
> 
> Well intentioned or not, that sure felt like someone who just wanted to kick the hornets nest.


I have watched Survivor since season 1 and read every thread on this board regarding the subject so not a drive by at all. But people who were participating in that thread were posting things outside of spoiler tags who in this discussion are very adamant about the rules being followed. If the rules are to be followed strictly in a Flash thread, they should also be followed in a Survivior thread. That's all I was pointing out. If there are gray areas then they should be recognized in all threads.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Azlen said:


> I have watched Survivor since season 1 and read every thread on this board regarding the subject so not a drive by at all. But people who were participating in that thread were posting things outside of spoiler tags who in this discussion are very adamant about the rules being followed. If the rules are to be followed strictly in a Flash thread, they should also be followed in a Survivior thread. That's all I was pointing out. If there are gray areas then they should be recognized in all threads.


The gray areas are show specific. So in a Survivor thread, where we've discussed 30 seasons of the show and not once has anyone ever complained of spoilers when exit interviews or Ponderosa videos are mentioned, it's become accepted for those things to be discussed outside of spoiler tags because nobody has ever complained about them. *But if someone were to complain (legitimately), then the proper response by the rest of us would be to no longer discuss those things without putting them in spoiler tags.*

Flash has only had one season, and already we're seeing complaints by people who would like to read and participate in the threads but don't feel like they can because the threads include too much talk about stuff that's not specific to the show. Those complaints should be acknowledged and that discussion which is informed by "outside sources" should be put into spoiler tags.

It's all about being courteous and understanding. I don't begrudge anyone for wanting to talk about comic book origins and back stories. I can totally understand how that would be the default response for anyone who has that background knowledge. And therefore I'm not at all surprised that's the way those discussions have happened. But in a discussion thread that is intended to include all viewers of the show, including those who haven't read the comic books, then you have to understand when someone complains about these discussions that are primarily related to outside sources rather than specifically about the show they just watched. At that point, the most courteous thing to do is to put that discussion into spoiler tags or take it to another thread. I don't see why those simple solutions seem to be getting so many people bent out of shape.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Why instead of trying to find all these edge cases and playing gotcha, we don't try to act like nice people and try to be considerate to others. That is all that is really being asked for, some consideration. The bulk of the people that have been driven out are not going to be complaining about everything, if we were, we would not have left, we would be there being jerks.

I am tired of the game. What if on a different galaxy in a separate timeline as theorized by Einstein the Flash had a green ring? IS THAT A SPOILER?!?!!!!!!?!??!?!!!


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

TonyD79 said:


> And, of course, the "community" voted on this change.



This is not a democracy.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

scandia101 said:


> This is not a democracy.


Yeah, I don't understand that comment either. A few people identified a problem, someone contacted a mod about it, and the mod changed the rules. There was no 'vote.'


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

eddyj said:


> Why instead of trying to find all these edge cases and playing gotcha, we don't try to act like nice people and try to be considerate to others. That is all that is really being asked for, some consideration. The bulk of the people that have been driven out are not going to be complaining about everything, if we were, we would not have left, we would be there being jerks.


Sometimes,people are trying to be nice by trying to explain something cool in the show, or explain some backstory that someone else might not have realized. They are trying to be helpful, but are attacked for "spoilers"


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

For every "attack", I will bet there are a dozen other things that could be called spoilers that nobody complains about, since they are not significant.

Yes, there may be some that complain too much, and that is annoying. But the spoilers drive people away, which is clear is not a problem for the people who want to be able to post anything in the clear.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

Azlen said:


> I have watched Survivor since season 1 and read every thread on this board regarding the subject so not a drive by at all. But people who were participating in that thread were posting things outside of spoiler tags who in this discussion are very adamant about the rules being followed. If the rules are to be followed strictly in a Flash thread, they should also be followed in a Survivior thread. That's all I was pointing out. If there are gray areas then they should be recognized in all threads.


You went into a thread that you were not participating in and effectively "made a fuss" about the Ponderosa videos and how they should be spoiler tagged, this would have made sense if the person posting about the Ponderosa had said anything more substantial than "Dan is delusional" as a comment but they hadn't. At that point you weren't talking about the show, you were acting as "the spoiler police" and thus a discussion about spoilers became a focal point not the show, the Survivor threads have rarely had the kind of "spoiler wars" other shows had and this wasn't GoT so I saw no reason for the out of the blue comment on spoilers to show up all of a sudden in that thread other than someone wanting to cause a ruckus.



DevdogAZ said:


> The gray areas are show specific. So in a Survivor thread, where we've discussed 30 seasons of the show and not once has anyone ever complained of spoilers when exit interviews or Ponderosa videos are mentioned, it's become accepted for those things to be discussed outside of spoiler tags because nobody has ever complained about them. *But if someone were to complain (legitimately), then the proper response by the rest of us would be to no longer discuss those things without putting them in spoiler tags.*


EXACTLY where I was coming from in my comments in that thread and this.

It becomes an issue when someone decides to get upset and make it an issue.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

dianebrat said:


> You went into a thread that you were not participating in and effectively "made a fuss" about the Ponderosa videos and how they should be spoiler tagged, this would have made sense if the person posting about the Ponderosa had said anything more substantial than "Dan is delusional" as a comment but they hadn't. At that point you weren't talking about the show, you were acting as "the spoiler police" and thus a discussion about spoilers became a focal point not the show, the Survivor threads have rarely had the kind of "spoiler wars" other shows had and this wasn't GoT so I saw no reason for the out of the blue comment on spoilers to show up all of a sudden in that thread other than someone wanting to cause a ruckus.


In the Grey's Anatomy thread, someone made a request to edit out or spoiler-tag a reference to a plot point in an entirely different show (The Good Wife). The person went back and did so, and the whole thing blew over.

Then, *a week later*, someone who had NOT been posting in the thread at all came in and quoted the original request to remove the spoiler, and stirred up an argument about it. And one of the people piling on and making sure things got stirred up again was Azlen, who you just quoted arguing on the other side of the argument.

Charming.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

murgatroyd said:


> In the Grey's Anatomy thread, someone made a request to edit out or spoiler-tag a reference to a plot point in an entirely different show (The Good Wife). The person went back and did so, and the whole thing blew over.
> 
> Then, *a week later*, someone who had NOT been posting in the thread at all came in and quoted the original request to remove the spoiler, and stirred up an argument about it. And one of the people piling on and making sure things got stirred up again was Azlen, who you just quoted arguing on the other side of the argument.
> 
> Charming.


So let's pile on me for thinking things should be better balanced and not so hypocritical. I use spoiler tags quite often just in case, but didn't think it was fair to jump on person who posted that because they said something that happened on another show in a previous season which wasn't even against the rules at the time.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Azlen said:


> So let's pile on me for thinking things should be better balanced and not so hypocritical. I use spoiler tags quite often just in case, but didn't think it was fair to jump on person who posted that because they said something that happened on another show in a previous season which wasn't even against the rules at the time.


Wha?!? You think that until recently it was OK to spoil a plot point from Show B in a thread about Show A? Whether there was a rule against it or not, it's just common sense that you don't do something like that. That doesn't need a rule. That falls under the unwritten "Don't be a *****" rule.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Wha?!? You think that until recently it was OK to spoil a plot point from Show B in a thread about Show A? Whether there was a rule against it or not, it's just common sense that you don't do something like that. That doesn't need a rule. That falls under the unwritten "Don't be a *****" rule.


It was from a previous season, not the current season. The person who posted it probably didn't realize that posting something like that would cause them to be called a ***** here.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> Wha?!? You think that until recently it was OK to spoil a plot point from Show B in a thread about Show A? Whether there was a rule against it or not, it's just common sense that you don't do something like that. That doesn't need a rule. That falls under the unwritten "Don't be a *****" rule.


Is there a SOL? If I say, "it's a Romeo and Juliet situation, except they didn't kill themselves." Did I just spoil R&J?

To be more realistic, can I compare something to the end of the Seinfeld? The Sopranos? Lost? Can we have cultural comparative discussions? Yes, don't spoil something that happened last week, but can we use a comparative example to something that happened five years ago?


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

eddyj said:


> If those groups have not even been mentioned in the show, then yes, those would be spoilers, since I do not know from the show that they exist. Maybe finding out that one of those exists is an important plot point in the future.


It's a connected universe. If they are mentioned in a Marvel movie that's been out for a while before the show, does that count?

For instance, did you see this moment in Guardians of the Galaxy?










THAT is a Celestial. They created the Eternals. The fact that the Celestials exist means the Eternals exist.

Now, here's where we get into "comic book geeks" mode, I suppose. But that image is there to TELL US that the Celestials exist. Yes, I know, there's no dialog for you non-comic geeks, but the fact that that image was used is a message. It's as much a message as if Spider-Man were to swing by in the background. You know who Spider-Man is. We know who the Celestials are. But the message is the same. "This being exists in this shared universe".

The Marvel movies and TV shows are related. If we learn something in Agent Carter that affects Agents of SHIELD, is that still a spoiler? How about if we learn something in Captain America Winter Soldier? It's a spoiler in episodes from before Winter Soldier came out, but not after, right?

That's why this is so particularly vexing. If it were one show, from one source, then the rules are easy. But it's many shows, from an awful lot of sources. IF we want to say that nothing that happens outside AoS can be referenced in AoS, then we really hamper the Marvel storytelling that is going on.

I suppose in the Avengers thread we can't talk about how the Hulk got that way? Because that didn't happen in the Avengers movie, but in a separate movie altogether. So it's a spoiler, right? Why is Dr Banner the worlds foremost authority on Gamma Radiation (which they say in the movie, but don't explain)? To know that you either have to have read Hulk comics or seen a completely different movie (or TV show) and that would qualify as "outside knowledge".

Which I, personally, think is silly. It's a connected universe. I think everything that's been shown in any part of the connected universe up to the current episode should be fair game.

So, yes, the Celestials exist. And the Eternals exist. And the Inhumans exist. (Does the announcement of the Inhumans movie count as "outside knowledge"? I think an argument can be made for that.)


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Ereth said:


> It's a connected universe. If they are mentioned in a Marvel movie that's been out for a while before the show, does that count?
> 
> For instance, did you see this moment in Guardians of the Galaxy?


Saw it. Big-ass guy. I imagine he will show up again.



> THAT is a Celestial. They created the Eternals. The fact that the Celestials exist means the Eternals exist.


So you say, with your external knowledge. To me, he is a big-ass guy, and says exactly zero about Celestials, Eternals, or Pee-Wee Herman.

It is a nod to the comic book fans, but it is not required/expected knowledge, at this point in time.



> The Marvel movies and TV shows are related. If we learn something in Agent Carter that affects Agents of SHIELD, is that still a spoiler? How about if we learn something in Captain America Winter Soldier? It's a spoiler in episodes from before Winter Soldier came out, but not after, right?


AoS is indeed tightly tied to the movies, and shown in sync, and I would expect them to be treated as one thread, up to a point. For example, when the Winter Soldier came out, if you saw the next AoS episode before the movie, stuff would be spoiled. But I would not expect you to talk about the movie in the AoS episode that preceded the movie.



> more stuff snipped


Again, some amount of discretion is to be used, and when you miss, and someone asks for stuff to be spoilerized, then it should be. No one expects perfection, and no one can set perfect rules. This is the real world, there are shades and nuances. We are just asking for people to give a little thought and be considerate.

Instead, we see the attitude that "since it is too hard to know EXACTLY, IN DETAIL what to spoilerize, then we should not bother at all". Or worse, the "**** you if you don't want spoilers" attitude.

And THAT is what drives us out of the threads.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

cherry ghost said:


> It's a difference in the interpretation of the rules, but I think Devdog is correct.
> 
> There's no difference in these examples
> 
> ...


And, again, I can't see where people are seeing that in the guidelines. Are we using different versions of English?

Nothing in the guidelines say that the thread is restricted to discussing only events within the show. *Nothing.* The guidelines _do_ state how to treat things that are spoilers though. Either tag it with the spoiler tag or put "spoilers" in the title.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

eddyj said:


> You can't possibly claim that in all cases. For example, there is a guy in a show that seemed like a perfectly nice guy. Maybe they foreshadow that he will be evil, but do not make it clear. Coming in and "explaining" how the foreshadowing really means that he is an evil bastard certainly is a spoiler.


Any piece of information needs to be treated individually as to whether or not it's a spoiler. If there's a character acting nice, and you say "in the comics, this character was ALWAYS portrayed as evil", it would be wrong to not tag it as a spoiler. I would recommend that you say something like:

"This is conjecture about <character>. Read at your risk..."


Spoiler



In the comics, he was always portrayed as a bad guy.



Heck, in the thread for the trailer for Batman versus Superman, some people suggested what they thought the plot would be. I felt pretty strongly that it would follow a different path and described how I thought it would unfold. I tagged it as a spoiler even though it's just pure speculation on my part. So yeah, if you're posting something/anything that you feel will be a future plot event, I'd suggest tagging it. Even if you're guessing, if it's a very good and logical guess, someone reading it could believe it and that would spoil it.

But like Ereth said, some information isn't in the spoiler category and can instead serve to enrich someone's enjoyment by letting them see the event they already saw in a new light. It can serve to remind the viewer that what they're watching is part of a larger universe where other events are simultaneously unfolding or have unfolded in the past. If there's two characters in the show who are friends, and you say "in the comics, they grew up together, which is why they're so close", it serves to help you better understand the two characters. Maybe later one of them may say "yeah, we grew up together, so he's like a brother to me", but it's not a surprise twist along the lines of "I'm your father!".


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Ereth said:


> That's why this is so particularly vexing. If it were one show, from one source, then the rules are easy. But it's many shows, from an awful lot of sources. IF we want to say that nothing that happens outside AoS can be referenced in AoS, then we really hamper the Marvel storytelling that is going on.


The Flash and Arrow are part of the same TV universe and frequently characters from one show cross over to the other, yet there are some people who watch only one of those shows for whatever reason (some feel Arrow is too dark, others feel Flash is too kiddy). As such posting details of Flash in Arrow or vice-versa are normally spoiler tagged. I admit this will get more complicated with 3 (or more) TV shows sharing the same TV universe next year. There might need to be a combined season thread next year or something.

The Marvel universe isn't a special case, except for the fact that AoS itself tends to have spoilers for the movies in the episode following the movie. If the show doesn't specifically reference plot points in the movies though, the any movie reveals should be tagged as spoilers in the AoS thread. For the most part they were with Age of Ultron as AoS only had a few throw away references to the movie. Any movie specifics were spoiler tagged in the AoS thread.

Winter Soldier was a completely different animal as the show itself completely spoiled the movie, though even that wouldn't give people carte blanche to discuss (without spoiler tags) all aspects of the Winter Solider plot, just what AoS revealed.


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

Turtleboy said:


> What about historical spoilers? Does "everybody know" that the Titanic sunk?


I brought it up way back in post #132, but the thread as a whole stuck to the comic book theme.

If you consider historical events spoilers, you either weren't paying attention in class or had a sucky history teacher.

--Carlos V.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

eddyj said:


> Saw it. Big-ass guy. I imagine he will show up again.
> 
> So you say, with your external knowledge. To me, he is a big-ass guy, and says exactly zero about Celestials, Eternals, or Pee-Wee Herman.
> 
> It is a nod to the comic book fans, but it is not required/expected knowledge, at this point in time.


This is the part that's hard. That comic is from the 1970s. (Eternals #1 came out in 1976). That's 40 years ago. Longer than some of the posters in this forum have been alive. Yet somehow, it's a "secret".

Also, Knowhere? The base they go to in "Guardians of the Galaxy"? That's a Celestials head. You don't have to know comic books to know that, they say so in the movie. So Celestials ARE mentioned in the movie, but it's in an infodump and you probably missed it. That shouldn't mean I can't talk about it, because it's mentioned, by name, in the movie. Heck, it's a plot point (they are farming Celestial bio-matter).



> AoS is indeed tightly tied to the movies, and shown in sync, and I would expect them to be treated as one thread, up to a point. For example, when the Winter Soldier came out, if you saw the next AoS episode before the movie, stuff would be spoiled. But I would not expect you to talk about the movie in the AoS episode that preceded the movie.


Well, I actually agree with that. I think all Marvel movies and TV shows should be considered sequels to one another, and just like nobody would expect events in "Star Wars" to have to be spoilered in a discussion of "The Empire Strikes Back", we shouldn't have to spoiler movies that have already come out in any other Marvel threads. I think that's fair, but it goes back to JYoungs complaint about "Amazing Spider-Man 2" being spoiled 5 months later in an unrelated thread (The Flash, in this case). Would that have been fair game in "Agents of Shield"? JYoung would say no. I would say yes. But I can see an argument both ways.



> Instead, we see the attitude that "since it is too hard to know EXACTLY, IN DETAIL what to spoilerize, then we should not bother at all". Or worse, the "**** you if you don't want spoilers" attitude.
> 
> And THAT is what drives us out of the threads.


Well, I certainly don't think that's what *I've* been saying. If that's what you think I've been saying we have a communications problem. I even went back and edited posts from a year ago that have been referenced in this discussion, because someone thought they needed to be, so I did.

I'm saying it's going to happen. 40, 50 years of comics is a LOT of plots and characters and discussions. Even if we try really hard, we are going to slip up. We can't avoid it. Someone is going to find something we say to be a spoiler, even if we didn't intend it to be, or were aware that it was.

"He's in training on Oa" is a winky joke for us. It's a reference that if you aren't a comic book geek, you won't have any idea what it means. So it didn't spoil anything. If you already knew what Oa was, then you knew what "One of their test pilots disappeared" meant. The "training on Oa" reference adds nothing to your knowledge that you didn't already have.

What happens is that someone will think "ooh, a comic book reader said something, it must be more significant than a throw away line" and so we can't even talk amongst ourselves in code, even if we didn't say anything. It's similar to how many of us book readers simply don't post in the GoT threads because anything we say is considered "significant" and people assume it includes book knowledge. Even our guesses are considered spoilers. Because if we have to guess, it means the book DIDN'T include something, and THAT's a spoiler (in exactly the same way that the discussion of a plot thread that won't be on the TV show this season is a spoiler).

I find it fascinating that you think we are driving you out of the threads, and I think you are driving US out of the threads. I honestly feel that the end result of this particular thread is that people like me, JYoung, Rob and so on, won't be allowed to participate in any comic book threads, which, I will say again, seems pretty freaking backwards to me.

One of the most famous comic books of all time, more famous than any Superman or Batman issue (excepting possibly "Dark Knight Returns" and/or "The Death of Superman") came out in 1971 in Green Lantern/Green Arrow #85 and #86. These comics shocked the country. But because the average readership here isn't old enough, I bet most of you (beyond the comics geeks) don't even know what happened. Yet these were on the nightly news, discussed in news magazines. They should be part of our "cultural heritage", like Luke Skywalker and the Maltese Falcon.

The story thats in them will not happen, exactly, on Arrow. It can't. We've long gone past that point. But the characters in them included Oliver Queen and Roy Harper (known as "Speedy" in the comics) and there was a reference, even as early as the pilot, to that storyline. (If you do not want to be spoiled, do not google, as the cover tells you the plot).


Spoiler



In the TV show, Olivers sister Thea is called Speedy. And she has a drug problem. That's not a spoiler if you've watched any of Arrow, but this thread may not have Arrow viewers, so out of an abundance of caution, I'll spoiler this.

Roy Harper also shows up, and HE has a drug problem.

Green Lantern/Green Arrow #85/86 were the shocking story of how Green Arrows ward Speedy was hooked on Heroin. Showing drugs had previously been forbidden by the Comics Code Authority, even in a negative light. Spider-Man had a story with drug use that was published without the Codes approval, even though they had specifically been asked by the US Government to do a comic showing how drugs were bad. Green Lantern/Green Arrow had this story, and the Code relented and gave it their approval, so it has the Comics Code Seal on it. But it's about Speedy being on drugs. Now, us comic fans know that, we've known that since 1971. It's a BIG DEAL comic. National news. A comic book with a superhero on Heroin? It was BIG! And Thea is shown to have a drug problem even in the first episode of Arrow. So is that a spoiler? What happens to Thea, and even to Roy, is not at all similar to what happened to Roy Harper in the comic book. Roy has to go cold turkey. One of his buddies dies. His relationship with Oliver is all but destroyed.

These two issues, along with the similar issues in Spider-Man, began to break the Comics Code Authority, and allowed comics to grow up, to have stories that could lead to TV shows and movies for adults. They are important.


That story, from 1971, doesn't spoiler anything in Arrow, because what happens in Arrow doesn't go anywhere near what happened in that comic. But there are echoes of it. A variation on a theme, if you will. But we can't even discuss THAT, even after the part that DID happen on Arrow, because that's "outside knowledge"?

I think it's perfectly valid to compare the stories, to see how the same type of thing is shown in 2015 versus how it was dealt with in 1971, but people who just watch the show probably don't care for that sort of thing. And so we can't have it.

I don't know what the answer is. I swear to god I do not want to hamper the enjoyment by non-comics fans, I want them to enjoy the show and maybe, just maybe, see what we've been seeing for decades. But I also don't want to be so handcuffed that we can't talk about anything at all that relates to these characters that wasn't explicitly on TV in that 40 minutes.

And I really really don't want the threads to end up with 5 posts of content and then multiple pages of spoiler complaints and debate.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

bobcarn said:


> Any piece of information needs to be treated individually as to whether or not it's a spoiler.


This exactly. I can list examples of outside knowledge that are spoilers & that are not spoilers. And this knowledge can be from comics, movies, other shows, history, foreign language knowledge, etc. There is no one perfect rule for everything.

For example,

In Age of Ultron,


Spoiler



Scarlet Witch is never named,


 I don't think This is a spoiler since it's not likely to be a future plot point.

In Gotham, Ivy Pepper is


Spoiler



Poison Ivy


. I don't see how this could be a spoiler since that name has never been used in a comic.

In Flash, Eddie Thawne is


Spoiler



Reverse Flash


 would've probably been a spoiler at the beginning of the season even though it turned out to be incorrect and the character in the comic had a different 1st name.

It really does vary from show to show. The person posting needs to be trusted to make the distinction.

I mentioned the GoT threads earlier. This week's episode has 6 pages of discussion. The thread including the books has 6 pages for the season and hasn't been posted to in over a week. I was told that this was normal because the main discussion needs to be book spoiler free and that there's little that needs to be discussed in comparison to the book. The only problem is that the people that have read the books are pretty much banned from posting in the regular thread. Everything they say is scrutinized because they have extra knowledge. Most just stopped posting. It's reasonable for Ereth & others to conclude that they are now being chased out of these threads as well.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

realityboy said:


> I mentioned the GoT threads earlier. This week's episode has 6 pages of discussion. The thread including the books has 6 pages for the season and hasn't been posted to in over a week. I was told that this was normal because the main discussion needs to be book spoiler free and that there's little that needs to be discussed in comparison to the book. The only problem is that the people that have read the books are pretty much banned from posting in the regular thread. Everything they say is scrutinized because they have extra knowledge. Most just stopped posting. It's reasonable for Ereth & others to conclude that they are now being chased out of these threads as well.


That's ridiculous. Lots of book readers post in the GoT episode threads and their input is invaluable. It's very helpful when they can provide explanations, motivations, and context for stuff that happens on the show. They're not even close to being "banned from posting in the regular thread." They've simply been asked not to post stuff like "in the books, that event happened this way" or "in the books, Character A never met up with Character X." And for the most part, that's been respected. I don't recall seeing a book spoiler in any of the GoT threads this year, yet I know there are many book readers participating.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> That's ridiculous. Lots of book readers post in the GoT episode threads and their input is invaluable. It's very helpful when they can provide explanations, motivations, and context for stuff that happens on the show. They're not even close to being "banned from posting in the regular thread." They've simply been asked not to post stuff like "in the books, that event happened this way" or "in the books, Character A never met up with Character X." And for the most part, that's been respected. I don't recall seeing a book spoiler in any of the GoT threads this year, yet I know there are many book readers participating.


Did you miss Ereth saying this very thing in this thread? This season hasn't been nearly as bad as the first few seasons, but we're practically at the end of the books anyway.



Ereth said:


> What happens is that someone will think "ooh, a comic book reader said something, it must be more significant than a throw away line" and so we can't even talk amongst ourselves in code, even if we didn't say anything. It's similar to how many of us book readers simply don't post in the GoT threads because anything we say is considered "significant" and people assume it includes book knowledge. Even our guesses are considered spoilers. Because if we have to guess, it means the book DIDN'T include something, and THAT's a spoiler (in exactly the same way that the discussion of a plot thread that won't be on the TV show this season is a spoiler).


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I can't account for what Ereth says or does. If he doesn't want to participate in the GoT threads, that sucks for the rest of us, because I'm sure he'd be able to provide good discussion and information. 

But it's odd that you say so many book readers have chosen not to participate in the GoT threads, yet you've pointed out that the book specific thread gets relatively little participation. Seems that most of them are still participating in the episode threads, and they're able to do so without anyone complaining about spoilers. A perfect example of how this forum is supposed to work.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Sorry. Forget about the GoT threads. I was just empathizing with those that felt chased out. It really has no bearing on what should be done for these threads going forward. 

As far as every other thread, there is outside knowledge that spoils things and there is outside knowledge that enhances. The debate is determining which is which. Personally, we're all adults here, and I trust the poster to make that determination. If a mistake is made, it's not the end of the world and hopefully it can be corrected.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

Well the fact that someone posted about characters not being featured this season and then getting called out for spoiling something is a great example why I don't pist in got threads. You simply can't know when someone's spoiler phobia kicks in. .


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Turtleboy said:


> Sometimes,people are trying to be nice by trying to explain something cool in the show, or explain some backstory that someone else might not have realized. They are trying to be helpful, but are attacked for "spoilers"


Years ago my daughter was trying to help a toddler walk. They got their legs tangled up and fell and he chipped a tooth.



Ereth said:


> I'm saying it's going to happen. 40, 50 years of comics is a LOT of plots and characters and discussions. Even if we try really hard, we are going to slip up. We can't avoid it. Someone is going to find something we say to be a spoiler, even if we didn't intend it to be, or were aware that it was.


No one's expecting perfection. I know I'm not. Reading almost any television thread runs the risk of spoilers so I balance my desire to discuss the episode with my desire to avoid spoilers. The key is what happens after a spoiler does slip and is politely noted, either publicly or privately. When the response is "oops! Sorry!" and to edit it out then we're all good. But too often the response is effectively "**** you, spoiler Nazis are big ****ing crybabies, I'm leaving it." That's the problem and those are the people we should all be taking issue with.

Note that by the time someone complains about a spoiler they've already been spoiled on that point so complaining is twofold: preventing other people from having that point spoiled (and I am eternally grateful when I come late to a thread, which is often, and discover someone has "protected" me from a spoiler) and letting others know "that sort of information is a spoiler, please don't post it in the future".


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Ereth said:


> This is the part that's hard. That comic is from the 1970s. (Eternals #1 came out in 1976). That's 40 years ago. Longer than some of the posters in this forum have been alive. Yet somehow, it's a "secret".


Not a secret, but a possible spoiler.



> Also, Knowhere? The base they go to in "Guardians of the Galaxy"? That's a Celestials head. You don't have to know comic books to know that, they say so in the movie. So Celestials ARE mentioned in the movie, but it's in an infodump and you probably missed it. That shouldn't mean I can't talk about it, because it's mentioned, by name, in the movie. Heck, it's a plot point (they are farming Celestial bio-matter).


If Celestials appear, and they are mentioned, then talk about that. If big-ass guy is deduced to be a Celestial from what was said/shown earlier, then it is clearly not a spoiler. I did not make that connection between the giant head and the big-ass guy, but if someone pointed it out, that would be fine. Bit if the connection between Celestials and Eternals is not part of what is shown, then that is a spoiler.



> Well, I certainly don't think that's what *I've* been saying. If that's what you think I've been saying we have a communications problem. I even went back and edited posts from a year ago that have been referenced in this discussion, because someone thought they needed to be, so I did.


I have to break this to you. It's not all about you. 

The comments I have been making, even when replying to you, are not specific to you, but rather to the situation in general. What you do, which is try to be aware, and spoilerize when needed or when asked, is all we want.



> One of the most famous comic books of all time, more famous than any Superman or Batman issue (excepting possibly "Dark Knight Returns" and/or "The Death of Superman") came out in 1971 in Green Lantern/Green Arrow #85 and #86. These comics shocked the country. But because the average readership here isn't old enough, I bet most of you (beyond the comics geeks) don't even know what happened. Yet these were on the nightly news, discussed in news magazines. They should be part of our "cultural heritage", like Luke Skywalker and the Maltese Falcon.


I am old enough, and I have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. I might have been reading Superman or Archie comics back then, and had probably never heard of Green Lantern or Arrow. Then again, I have CRS. 



> That story, from 1971, doesn't spoiler anything in Arrow, because what happens in Arrow doesn't go anywhere near what happened in that comic. But there are echoes of it. A variation on a theme, if you will. But we can't even discuss THAT, even after the part that DID happen on Arrow, because that's "outside knowledge"?


Since the stuff is past (i.e. those events did not happen in the Arrow show, and cannot, since they went in another direction, then I don't consider them spoilers for the show. I might spoilerize them, just in case, but if I didn't, and someone asked, I certainly would.



> I think it's perfectly valid to compare the stories, to see how the same type of thing is shown in 2015 versus how it was dealt with in 1971, but people who just watch the show probably don't care for that sort of thing. And so we can't have it.


YOU CAN HAVE IT!!! YOU JUST NEED SPOILER TAGS!!! Sorry to scream, but you and others keep on saying how you cannot discuss these things. That's not what is being asked. We are just asking that some stuff get spoiler tags, not that they don't get discussed. Heck, if the spoiler "explanation" (when used) looks interesting, I might read it myself, even if I risk a spoiler.



> And I really really don't want the threads to end up with 5 posts of content and then multiple pages of spoiler complaints and debate.


Ramen!


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Robin said:


> No one's expecting perfection. I know I'm not. Reading almost any television thread runs the risk of spoilers so I balance my desire to discuss the episode with my desire to avoid spoilers. The key is what happens after a spoiler does slip and is politely noted, either publicly or privately. When the response is "oops! Sorry!" and to edit it out then we're all good. But too often the response is effectively "**** you, spoiler Nazis are big ****ing crybabies, I'm leaving it." That's the problem and those are the people we should all be taking issue with.
> 
> Note that by the time someone complains about a spoiler they've already been spoiled on that point so complaining is twofold: preventing other people from having that point spoiled (and I am eternally grateful when I come late to a thread, which is often, and discover someone has "protected" me from a spoiler) and letting others know "that sort of information is a spoiler, please don't post it in the future".


I should quote this before every reply I make from now on, since it says what I feel perfectly.


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

To illustrate a difference in point of view in how comics cross over and become part of the collective culture, consider that I, as a self-identifying "comics guy"



Ereth said:


> One of the most famous comic books of all time, more famous than any Superman or Batman issue (excepting possibly "Dark Knight Returns" and/or "The Death of Superman") came out in 1971 in Green Lantern/Green Arrow #85 and #86.


Believe it or not, this is the first I've heard of that story.



> These two issues, along with the similar issues in Spider-Man.


This one I've read, because they come just before another significant comics event. As such they've been extensively republished over the years.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

> It's a difference in the interpretation of the rules, but I think Devdog is correct.
> 
> There's no difference in these examples
> 
> ...





bobcarn said:


> And, again, I can't see where people are seeing that in the guidelines. Are we using different versions of English?
> 
> Nothing in the guidelines say that the thread is restricted to discussing only events within the show. *Nothing.* The guidelines _do_ state how to treat things that are spoilers though. Either tag it with the spoiler tag or put "spoilers" in the title.


First, when I said "beyond that particular episode" I meant future episodes. Any thing from previous episodes of the same show is allowed and no spoiler tags are required.

Second, I guess I'm just not understanding you and it's probably me. Are you saying that if those two threads were started at the same time they could be posted in differently? Things that would require spoiler tags in one don't require them in the other?


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Drewster said:


> This one I've read, because they come just before another significant comics event. As such they've been extensively republished over the years.


As have the Green Lantern/Green Arrow comics, including in paperback book form (not graphic novel, but ordinary paperback books, with only a couple of panels per page, the entire story reformatted to fit the smaller page size). I have those around here somewhere.

And, yes, Amazing Spider-Man 121 is a big deal as well, for a different reason.

I was 13 when those comics came out. I had to fight with my parents about them. I had to fight with them again later when they gave me the "Comics are for kids" speech, showing them books like that that showed how comics had grown up.

If comic books had never outgrown this -










We wouldn't be having these TV shows and movies.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Now you're really going to hear it if Jimmy Olsen becomes Turtle Man on Supergirl.

Personally, I was disappointed every time Lana Lang didn't become Insect Queen on Smallville.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Hey!


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

cherry ghost said:


> First, when I said "beyond that particular episode" I meant future episodes. Any thing from previous episodes of the same show is allowed and no spoiler tags are required.
> 
> Second, I guess I'm just not understanding you and it's probably me. Are you saying that if those two threads were started at the same time they could be posted in differently? Things that would require spoiler tags in one don't require them in the other?


Ahh. I understand now. You're saying "beyond that episode" as meaning "in future episodes". Yes, things should be tagged if it's likely to be a future event. When you said "beyond", I was thinking of anything outside, or not part of, that episode.

As for the difference in thread titles, according to the guidelines, if you put "spoilers" in the thread title, then you can _supposedly_ discuss things without using any spoiler tags because you've made it clear that there will be spoilers. If you don't use the word "spoilers" in the title, then anything that could be a spoiler should be tagged. Personally, I don't like revealing something I think could be a big spoiler without putting it in a tag.

Of course, there may be talk of what constitutes a "spoiler".

As for where I'm coming from, I'm sympathetic to the revealing of spoilers. To me, a spoiler is when something about the future is revealed that takes away an element of surprise or the joy of discovering something. If someone had knowledge as to who the identify of the Man in the Yellow Suit is in The Flash, and they posted it before it was revealed, it would be a spoiler regardless of where that information came from (inside knowledge, comics, etc.). The whole "who is the man in yellow" was a mystery on the show, and even though comic readers suspected the name of the person, the show obfuscated certain things so that we still didn't know if existing characters were or weren't that person.

But we also mentioned things that have been part of comics history that we don't think will play a part of future plots. For example, in The Flash, there was a single line a character made about an air base belonging to Ferris Air being closed because a test pilot went missing. We joked that he's missing because he's on Oa undergoing training. Will that character appear in the future? Maybe. Is it a spoiler? No, because it's no different than if we said "we know that character exists in the show's universe and it's possible he, or any other character in that universe, could appear". We also know Superman exists (or will exist) in that show's universe. And Batman and Cyborg and Wonder Woman. So while we "revealed" that the character is likely on Oa undergoing training, and we know there's an unspoken chance that he may appear on one of the shows, the fact that he's on Oa at that moment is extremely unlikely to be a plot point. That is, we can't imagine there will be an episode where the characters are trying to find that test pilot.

In essence, there may be legitimate cases where a spoiler is released when it shouldn't have been (like if someone gave out the identity of the man in yellow), but not all information is really spoilers. Some of it is just cool information that only adds to the knowledge of what's happening (and could happen) and not taking away the surprise of future events.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

I thought the rule was that episode threads were automatically allowing spoilers about that episode, the spoiler word in the header is not necessary.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

JohnB1000 said:


> I thought the rule was that episode threads were automatically allowing spoilers about that episode, the spoiler word in the header is not necessary.


It is.. And not just THAT episode, but prior ones too. That's what many of are trying to say. However, there were people saying they don't post in a thread with "spoilers" in the thread title. As if there WAS a difference between the two.

The Flash S01E22 "Rogue Air" (spoilers)

The Flash S01E22 "Rogue Air"


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

eddyj said:


> For every "attack", I will bet there are a dozen other things that could be called spoilers that nobody complains about, since they are not significant.


Y'all ruined Soylent Green for me.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

JohnB1000 said:


> I thought the rule was that episode threads were automatically allowing spoilers about that episode, the spoiler word in the header is not necessary.


Exactly. By putting the OAD in the thread title, that allows discussion of everything that happened in that episode and all previous episodes of that show. Including *spoilers* in the thread title doesn't give any additional permission to include anything else. It's just an additional notice to people that events from that episode will be discussed openly in the thread.

I'm not sure what additional information bobcarn thinks can be included in a thread with *spoilers* in the title. I would sure hate to go into a thread for Show A and have people talking about events from Show B openly. For that to be OK, the thread title would need to be much more specific that just *spoilers*.

(And to head off the inevitable response from TB, yes, there is a statute of limitations on spoilers, and some stuff becomes part of the pop culture zeitgeist after a couple years. But what that length of time is will vary depending on the nature of the spoiler and the popularity of the show. I think a minimum rule of thumb should be that spoilers from the current season and the previous season of a show should always be off limits unless in the thread for that show or posted in spoiler tags with a good description of what the spoiler includes.)


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

eddyj said:


> YOU CAN HAVE IT!!! YOU JUST NEED SPOILER TAGS!!! Sorry to scream, but you and others keep on saying how you cannot discuss these things. That's not what is being asked. We are just asking that some stuff get spoiler tags, not that they don't get discussed. Heck, if the spoiler "explanation" (when used) looks interesting, I might read it myself, even if I risk a spoiler.


I've been reading this thread but have not participated until now. The above is the part that's puzzled me throughout. Well, not the above, but the way the above has been ignored no matter how many times/ways it's been expressed (and it's been many).

To my mind, the request has never been "don't post that stuff". It's been "don't post that stuff without spoiler tags". Anyone who requested the former (have there really been any?) SHOULD be ignored, because they need only refrain from clicking the spoiler to have the result they want.

Yet somehow the next post after this one will likely be another cry of "you don't want us in your threads!". Truly puzzling to me.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

I wonder if there is anybody on TCF who doesn't know that Darth Vader is Luke's father?

That is sort of a backward way of asking when does something become common knowledge. Does it need to be 100% or is 80 or 90% enough?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

waynomo said:


> I wonder if there is anybody on TCF who doesn't know that Darth Vader is Luke's father?
> 
> That is sort of a backward way of asking when does something become common knowledge. Does it need to be 100% or is 80 or 90% enough?


Nothing will ever reach 100% saturation. Even 80% is virtually unattainable. So no matter how old or how common knowledge the spoiler, you should always think twice about whether it's absolutely necessary to discuss it in the clear. Be considerate.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

waynomo said:


> I wonder if there is anybody on TCF who doesn't know that Darth Vader is Luke's father?


Even I know. And I am indifferent to Star Wars, haven't seen the original 3 all the way through (I've caught bits when someone else had it playing), and haven't seen any of the others.

Factoid: my mom saw it in the theater when she was pregnant with me.



DevdogAZ said:


> I'm not sure what additional information bobcarn thinks can be included in a thread with *spoilers* in the title. I would sure hate to go into a thread for Show A and have people talking about events from Show B openly. For that to be OK, the thread title would need to be much more specific that just *spoilers*.


Right. "Spoilers" alone doesn't give you any additional permissions.

Where it's relavent is for thread titles like:

"Arrow s3e04 (includes possible spoilers from comic book discussion)"

"GoT s5E01 (includes spoilers from book discussion)"

"Buffy s4e01 (includes spoilers for Angel s1e01)"

In other words you have to be specific about what the spoilers are so people know whether it's safe to open the thread or not.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

scooterboy said:


> I've been reading this thread but have not participated until now. The above is the part that's puzzled me throughout. Well, not the above, but the way the above has been ignored no matter how many times/ways it's been expressed (and it's been many).
> 
> To my mind, the request has never been "don't post that stuff". It's been "don't post that stuff without spoiler tags". Anyone who requested the former (have there really been any?) SHOULD be ignored, because they need only refrain from clicking the spoiler to have the result they want.
> 
> Yet somehow the next post after this one will likely be another cry of "you don't want us in your threads!". Truly puzzling to me.


The mechanics of a multipage discussion where every post is entirely in spoiler tags is so painful as to be a discouragement to having the discussion.

There is practically nothing I can say that doesn't require being in spoiler tags. So if every post I make in this forum is going to be nothing but spoilers, it becomes a pain, and it makes me not want to participate.

That's the difference. It's not just one post. It's all the posts of the entire conversation, including quotes from other people in the conversation.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Ereth said:


> The mechanics of a multipage discussion where every post is entirely in spoiler tags is so painful as to be a discouragement to having the discussion.
> 
> There is practically nothing I can say that doesn't require being in spoiler tags. So if every post I make in this forum is going to be nothing but spoilers, it becomes a pain, and it makes me not want to participate.
> 
> That's the difference. It's not just one post. It's all the posts of the entire conversation, including quotes from other people in the conversation.


If you are going to have that many posts with comic spoilers, then you can certainly have a separate thread for that discussion. If there is not enough interest in a separate thread, then there can't be that many posts that need spoilers.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

eddyj said:


> If you are going to have that many posts with comic spoilers, then you can certainly have a separate thread for that discussion. If there is not enough interest in a separate thread, then there can't be that many posts that need spoilers.


You don't think that it's a disincentive to active discussion to fragment things by shunting part of the discussion over into it's own corner, instead of where it's come up naturally in the flow of the thread?


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Ereth said:


> The mechanics of a multipage discussion where every post is entirely in spoiler tags is so painful as to be a discouragement to having the discussion.
> 
> There is practically nothing I can say that doesn't require being in spoiler tags. So if every post I make in this forum is going to be nothing but spoilers, it becomes a pain, and it makes me not want to participate.


Ok. Ereth doesn't want to put comic book discussion in spoiler tags.



LoadStar said:


> You don't think that it's a disincentive to active discussion to fragment things by shunting part of the discussion over into it's own corner, instead of where it's come up naturally in the flow of the thread?


And LoadStar doesn't want separate threads.

Which brings us back to just discussing the comic books in the TV threads which is against the rules of the forum and counter to the preferences of many of those who haven't read the comic books.

Something has to give. IMO we should go with option C because it's what the rules of the forum dictate.

If you insist on discussing comic books in the clear in the episode threads then you need to label the thread as such and you will potentially drive off the non-book readers. Either to their own threads (sorry, LoadStar) or from discussing it at all and potentially from watching the show.

Do what you want, but I don't want to hear any "BIH, network!" when your show is cancelled for lack of viewership when you've worked to alienate the people who are already on the fence.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Robin said:


> Do what you want, but I don't want to hear any "BIH, network!" when your show is cancelled for lack of viewership when you've worked to alienate the people who are already on the fence.


A group of people discussing the show and comparing it to the comic without spoilers is going to lead to it being cancelled?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Certainly I am more willing to keep watching a borderline show if I enjoy the conversation here. If I cannot participate, I am more likely to drop those shows. That is what Robin is saying.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> I'm not sure what additional information bobcarn thinks can be included in a thread with *spoilers* in the title. I would sure hate to go into a thread for Show A and have people talking about events from Show B openly. For that to be OK, the thread title would need to be much more specific that just *spoilers*.


There are times when "spoilers" should be the the title, but it doesn't apply to episode threads. An example is,

*"American Crime - anyone watching?"*

That turned into a season long thread.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Ereth said:


> There is practically nothing I can say that doesn't require being in spoiler tags. So if every post I make in this forum is going to be nothing but spoilers, it becomes a pain, and it makes me not want to participate.
> 
> That's the difference. It's not just one post. It's all the posts of the entire conversation, including quotes from other people in the conversation.


How about this:

Post away. If you're posting something and you think "hm, this might be from the comics, maybe I should tag it?" then do. If you don't, then don't.

If someone replies and says "hey, that's from the comics and I think it could be a spoiler" then go back and edit it out.

Just try it and see what happens. I predict !armageddon.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

cherry ghost said:


> There are times when "spoilers" should be the the title, but it doesn't apply to episode threads. An example is,
> 
> *"American Crime - anyone watching?"*
> 
> That turned into a season long thread.


I think in that case the opposite is true. I don't know if it's addressed in the rules so I may be wrong but personally I assume "American Crime - anyone watching?" will have spoilers. Often threads created to discuss an upcoming TV show will specifically state "no spoilers" in the title.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

Robin said:


> I think in that case the opposite is true. I don't know if it's addressed in the rules so I may be wrong but personally I assume "American Crime - anyone watching?" will have spoilers. Often threads created to discuss an upcoming TV show will specifically state "no spoilers" in the title.


Imo, it falls under



> *Posting other content/discussions:*
> If you are posting a published article or just a general discussion about a show/actor/director, and it contains spoilers for anything that has happened in the current season, please put the word spoilers in the subject line.
> 
> Example: If you post a discussion or article entitled ER has really gone downhill and it refers to current helicopter crashes or new romances, please put spoilers in the title. eg: ER has really gone downhill - Spoilers
> ...


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

I agree that it should say spoilers in the title, but that is violated so consistently that if it does not specifically say "no spoilers", I assume there will be some.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

eddyj said:


> I agree that it should say spoilers in the title, but that is violated so consistently that if it does not specifically say "no spoilers", I assume there will be some.


I do too, but that one bothered me a little because it was created before the 2nd episode aired.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Ereth said:


> Well, I actually agree with that. I think all Marvel movies and TV shows should be considered sequels to one another, and just like nobody would expect events in "Star Wars" to have to be spoilered in a discussion of "The Empire Strikes Back", we shouldn't have to spoiler movies that have already come out in any other Marvel threads. I think that's fair, but it goes back to JYoungs complaint about "Amazing Spider-Man 2" being spoiled 5 months later in an unrelated thread (The Flash, in this case). Would that have been fair game in "Agents of Shield"? JYoung would say no. I would say yes. But I can see an argument both ways.


The issue is that people like you and me are going to see the Marvel movies pretty much right away partly because we want to see how every thing fits together.

But the non comics geeks don't necessarily do that.
They'll go see the ones like Age of Ultron right away but they won't necessarily have seen Dark World or Winter Soldier beforehand.

Which is why it's better to exercise some care in an Agents of SHIELD thread.
Unless they reference something that happened in one of the movies (or Agent Carter).

E.G. events of Thor and Thor: Dark World should probably be tagged because so far, the show hasn't referenced much of those movies and given away key elements.

Sure,


Spoiler



Lady Sif


appears in AOS and background information about her isn't a spoiler.

But Winter Soldier is heavily spoiled by the AOS episodes after the movie because it affects the show to the core so I don't think events from that movie should be spoiler tagged.

I'd be inclined to tag Guardians of the Galaxy stuff because that movie events have had no effect on AOS so far.

Amazing Spider-Man 2 spoilers should be tagged in an AOS thread because it's not part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

Ereth said:


> The mechanics of a multipage discussion where every post is entirely in spoiler tags is so painful as to be a discouragement to having the discussion.
> 
> There is practically nothing I can say that doesn't require being in spoiler tags. So if every post I make in this forum is going to be nothing but spoilers, it becomes a pain, and it makes me not want to participate.
> 
> That's the difference. It's not just one post. It's all the posts of the entire conversation, including quotes from other people in the conversation.


"There is practically nothing I can say that doesn't require being in spoiler tags."

Really? You're not exaggerating a bit here?

If what you said is literally true, then I guess there's no compromise possible. Which leads to a) one side significantly reducing their participation, or b) separate threads being required for each side.

Oh, and FTR, I am/was a comic book reader and I remember the GA/GL drug-addiction storyline well. I only mention it to point out that not all comic book readers are on the same side here.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

eddyj said:


> If you are going to have that many posts with comic spoilers, then you can certainly have a separate thread for that discussion. If there is not enough interest in a separate thread, then there can't be that many posts that need spoilers.


It's ALREADY happened. I'm not speculating that MAYBE this will happen. This sort of thing has happened in the past. And you know what happens? The other people then complain that the thread is all spoilers. Oh, and that spoiler tags don't work properly in Tapatalk or some other mobile software.



Robin said:


> Ok. Ereth doesn't want to put comic book discussion in spoiler tags.


That's a gross oversimplification.

What it looks like from MY side is "non comic-book readers don't want any references to comics, no matter how obscure, in the clear, even if it means other people have to have several posts in a row with nothing visible except spoiler tags".

Things that seem likely to have bearing on the show, we already put into spoilers. But some people think that's not enough. Any reference to the comics, even if it isn't going to be likely to have any bearing on the show, needs to be in spoiler tags.

Eddy thinks that if he can't talk about the show, he'll stop watching it. I find that attitude bizarre. I'll watch the show even if I can't talk about. My enjoyment of the SHOW isn't diminished, my enjoyment of the FORUM is diminished.



Robin said:


> How about this:
> 
> Post away. If you're posting something and you think "hm, this might be from the comics, maybe I should tag it?" then do. If you don't, then don't.
> 
> ...


I already do that. Always have. And yet we end up with multiple threads on spoilers in comic book shows. And people, here, in this very thread, pointing out that they stopped reading the thread but never actually mentioned the spoilers that bothered them. JYoung has been upset with me for the better part of a year over a post I made that I had no clue bothered him. And he's a comic book guy. I have no idea what I might have spoiled for the non-comic book people that may have chased them off.

Maybe there's another forum somewhere where comic book fans hang out and talk about TV shows. That would be a good forum. If anybody has any suggestions, please let me know. Thank you.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> Exactly. By putting the OAD in the thread title, that allows discussion of everything that happened in that episode and all previous episodes of that show. Including *spoilers* in the thread title doesn't give any additional permission to include anything else. It's just an additional notice to people that events from that episode will be discussed openly in the thread.
> 
> I'm not sure what additional information bobcarn thinks can be included in a thread with *spoilers* in the title. I would sure hate to go into a thread for Show A and have people talking about events from Show B openly. For that to be OK, the thread title would need to be much more specific that just *spoilers*.


<sigh> Again, you're drawing some kind of conclusion that the threads can only discuss what happened in that particular episode (or episodes leading up to it). And, again, I don't see anywhere in the guidelines that state that.

The guidelines treat spoilers as information about what will happen in the future. The promos for next week's show is considered a spoiler because information about next week's show is included. Seeing a promo for "Arrow" though in "The Flash" is a spoiler for the _next_ episode of "Arrow", and should be tagged as a spoiler even if the thread title has "Spoilers" in it because it's assumed the spoilers you come across will be for the show in discussion, not some other show.

Explicitly saying you can openly talk about XXX is _not_ saying you can _only_ talk about XXX.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Ereth said:


> Eddy thinks that if he can't talk about the show, he'll stop watching it. I find that attitude bizarre. I'll watch the show even if I can't talk about. My enjoyment of the SHOW isn't diminished, my enjoyment of the FORUM is diminished.


Please reread what I said, because that wasn't it.

I said if there was a BORDERLINE show, but it has a good/fun discussion on the board, then the discussion may be the tipping point between watching and not.

For shows I really like, I just stop participating, if I am getting spoiled.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

bobcarn said:


> <sigh> Again, you're drawing some kind of conclusion that the threads can only discuss what happened in that particular episode (or episodes leading up to it). And, again, I don't see anywhere in the guidelines that state that.


I am not going to go and try to parse the current guidelines to death, but this is EXACTLY what I have always understood to be the rules, over many years of participating in the TV area.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

eddyj said:


> I am not going to go and try to parse the current guidelines to death, but this is EXACTLY what I have always understood to be the rules, over many years of participating in the TV area.


Agreed. The rules aren't very clear on thread naming conventions, especially with respect to the use of what *spoilers* in the title means, but in practice over the past 10+ years, an episode thread for Show A, whether it said *spoilers* in the title or not, was intended for discussion of that episode (and any previous episodes) of Show A. It's never been OK to discuss Show B in a thread for Show A, unless someone created a very specifically-titled thread, such as "Discussion of Chicago Fire/Chicago PD crossover episodes (Spoilers for both shows up to and including the crossover episodes)."


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

scooterboy said:


> "There is practically nothing I can say that doesn't require being in spoiler tags."
> 
> Really? You're not exaggerating a bit here?


My Daredevil run goes back to issue #2. (I never found a #1 I could afford). I had a complete Thor. Complete Iron Man. (Not a complete Journey Into Mystery, but I had #83, nor a complete Tales of Suspense for those of you who know the difference). Flash back to about 1968. (I didn't have "Flash of Two Worlds", mores the pity, but I had some Green Lantern Showcase issues!) I bought most of those off the stands and read them monthly as they came out. I had some 10c comics and a bunch from just after they became 12c.

Do you think it's possible for me to have a conversation about The Flash or Daredevil without any of that knowledge informing my conversation? Even if it's not direct specific moments, the history of those characters is just background in my head. Heck, I'm going to be clear here that I don't remember individual issues in great detail any more, but if a major character comes up, that memory will trigger, right? "Oooh! Oh my god! It's that guy! He..." and then you have to bite your tongue.

Imagine you'd been watching General Hospital since the beginning in 1963, every episode. Now, imagine that you are told you can only talk about this seasons stories, and nothing whatsoever from prior to that. Do you think you could do it? Some of the characters are the same, you know their history, their motivations, the ups and downs, but none of that is allowed. Only this season. The people watching with you, they've never seen a single episode, so when that guy from 8 years ago shows up, you can't even tell them who he is, even though he was on for years and you know lots and lots of things about him. You can't even mention that you recognize his name.

What are the odds that you could have many conversations about this show, conversations you'd enjoy having, without having some of that information leak out in pretty much every one, unless you were very very carefully stifling yourself?



> Oh, and FTR, I am/was a comic book reader and I remember the GA/GL drug-addiction storyline well. I only mention it to point out that not all comic book readers are on the same side here.


Neal Adams is doing sketches of GL/GA at conventions and I really wanted one, but they are out of my price range. Thanks for saying that, though.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

I have a hard time remembering what happened in what episode or even what season. And that is for TV shows that are "original content" and not based on some well established novel or movie or comic book series. It all blurs together in a single, cohesive story and past. I can see how others would be challenged with stuff is based on something long established. Like a comic book character.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

Ereth said:


> Do you think it's possible for me to have a conversation about The Flash or Daredevil without any of that knowledge informing my conversation?


No. But I do think it's possible to have a conversation about the TV portrayal of said characters and the series in which they're portrayed. If you can remember 40+ years of comic history in intricate details, you can surely remember whether the piece of knowledge you're about to discuss occurred in a TV show less than five years old that you've watched every episode of.



> Imagine you'd been watching General Hospital since the beginning in 1963, every episode. Now, imagine that you are told you can only talk about this seasons stories, and nothing whatsoever from prior to that. Do you think you could do it? Some of the characters are the same, you know their history, their motivations, the ups and downs, but none of that is allowed. Only this season.


Yes, I think that would be difficult. Fortunately, that's not what we're asking you to do. We're asking you to delineate between stories told in two different mediums, which isn't really the same thing at all.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

bobcarn said:


> As for the difference in thread titles, according to the guidelines, if you put "spoilers" in the thread title, then you can _supposedly_ discuss things without using any spoiler tags because you've made it clear that there will be spoilers. If you don't use the word "spoilers" in the title, then anything that could be a spoiler should be tagged. Personally, I don't like revealing something I think could be a big spoiler without putting it in a tag.





bobcarn said:


> <sigh> Again, you're drawing some kind of conclusion that the threads can only discuss what happened in that particular episode (or episodes leading up to it). And, again, I don't see anywhere in the guidelines that state that.


I'm still not understanding why you think there's a difference when you use "spoilers" in the title of an "Official Episode Thread?"



> *Official Episode Threads:*
> When starting a discussion about a specific show episode, please put the air date and name of the program (and title if you know it) in the subject line. (ie: Lost, Man of Science, Man of Faith, 11/16.)
> 
> This will be the official thread for that week, and anything within that thread may contain spoilers for that show. It is also okay to mention a plot point from any previous episode. If you are not caught up on this show, and do not wish to read spoilers, do not open this thread.


There is no mention of using or not using "spoilers" in the title. There's no need for it because it is understood that the thread can/will contain info for that episode and all previous episodes.

The guideline(rule) you're referencing about using or not using "spoilers" in the title is for "Posting other content/discussions."



> *Posting other content/discussions:*
> If you are posting a published article or just a general discussion about a show/actor/director, and it contains spoilers for anything that has happened in the current season, please put the word spoilers in the subject line.
> 
> If you post an article or discussion about an actor/director/show that does not give away any plot points, then you do not need to post the word spoiler.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Ereth said:


> And people, here, in this very thread, pointing out that they stopped reading the thread but never actually mentioned the spoilers that bothered them. JYoung has been upset with me for the better part of a year over a post I made that I had no clue bothered him. And he's a comic book guy. I have no idea what I might have spoiled for the non-comic book people that may have chased them off.


For the record, I have not been upset with you.
I was a bit irritated with you for continuing an unspoiled conversation about a totally different movie but I was irritated more with the guy who started it and the guy who posted pictures.

What annoyed me the most at the time that there was zero recognition of my complaint at the time.
It gave me the impression that those who did it felt it was my fault for not seeing the movie in the theater instead of waiting for the home video release.

And I hadn't thought about it for a while until this thread jogged my memory.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

eddyj said:


> I am not going to go and try to parse the current guidelines to death, but this is EXACTLY what I have always understood to be the rules, over many years of participating in the TV area.


But yet, it doesn't say that anywhere. You guys are quoting rules that nobody can seem to find.



DevdogAZ said:


> Agreed. The rules aren't very clear on thread naming conventions, especially with respect to the use of what *spoilers* in the title means, but in practice over the past 10+ years, an episode thread for Show A, whether it said *spoilers* in the title or not, was intended for discussion of that episode (and any previous episodes) of Show A. It's never been OK to discuss Show B in a thread for Show A, unless someone created a very specifically-titled thread, such as "Discussion of Chicago Fire/Chicago PD crossover episodes (Spoilers for both shows up to and including the crossover episodes)."


But DevDog, we're not talking about going into a detailed discussion over Show B when the thread topic is Show A. We're talking about supposedly not being allowed to discuss _anything_ that does not appear in Show A, even when it's material that inspired show A.

At most, what we're talking about here is perhaps going off-topic a little. The last I saw, tons of threads go off-topic all the time. Some of the people complaining about these off-topic comic-book discussions I'm sure have taken part in off-topic discussions themselves. It's never been a big deal elsewhere except when a thread gets seriously hijacked, and then someone usually says "can we get back on-topic", at which point people usually wrap up the hijack and go back on topic.

And it's debatable if it's even really off-topic. If I'm talking about "Arrow", and there's a direct correlation to original source material that was published ten or forty years ago, I don't see it being off-topic if you point out that correlation.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

cherry ghost said:


> I'm still not understanding why you think there's a difference when you use "spoilers" in the title of an "Official Episode Thread?"
> 
> There is no mention of using or not using "spoilers" in the title. There's no need for it because it is understood that the thread can/will contain info for that episode and all previous episodes.
> 
> The guideline(rule) you're referencing about using or not using "spoilers" in the title is for "Posting other content/discussions."


I'm just reading what the guidelines say. They say you don't need to use "spoilers" in the title for episode threads if all you're discussing is what happened in that episode or previous episodes, but they say if you're going to post spoilers from previews or interviews or outside sources, then either tag it or use "spoilers" in the subject title. Keep in mind that the previews for next week, even if they air during the credits of the current episode, are considered spoilers.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

bobcarn said:


> I'm just reading what the guidelines say. They say you don't need to use "spoilers" in the title for episode threads if all you're discussing is what happened in that episode or previous episodes, but they say if you're going to post spoilers from previews or interviews or outside sources, then either tag it or use "spoilers" in the subject title. Keep in mind that the previews for next week, even if they air during the credits of the current episode, are considered spoilers.


Yes, but you're combining the rules from two different sections. The rules don't say anything about adding *spoilers* to an episode-specific thread, because spoilers for that episode, and previous episodes, are inherently allowed by including the air date in the title. There is nothing specific in the rules about making a regular episode thread into one where spoilers for that show can be posted in the clear, because prior to now, that's never really been an issue.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> Yes, but you're combining the rules from two different sections. The rules don't say anything about adding *spoilers* to an episode-specific thread, because spoilers for that episode, and previous episodes, are inherently allowed by including the air date in the title. There is nothing specific in the rules about making a regular episode thread into one where spoilers for that show can be posted in the clear, because prior to now, that's never really been an issue.


Um... I'm not sure we're on the same page any more.

Are we using the word "spoiler" in the same way? I'm using it as telling people ahead of time what's going to happen.

"The preview in next week's Walking Dead showed a zombie biting into Rick's neck!"

"I met the actor and he said by the end of the season, they'll go back in time and wipe out Joe Blow's death."

"In the book, this guy who is really nice turns out to be the villain and was pretending to be on their side while he was setting them up."

Stuff like that.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

When talking about an individual episode, putting "spoiler" in the thread title is superfluous, b/c it is assumed that there will be spoilers for that episode anyway, and it doesn't authorize future spoilers.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

bobcarn said:


> But DevDog, we're not talking about going into a detailed discussion over Show B when the thread topic is Show A. We're talking about supposedly not being allowed to discuss _anything_ that does not appear in Show A, even when it's material that inspired show A.


 That's not really what the rules say. What they really say is that you shouldn't post _spoiler information_ from other sources without being spoiler-tagged. The rules don't really define what a spoiler is: I guess it's kind of like porn: you're supposed to know it when you see it. Up until recently that's not been a problem, because it's been fairly obvious what is a spoiler and what isn't (with the possible exception of previews, which the rules address directly and define to be spoilers).

As a person who's generally spoiler-phobic and in agreement with Robin, I feel a reasonable definition of _spoiler information_ is information that describes some possible future events in the TV show and which is informed by something you know from some outside source.

So, in the Daredevil example (which I was bummed to read about myself), even though the discussion was about a backstory of one of the characters it was clearly supposed to be a mystery in the context of the show, and clearly something that the writers wanted to reveal in a future episode and would likely have a big impact on the characters. I understand that people posting that information don't _know_ that it will happen that way in the TV show, and that in the Daredevil comic there have been different storylines and retconning... but this is still a POSSIBLE reveal and it's not just a pure guess: it's informed by outside information. I think a reasonable person would call it a spoiler.

For information which cannot reasonably be a spoiler, maybe because the show has already definitively gone a different way, I personally don't have any problem with moderate discussion of the alternate plots that may have appeared in the comics, as long as it doesn't basically turn into a discussion of the comics instead of the TV show... I'm confident there are interesting forums for discussion of comics (aren't there?) Also, if people can fill in details from the comics about events that already happened in the TV show but may have been confusing, that's OK with me too, as long as they don't give away information that may come into play later (like, discussing characters who haven't appeared in the TV show).

Of course there are exceptions that need special consideration: mainly the prequel shows such as Gotham. I don't really know what to do there: I agree that we clearly are meant to know who the main characters will become in the future and it seems silly to avoid discussing that. I find it kind of fun to try to figure out all the easter eggs in the show. My suspicion is that we will never actually see any of the characters fully engaged as their future selves in this TV show (with the possible exception of Cobblepot). For example I doubt that Robin will ever show up. So, a lot of this discussion won't really spoil anything... but that's just my impression. I could be wrong. My opinion on this is we just have to muddle through it together, as best we can.

With regards to Ereth's concern, I understand it but I agree with David Platt: I feel like it is reasonable to know which plotlines have happened in the TV show and which haven't, and avoid (or tag) spoilers for the TV show.



bobcarn said:


> I'm just reading what the guidelines say. They say you don't need to use "spoilers" in the title for episode threads if all you're discussing is what happened in that episode or previous episodes, but they say if you're going to post spoilers from previews or interviews or outside sources, then either tag it or use "spoilers" in the subject title. Keep in mind that the previews for next week, even if they air during the credits of the current episode, are considered spoilers.


As Devdog points out, you're misreading it and combining two different sections. The first part of your post is referring to the section describing "official episode threads": in those threads, saying "spoiler" in the title is not needed, and adding "spoiler" (alone) in the title doesn't give any extra permissions to post un-tagged spoiler information. The rules don't address it but we've long had a practice of allowing thread titles to specify additional sources of information (for example many of the Walking Dead threads explicitly allow discussion of Talking Dead and information learned there as well, as long as it's not spoiling future episodes--for example discussing the extended preview shown in Talking Dead is still not allowed). But this must appear in the title so people know before opening the thread.

The second part of your post is referring to another section of the rules, which are not talking about episode threads: they're talking about threads started to discuss other things besides episodes. That is, all other threads that are NOT episode threads. In those threads no spoilers for any TV show are allowed unless it contains "spoilers" in the title. If it does contain "spoilers" then any spoilers about the subject in the title of the thread is allowed, but you should still tag any spoilers for things not implied by the subject (for example other TV shows).


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

bobcarn said:


> Um... I'm not sure we're on the same page any more.
> 
> Are we using the word "spoiler" in the same way? I'm using it as telling people ahead of time what's going to happen.
> 
> ...


That's never authorized in an episode thread, no matter what you put in the title. That's certainly not what *spoilers* in the title of an episode thread means.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

Then I think I'm in agreement in that I always tag things that would be spoilers. If I don't, it's because I made a mistake. If I think something is going to be a spoiler, then I tag it regardless of the thread.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

I think you have clearly explained what the issue here is and am in agreement with you for the most part. But would you like to comment a bit on where there's possibly some gray area.



madscientist said:


> As a person who's generally spoiler-phobic and in agreement with Robin, I feel a reasonable definition of _spoiler information_ is information that describes some possible future events in the TV show and which is informed by something you know from some outside source.


A key word in this statement is "possible" and I think that's where we've run into the most trouble. There are things so ludicrous in a character's comic history that a comic reader might think there is no way they could ever in a million years think it could ever be a possible plot. One such example I can think of is


Spoiler



Supergirl dating Comet the Super horse in human form.


 I just don't see them putting anything like it in the TV show, but I spoilered here just in case but I can see someone not doing so just because it's incredibly doubtful that it will ever be a spoiler for the show.

At the same time I would question if someone watching Ponderosa videos on Survivor should speculate on how voting may go in the finals. I personally don't mind it but it still adds possible clues to how someone may be feeling when they vote. It is technically information gained from a source outside the show. It's certainly not definitive but it's still outside information that could possibly influence an opinion on how voting could go.



> So, in the Daredevil example (which I was bummed to read about myself), even though the discussion was about a backstory of one of the characters it was clearly supposed to be a mystery in the context of the show, and clearly something that the writers wanted to reveal in a future episode and would likely have a big impact on the characters. I understand that people posting that information don't _know_ that it will happen that way in the TV show, and that in the Daredevil comic there have been different storylines and retconning... but this is still a POSSIBLE reveal and it's not just a pure guess: it's informed by outside information. I think a reasonable person would call it a spoiler.


This is a big depends. If it was only one possible background out of many that have come before and after and it was met with a lot of disapproval at the time it was written then most would probably consider it highly unlikely to ever make it to the TV show and wouldn't be a spoiler. My guess is that TV writers are going to do what they are going to do and come up with something a bit different than what has ever appeared in the comics. This is very much a gray area.



> For information which cannot reasonably be a spoiler, maybe because the show has already definitively gone a different way, I personally don't have any problem with moderate discussion of the alternate plots that may have appeared in the comics, as long as it doesn't basically turn into a discussion of the comics instead of the TV show... I'm confident there are interesting forums for discussion of comics (aren't there?) Also, if people can fill in details from the comics about events that already happened in the TV show but may have been confusing, that's OK with me too, as long as they don't give away information that may come into play later (like, discussing characters who haven't appeared in the TV show).


Many threads here go off topic and if the discussion goes more into comic non-spoilery stuff then it should be treated like any other discussion that goes off topic.



> Of course there are exceptions that need special consideration: mainly the prequel shows such as Gotham. I don't really know what to do there: I agree that we clearly are meant to know who the main characters will become in the future and it seems silly to avoid discussing that. I find it kind of fun to try to figure out all the easter eggs in the show. My suspicion is that we will never actually see any of the characters fully engaged as their future selves in this TV show (with the possible exception of Cobblepot). For example I doubt that Robin will ever show up. So, a lot of this discussion won't really spoil anything... but that's just my impression. I could be wrong. My opinion on this is we just have to muddle through it together, as best we can.


We're in agreement here for the most part. Gotham is ground that has never really been covered in a comic and the only thing that can be "spoiled" is what the characters became in the comics and that is something that I believe the writers assume that the audience already knows. I also think the writers of this are going to play around with expectation a bit just because that's what they do. 
I think that as a general rule discussing the source material of a prequel is not a spoiler anymore than discussing season 4 would be a spoiler when talking about season 5.

I think a reasonable solution can be reached but I don't there will be a solution that will make everyone happy in every instance.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

So. Are we not to comment at all on things like the test pilot disappearing? It's an obvious shout out to comics readers and has absolutely no meaning to no comics readers. The show runners are just acknowledging the fact that they reside in the same universe as green lantern. There is no plans to add him in the show and yet we have to hide discussion of that in tags?


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

David Platt said:


> No. But I do think it's possible to have a conversation about the TV portrayal of said characters and the series in which they're portrayed. If you can remember 40+ years of comic history in intricate details, you can surely remember whether the piece of knowledge you're about to discuss occurred in a TV show less than five years old that you've watched every episode of.


I wish my memory was still that good. It's not. I remember stuff that happened in the comics in the 1960s and 1970s better than I remember what happened last week on TV.

That's nobodies fault, it's just age. But it's true. I remember Mark Hamill's character from the 1990s Flash series better than the one from this season.

It's gradually all becoming a blur. I don't think I could tell you what happened this season on "Arrow" in anything other than broad strokes. Other than the storyline with Harrison Wells, I don't have the first clue what happened on "The Flash" this year. The "villain of the week" plots disappear from my mind almost as soon as the episode is over. I mostly watch for the comic book callouts now.

I hate getting old.



> Yes, I think that would be difficult. Fortunately, that's not what we're asking you to do. We're asking you to delineate between stories told in two different mediums, which isn't really the same thing at all.


It looks the same to me. Characters with the same name, telling new stories, with slightly different supporting characters.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

DavidTigerFan said:


> So. Are we not to comment at all on things like the test pilot disappearing? It's an obvious shout out to comics readers and has absolutely no meaning to no comics readers. The show runners are just acknowledging the fact that they reside in the same universe as green lantern. There is no plans to add him in the show and yet we have to hide discussion of that in tags?


It seems so. A spoiler is "something that comes from the comic that I didn't know" and its not "a potential future plot point."


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

Turtleboy said:


> It seems so. A spoiler is "something that comes from the comic that I didn't know" and its not "a potential future plot point."


I don't know now if it's a matter of some being worried that the information will turn out to be a spoiler, really do believe it's a spoiler, or just think the information is off-topic and don't like it. In any case, I've been tagging things anyway that I think are spoilers so I don't see where I'll change that much. I did learn that I was being overcautious by putting the word "spoilers" in the title.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

bobcarn said:


> I don't know now if it's a matter of some being worried that the information will turn out to be a spoiler, really do believe it's a spoiler, or just think the information is off-topic and don't like it. In any case, I've been tagging things anyway that I think are spoilers so I don't see where I'll change that much. I did learn that I was being overcautious by putting the word "spoilers" in the title.


I definitely err on the side of caution. I would feel terrible if I posted something I didn't think could ever be a spoiler, but it turned out that it was, and I spoiled something for someone else. As has been mentioned several times, it's always possible to post a spoiler without meaning to do so, but if someone points it out as a possible spoiler, then go back and tag it.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Spoiler



I think I just need to tag everything I post to TV Talk, just in case it might spoil things for someone else.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> I think I just need to tag everything I post to TV Talk, just in case it might spoil things for someone else.


Only if you want to act like a jerk. Otherwise, you only need to spoilerize stuff that can reasonably expected to be considered a spoiler.

But you knew that.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

eddyj said:


> Only if you want to act like a jerk. Otherwise, you only need to spoilerize stuff that can reasonably expected to be considered a spoiler.
> 
> But you knew that.


I'm getting conflicting messages about spoilerizing potential spoilers and things that are merely "off topic" because they are from the comic book.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> I'm getting conflicting messages about spoilerizing potential spoilers and things that are merely "off topic" because they are from the comic book.


If you are confused, then you are not paying attention.

Loadstar posted a blank (other than the spoiler) post, with no clue as to what was in the spoiler, and it was something that could not be considered a spoiler in any universe, Marvel, DC or TCF. Therefore, spoilerizing something like that is a jerk move.

If you are still confused to as what spoilerize, read Robin's posts. Read them twice. She has explained multiple times what is being asked by most of us. I have also explained it multiple times.

There are plenty of explanations in the thread. But basically, use your own forum rule to try to decide what to spoilerze: Don't be a jerk.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

madscientist said:


> So, in the Daredevil example (which I was bummed to read about myself), even though the discussion was about a backstory of one of the characters it was clearly supposed to be a mystery in the context of the show, and clearly something that the writers wanted to reveal in a future episode and would likely have a big impact on the characters. I understand that people posting that information don't _know_ that it will happen that way in the TV show, and that in the Daredevil comic there have been different storylines and retconning... but this is still a POSSIBLE reveal and it's not just a pure guess: it's informed by outside information. I think a reasonable person would call it a spoiler.


I'm glad I read this thread first so now I know I should not go into any more _Daredevil_ threads on here.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

But that's exactly one of those "conflicting points of view" moments.

That particular "spoiler" was a discussion of a storyline that was awful, and how grateful we were that the Daredevil TV show did NOT go there. It is about an event many years AFTER the events in the TV show, so none of us believe that the "mystery backstory" of the character is this particular thing, because it doesn't work. It doesn't fit the timeline established in the show. That character would have to have knowledge, in the past, of the future. So clearly THAT didn't happen.

madscientist thinks it's going to be a reveal in a future episode. None of the rest of us do. So we have an impasse. He clearly thinks that because something happened in the comics, ever, it is a spoiler for the TV show, even if the TV show doesn't use that plot thread.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

If I get something spoiled for me, I'll just wait a couple of months before I watch it and I'll have forgotten the spoiler anyway.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

The Superboy TV show has been off the air a lot of years, and this story didn't happen in it, so there are no spoilers here and it's safe to talk about openly.

There was a Superboy TV show.
There was a Superboy comic book.

In the Superboy comic book there was a storyline wherein it is revealed that an advanced alien race is monitoring Superboys adventures (with super powered telescopes) and recording them and then showing them on TV as entertainment. However, while the show is highly rated, focus group testing reveals that the audience doesn't like the actors playing Superboys parents, as they are too old, and the audience feels that doesn't make sense. So the network pressures the alien producer to recast the actors playing the parents, thinking it's an actual fictitious performance.

But, of course, they aren't actors, but real people, and they can't "recast". The alien producer comes up with an ingenious idea to fly to Earth and put a chemical in the well water on the Kent Farm that would cause the Kents to get younger. They do this, and the Kents go from being elderly to being simply middle-aged. Superboy gets actually younger parents, and the audience for this "TV show" gets actors they like better. It's a significant plot in that the editors at DC had pretty much the same idea, and the Kents were younger after this. It didn't revert at the end of the story.

Now, this didn't happen in the Superboy TV show. But more, it was pretty obvious from day 1 that it would NEVER happen in the TV show. So a reference to it from a comic book fan (in a bizarre conversation, I'm assuming) would not actually be a spoiler. But people might THINK it's a spoiler, even though there was zero chance of it happening in the show.

And that's where we end up. The show begins airing, the entire run clearly isn't done, and some people think any storyline that might potentially end up on the show, no matter how unlikely, should be in spoilers. Others of us think stories that have no chance shouldn't have to be spoilers. "Superman gets angry and destroys every human being and blows up the Earth" is a potential plot, but it'll never end up in a movie or TV show. Superman gets super fat and can't fit inside the phone booth to change costumes happened in a comic, but it won't happen on a TV show.

I understand the desire not to be spoiled. I have the same desire. But not all comic book references are actually spoilers. (Some of them are, and we all agree we should be more careful with those).


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Ereth said:


> But not all comic book references are actually spoilers. (Some of them are, and we all agree we should be more careful with those).


No one is saying they are. Being more careful is all that is being asked. I don't know how many other ways I can say that.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

eddyj said:


> No one is saying they are. Being more careful is all that is being asked. I don't know how many other ways I can say that.


Well, it's nice of you to reiterate that while completely ignoring the rest of my post and the discussion of madscientist wanting information that is NOT going to be in the show in spoiler tags, too.

To paraphrase you, you aren't the only one we have to satisfy on this issue.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

You don't have to satisfy me at all, I have already left the relevant threads.

I was actually agreeing with your statement.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

eddyj said:


> You don't have to satisfy me at all, I have already left the relevant threads.
> 
> I was actually agreeing with your statement.


I give up. I can't find any way to get "agreement" out of what you posted. But since you've already left the threads, I suppose it doesn't matter.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

You said:


> But not all comic book references are actually spoilers. (Some of them are, and we all agree we should be more careful with those).


I said:


> No one is saying they are. Being more careful is all that is being asked. I don't know how many other ways I can say that.


I agreed that not all comic book references are spoilers, and that being more careful is good. How can that not be agreement?


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

eddyj said:


> I agreed that not all comic book references are spoilers, and that being more careful is good. How can that not be agreement?


Because my entire point was that SOME people are saying they are. And you said that nobody is saying they are. I can't see any agreement between those two points.

I suppose you meant you agreed with my position, but - well, text. I didn't see that. I saw "this is the argument I'm making against this position" juxtaposed with "nobody said that" even though I included references to people saying that in my original post.

Forget it. We've beat this to death and I'm just exhausted. Maybe it's me and I'm just not thinking clearly. I've been on conference calls all day.

It's certainly not worthing fighting over whether we were fighting or not!


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

I have no problem with your posting comic book stuff, since you are aware that some stuff can be spoilerish, use tags reasonably, and are willing to "fix" posts when others ask. And I appreciate the comic book background, most of the time.

If everyone posting had the same attitude, this thread would not exist.


And don't you know conference calls rot your brain?


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

eddyj said:


> And don't you know conference calls rot your brain?


Conference calls with people who have a really complicated plan arguing over minutia of the plan with the support staffs of every group waiting on the call in particular.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Maybe the shows in question aren't airing right now, but I've noticed a large drop in participation in all the Comic based threads. It seems to me that this thread is doing one thing, it's discouraging everyone from posting. Congratulations to us.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> I think I just need to tag everything I post to TV Talk, just in case it might spoil things for someone else.


That's just as childish as you chided Smeek for being in the Mad Men thread.

But if you want to effectively put yourself on ignore knock yourself out.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

So according to the new rigid interpretation of the rules, isn't:



> No more Mr. Burns, Ned Flanders, etc.


a spoiler in the thread title? I'd hate to ruin simpsons for people.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Is it a spoiler if its not really likely to be true?


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

jsmeeker said:


> Is it a spoiler if its not really likely to be true?


Ahh, but it COULD happen and accordingly is a spoiler.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Yes, and I could say "No TV ever again" and it would be a spoiler, since an asteroid could crash into the Earth and wipe us out? Any other ridiculous scenarios you want to discuss? I have millions of them.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

I don't think it's the same as say a thread that might say "Jonathan Banks is leaving 'Better Call Saul'"

THAT can easily be called a spoiler. Either posted in the clear as a thread title or posted in the clear in a BCS thread.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

DavidTigerFan said:


> Ahh, but it COULD happen and accordingly is a spoiler.


So, ask the mods to change the title. If they agree with the rules interpretation, then they will do so. I would say ask the author, but they cannot do so on a thread title.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

When in doubt (legitimate doubt, not a snarky "I'm going to spoilerize Bruce Wayne's decision to part his hair on the left side of his head in issue #14 from 1948, while the actor on Gotham parts his hair on the right"), use spoilers if you're posting some information from something other than the show you're watching. We can all go to extremes, but for most people who are upset with spoilers, we're talking about real things that are actually spoilers, or potential spoilers.

With both the web browser version of this forum and with the iOS Tapatalk app, it's a one-click process to see what's in the spoiler tags.

For things that are very likely to be spoiled (Mad Men, Game of Thrones, major sporting events), I try to watch them very soon to when they air if I can't watch them live. For example, this morning and after the kids left for school, my wife and I watched the finale of Mad Men and last night's Game of Thrones episodes. But I don't expect the Mad Men thread about the finale to have a spoiler about another show or movie in it, nor do I expect Game of Thrones threads to have any details about characters who will or won't be in upcoming episodes, nor spoilers about upcoming plots, or anything about any other show.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Stormspace said:


> Maybe the shows in question aren't airing right now, but I've noticed a large drop in participation in all the Comic based threads. It seems to me that this thread is doing one thing, it's discouraging everyone from posting. Congratulations to us.


We have had people say here in this thread that they've stopped going into those threads because of the comic book discussions being there unspoilerized.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Howie said:


> If I get something spoiled for me, I'll just wait a couple of months before I watch it and I'll have forgotten the spoiler anyway.


heh... I've done that too. Somehow it's getting easier and easier to accomplish.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Stormspace said:


> Maybe the shows in question aren't airing right now, but I've noticed a large drop in participation in all the Comic based threads. It seems to me that this thread is doing one thing, it's discouraging everyone from posting. Congratulations to us.


Nine of the threads on my front page are comic book show threads. That's a pretty high ratio.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

There were two Simpson's threads, one in Happy Hour and one in Now Playing. They were combined in Now Playing with the Happy Hour title.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Azlen said:


> Nine of the threads on my front page are comic book show threads. That's a pretty high ratio.


All that shows is you are a comic show geek.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

hummingbird_206 said:


> All that shows is you are a comic show geek.


LOL, I meant my front page in the TV show section here, I think everyone should have the same thing. Now my yahoo front page is full of stuff on The Flash, Captain America Civil War etc. etc.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

Just post stuff about what's aired thus far in the TV show.
If it is plot related and hasn't aired in the TV show yet, and you're getting your info from some external source, then spoiler it just in case it comes true in the TV show, again, just in case.

How is this even an issue?


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Wha?!? You think that until recently it was OK to spoil a plot point from Show B in a thread about Show A? Whether there was a rule against it or not, it's just common sense that you don't do something like that. That doesn't need a rule. That falls under the unwritten "Don't be a *****" rule.


That's what makes this whole argument so annoying. It's impossible to come to a consensus about what would allow the most people to enjoy the threads with the least fuss and inconvenience when you have sea-lawyers who are constantly insisting that everything has to be spelled out in the Rules, while at the same time *****ing about how there are too many Rules.

I want to emphasize that the person who mentioned The Good Wife, and was asked to spoiler-tag the plot point in question, did so without complaining about it, and the discussion went back to normal after that. It was, as I said in my other post, a week later when the ****-stirrers had to come in and argue and argue and argue how it's Oh So Tremendously Unfair to ask anyone to tag spoilers, and disrupt the entire thread.

So take the statement about how the person who posted the spoiler was "jumped on" with a big grain of salt.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

murgatroyd said:


> That's what makes this whole argument so annoying. It's impossible to come to a consensus about what would allow the most people to enjoy the threads with the least fuss and inconvenience when you have sea-lawyers who are constantly insisting that everything has to be spelled out in the Rules, while at the same time *****ing about how there are too many Rules.
> 
> I want to emphasize that the person who mentioned The Good Wife, and was asked to spoiler-tag the plot point in question, did so without complaining about it, and the discussion went back to normal after that. It was, as I said in my other post, a week later when the ****-stirrers had to come in and argue and argue and argue how it's Oh So Tremendously Unfair to ask anyone to tag spoilers, and disrupt the entire thread.
> 
> So take the statement about how the person who posted the spoiler was "jumped on" with a big grain of salt.


Just so you know, I agree with the circumstance in question and would never reveal a large plot point like that in another thread.


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

I think I'd find the spoilter/unspoiler tags a lot less bothersome if there was a way to un-spoiler all tags in a page.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

In the interest of fairness, I should say that I get where Ereth is coming from. I have read most of the books and some of the short printed fiction for _A Song of Ice and Fire_ (but not the drawn books). I don't have HBO and am way behind now on Game of Thrones, but if I were caught up and trying to participate in the TV show threads, I would be one of those "read all the books" people trying not to spoil things for everyone.

Contrary to popular opinion, I can see both sides.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

eddyj said:


> Only if you want to act like a jerk. Otherwise, you only need to spoilerize stuff that can reasonably expected to be considered a spoiler.
> 
> But you knew that.


I thought he was just making a joke. To call a maker of a not very funny joke a jerk is a bit over the top.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

He didn't call him a jerk.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

BrettStah said:


> He didn't call him a jerk.


I was actually calling people who would seriously do that jerks. Not him.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Technically you only said they were acting like a jerk.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Ereth said:


> But that's exactly one of those "conflicting points of view" moments.
> 
> That particular "spoiler" was a discussion of a storyline that was awful, and how grateful we were that the Daredevil TV show did NOT go there. It is about an event many years AFTER the events in the TV show, so none of us believe that the "mystery backstory" of the character is this particular thing, because it doesn't work. It doesn't fit the timeline established in the show. That character would have to have knowledge, in the past, of the future. So clearly THAT didn't happen.
> 
> madscientist thinks it's going to be a reveal in a future episode. None of the rest of us do. So we have an impasse. He clearly thinks that because something happened in the comics, ever, it is a spoiler for the TV show, even if the TV show doesn't use that plot thread.


 You don't know that the TV show won't use that plot, or at least large sections of it. The TV show character has a terrible secret in their past, that much is clear. We don't know what the secret is, and I don't find it unlikely at all that they would use parts of the comic storyline in it. Yes, it may not happen the exact same way: things that happened in the future in the comics may be relegated to the TV show character's past instead. Perhaps the TV show character will be blackmailed or something to get them to perform a similar act as in the comics. It wouldn't be identical, but I don't see any justification for your faith that this storyline won't be in any way related to events that may happen on the show: even with a timeline change it's still, IMO, a spoiler if the TV show ends up going that way.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

I don't know how anyone can resist clicking the spoiler button. When I see it, I have to click to see what it says, even if I don't want to be spoiled.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

If someone puts a little blurb about what the spoiler is, or you can sort of tell by context what it is about, then it is much easier to decide. For example, if someone says "casting spoiler", then I might click, since I don't consider those too bad (although I have been burned, but that's my own fault). 

If stuff is just spoilerized with no hint, then it is almost useless (for deciding whether to click). But better than having spoilers in the open.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

eddyj said:


> If someone puts a little blurb about what the spoiler is, or you can sort of tell by context what it is about, then it is much easier to decide. For example, if someone says "casting spoiler", then I might click, since I don't consider those too bad (although I have been burned, but that's my own fault).
> 
> If stuff is just spoilerized with no hint, then it is almost useless (for deciding whether to click). But better than having spoilers in the open.


I understand that. I'm talking about my own willpower and inability to not click, no matter the circumstances.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Just slap yourself on the head every time you do it. That is what I do when temptation gets the better of me and I click on "View Post" for someone on my ignore list, and almost always regret doing it.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

It's probably 50/50 with me. If it's clear that they're talking about something I don't want to know about, I usually avoid clicking. There have been times when I've seen an accurately labeled spoiler, gave in to my curiosity, and wished I hadn't, but in that case I have nobody to blame but myself.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Are these spoilers? Do they fall into special categories? Two situations...
_
[aside: these are hypotheticals, I am not spoiling a specific show, although these type of scenarios have occurred]
_
A show ends its season with a major scene, and while it seems like we know what happened and what we saw, there is a significant percent that interpret it differently. Maybe we think someone died, but some are saying that person may not be dead. Then in after-the-season interviews, the showrunner says, "geez, I thought I made it clear, we intended X to be dead. I guess I need to do a better job next time."

Are we allowed to post in the episode thread that X is dead, that it's official? Yes, the interview occurred outside the show, but it's the showrunner specifically and explicitly telling us how we should have seen it.

Second situation: Also season finale, and it appears X may be off the show. It's not clear, but the finale leaves it in a way that X may not be a part of the show. Maybe they announce (in the show) that X is pregnant and taking some time off. Or maybe X is given a transfer to Siberia in the last episode.

And again, in after-the-season interviews, the showrunner proclaims "X is coming back". Perhaps they explain why they wrote what they wrote, or maybe they don't. But in any case, they unequivocally say "X is coming back".

Can that be posted in the episode thread?


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

astrohip said:


> Are these spoilers? Do they fall into special categories? Two situations...
> _
> [aside: these are hypotheticals, I am not spoiling a specific show, although these type of scenarios have occurred]
> _
> ...


To the people who really care, those are both spoilers, because they give away information other than directly from the show itself.

Both can be posted in the thread, but with spoiler tags.

I think.


----------



## teknikel (Jan 27, 2002)

astrohip said:


> Are these spoilers? Do they fall into special categories? Two situations...
> _
> [aside: these are hypotheticals, I am not spoiling a specific show, although these type of scenarios have occurred]
> _
> ...


 Spoiler about Brooklyn Nine Nine related to the question:


Spoiler



The first part of your second situation is what i think happened in Brooklyn Nine Nine. Andre Brougher's character , the captain of the squad, is being transferred. At the end, the squad is awaiting the his replacement to arrive and as far as I know, they left it as a cliffhanger (thanks madscientist). I was wondering if Brougher was leaving. I am going to try to avoid info about this but it may not work for 4 months.

In the context of what was shown in the show, there is a possibility that Brougher could return.So, yes, that would be a spoiler if the showrunner said that Brougher is returning or leaving.



My ignorance is not bliss and I like it.

edited because I forgot I wasn't in the BNN thread.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

astrohip said:


> Are these spoilers? Do they fall into special categories? Two situations...
> _
> [aside: these are hypotheticals, I am not spoiling a specific show, although these type of scenarios have occurred]
> _
> ...


Both would be spoilers, and both can be posted with spoiler tags. I'd do it like this:


> The showrunner was recently interviewed, and answered some questions about this episode's events:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

madscientist said:


> You don't know that the TV show won't use that plot, or at least large sections of it. The TV show character has a terrible secret in their past, that much is clear. We don't know what the secret is, and I don't find it unlikely at all that they would use parts of the comic storyline in it. Yes, it may not happen the exact same way: things that happened in the future in the comics may be relegated to the TV show character's past instead. Perhaps the TV show character will be blackmailed or something to get them to perform a similar act as in the comics. It wouldn't be identical, but I don't see any justification for your faith that this storyline won't be in any way related to events that may happen on the show: even with a timeline change it's still, IMO, a spoiler if the TV show ends up going that way.
> 
> I guess we'll just have to wait and see.


You are right, we don't have knowledge. But we know that the plot in question is particularly reviled by the fans. And so do the writers. Do you think they'll choose to implement a particularly hated bit of the lore when there is so much more there? Do you think they want to alienate their audience?

And since it would take several years for that storyline to be set up and paid off, do you really think you'll still remember that discussion years from now (assuming this thread isn't still going?).

Spider-Man comic book spoiler and comment on a plot that better not be in any Spider-Man movie:


Spoiler



In the comics, probably the most hated storyline of recent years is the one where Spider-Man literally makes a deal with the devil to undo his own history in order to save the life of his Aunt May. The steam comes out of fans eyes whenever this is mentioned. I would bet money that will never be in any Spider-Man movie or TV show or referenced in any way, if only to avoid the violence in the theater if it were. It's a stupid, stupid, story, and not just the fans but the movie audience would hate it. So I think it's safe to talk about, because I think the chance of it ever appearing in a TV show or Movie approaches zero.

You clearly disagree. But this is our disconnect.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Turtleboy said:


> I don't know how anyone can resist clicking the spoiler button. When I see it, I have to click to see what it says, even if I don't want to be spoiled.


This is when I'm glad that android forum runner can't handle spoilers. Saves me from myself. Having to open in a browser or Tapatalk keeps me from just jumping in.



Turtleboy said:


> To the people who really care, those are both spoilers, because they give away information other than directly from the show itself.
> 
> Both can be posted in the thread, but with spoiler tags.
> 
> I think.


Yep.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Ereth said:


> You are right, we don't have knowledge. But we know that the plot in question is particularly reviled by the fans. And so do the writers. Do you think they'll choose to implement a particularly hated bit of the lore when there is so much more there? Do you think they want to alienate their audience?
> 
> And since it would take several years for that storyline to be set up and paid off, do you really think you'll still remember that discussion years from now (assuming this thread isn't still going?).
> 
> ...


:up::up::up:


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Ereth said:


> You are right, we don't have knowledge. But we know that the plot in question is particularly reviled by the fans. And so do the writers. Do you think they'll choose to implement a particularly hated bit of the lore when there is so much more there? Do you think they want to alienate their audience?
> 
> And since it would take several years for that storyline to be set up and paid off, do you really think you'll still remember that discussion years from now (assuming this thread isn't still going?).
> 
> ...


Continuing Spider Man spoiler


Spoiler



Why would you give up your young wife to save an old lady? Aunt May is old. She should be dying anyway.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Turtleboy said:


> Continuing Spider Man spoiler
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...





Spoiler



IIRC The situation was set up so MJ was going to agree regardless of what Peter was doing so he had to create a compromise. The continuing mystery is what secret deal MJ made with Mephisto. I'm not caught up on the Now stuff, but I'm all done with the previous series. Personally I think that plot point was dropped when Marvel did the reboot.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

astrohip said:


> Are these spoilers? Do they fall into special categories? Two situations...
> _
> [aside: these are hypotheticals, I am not spoiling a specific show, although these type of scenarios have occurred]
> _
> A show ends its season with a major scene, and while it seems like we know what happened and what we saw, there is a significant percent that interpret it differently. Maybe we think someone died, but some are saying that person may not be dead. Then in after-the-season interviews, the showrunner says, "geez, I thought I made it clear, we intended X to be dead. I guess I need to do a better job next time."


I remember that exact situation happening where people kept talking about what a producer had said. I reported posts as spoilers until everyone in the thread counter complained and a mod posted that it was not a spoiler and to stop reporting it. So even when you try to follow the rules some mods just don't give a ****.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

astrohip said:


> Are these spoilers? Do they fall into special categories? Two situations...
> _
> [aside: these are hypotheticals, I am not spoiling a specific show, although these type of scenarios have occurred]
> _
> ...


I think the second one is definitely a spoiler and should be treated as such. 
The first one has more gray area involved. Clearing up confusion over something isn't necessarily a spoiler. For example if a writer from Lost said "It was definitely gaunt, I don't know where people got goth from" then I don't believe something like that is necessarily a spoiler. In the same way, if a character on a show makes an inside joke or an outside reference, I don't think it's always a spoiler to explain what they meant, but obviously that could depend on the situation.

One I had a tough time figuring out in the past was when an actor dies during the filming of the show. Can you post an RIP thread even if it's more than likely going to spoil a future plot point on the show? It's typically major news and hard to avoid but I questioned how it should be handled here.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Azlen said:


> I think the second one is definitely a spoiler and should be treated as such.
> The first one has more gray area involved. Clearing up confusion over something isn't necessarily a spoiler. For example if a writer from Lost said "It was definitely gaunt, I don't know where people got goth from" then I don't believe something like that is necessarily a spoiler. In the same way, if a character on a show makes an inside joke or an outside reference, I don't think it's always a spoiler to explain what they meant, but obviously that could depend on the situation.
> 
> One I had a tough time figuring out in the past was when an actor dies during the filming of the show. Can you post an RIP thread even if it's more than likely going to spoil a future plot point on the show? It's typically major news and hard to avoid but I questioned how it should be handled here.


Someone is going to post a separate thread about it and spoil it for everyone in the thread title.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

Ereth said:


> You are right, we don't have knowledge. But we know that the plot in question is particularly reviled by the fans. And so do the writers. Do you think they'll choose to implement a particularly hated bit of the lore when there is so much more there? Do you think they want to alienate their audience?


But non-readers have no knowledge that it's a reviled plot. They just see it posted and think it's a spoiler

It's been mentioned a few times in this thread that some things aren't spoilers because they're only one of many possibilities due to reboots over the years. Non-readers aren't aware of reboots and don't know if something is one of ten possibilities, two possibilities, or the only possibility.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

SeanC said:


> I remember that exact situation happening where people kept talking about what a producer had said. I reported posts as spoilers until everyone in the thread counter complained and a mod posted that it was not a spoiler and to stop reporting it. So even when you try to follow the rules some mods just don't give a ****.





Azlen said:


> I think the second one is definitely a spoiler and should be treated as such.
> The first one has more gray area involved. Clearing up confusion over something isn't necessarily a spoiler. For example if a writer from Lost said "It was definitely gaunt, I don't know where people got goth from" then I don't believe something like that is necessarily a spoiler. In the same way, if a character on a show makes an inside joke or an outside reference, I don't think it's always a spoiler to explain what they meant, but obviously that could depend on the situation.


I tend to agree with Azlen and not SeanC. And I remember the circumstance SeanC is referring to. There was some debate if a figure died or not, most thought yes, but a few thought no. The producer responded with "I thought it was obvious as could be, the character is dead. I guess I need to be more explicit next time."

We did discuss this in the thread, and we did not use spoiler tags. [Aside: I'm sensitive to spoiler-phobes, and try to be respectful of them.] We felt, as citizens of the thread, that this was not a spoiler, but info that they tried to convey originally, didn't do a good job of, and were simply now clarifying. So we made it public, not hidden.

I'm not sure how info that the producers WANT to clarify can be considered spoilers. I do see how casting info for next season could be (although I personally disagree).


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

astrohip said:


> I'm not sure how info that the producers WANT to clarify can be considered spoilers. I do see how casting info for next season could be (although I personally disagree).


Because they had to clarify it outside of the show.

This specific one just blows my mind. It's like the producer and the other people who didn't think it was a spoiler have never watched TV in the past. TV loves to use misdirection and imply that X happened, then at the beginning of the next season, WHOOPS, actually X didn't happen because of Y.

If they don't show a dead body, then they aren't dead. Hell even when they DO show a dead body, sometimes, with minimal effort they write the character as not dead.

So it's completely bizarre to me that people could conceivably argue that is not a spoiler, when the only way they can win the argument about dead or alive is to reference outside information.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

SeanC said:


> Because they had to clarify it outside of the show.
> 
> This specific one just blows my mind. It's like the producer and the other people who didn't think it was a spoiler have never watched TV in the past. TV loves to use misdirection and imply that X happened, then at the beginning of the next season, WHOOPS, actually X didn't happen because of Y.
> 
> ...


And in this case I would agree with you, except the producers intended NO misdirection. They weren't looking to leave us with a cliffhanger, they intended for "X" to happen. And only because it was clear to them but not us, was it necessary to clarify.

That's not misdirection, that's not suspense, that's a producer not being clear when they made a scene.

It's no spoiler, as there is nothing to spoil.

Let's use an example. In this week's Brooklyn 9-9, a certain character may have left the show. For good, or not? No way to tell. The producers intentionally left it that way. Now later they said what the answer is, but for us to post that would be a spoiler. As they intended a cliffhanger.

But when a producer says "geez, I screwed up, I thought everyone could tell we said _gaunt_." It's not a spoiler to post that info.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

astrohip said:


> But when a producer says "geez, I screwed up, I thought everyone could tell we said _gaunt_." It's not a spoiler to post that info.


edited to remove inappropriate comments.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

SeanC said:


> Because they had to clarify it outside of the show.
> 
> This specific one just blows my mind. It's like the producer and the other people who didn't think it was a spoiler have never watched TV in the past. TV loves to use misdirection and imply that X happened, then at the beginning of the next season, WHOOPS, actually X didn't happen because of Y.
> 
> ...


Exactly.

If it is plot related and hasn't aired in the TV show yet, and/or you're getting your info from some external source, then spoiler it just in case...just in case.

How hard is that??


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

Stormspace said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> IIRC The situation was set up so MJ was going to agree regardless of what Peter was doing so he had to create a compromise. The continuing mystery is what secret deal MJ made with Mephisto. I'm not caught up on the Now stuff, but I'm all done with the previous series. Personally I think that plot point was dropped when Marvel did the reboot.





Spoiler



<sigh> Don't people know that nothing good can come from making a deal with the devil? It's like a litmus test. If the devil wants it, then it's no good. No more thought required.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bobcarn said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> <sigh> Don't people know that nothing good can come from making a deal with the devil? It's like a litmus test. If the devil wants it, then it's no good. No more thought required.





Spoiler



That is I think why most people didn't like it. The deal was obviously the wrong one to make and as smart as Pete is he still made it. It was frustratingly bad.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

cherry ghost said:


> But non-readers have no knowledge that it's a reviled plot. They just see it posted and think it's a spoiler
> 
> It's been mentioned a few times in this thread that some things aren't spoilers because they're only one of many possibilities due to reboots over the years. Non-readers aren't aware of reboots and don't know if something is one of ten possibilities, two possibilities, or the only possibility.


Just an FYI, not all of the things are actual plot points. Sometimes it's just pieces of trivia that help explain things. For example, in one of the Flash threads, someone asked why people don't get smashed to pieces when the Flash runs up to them at 500 mph and grabs them, so we dug into our comic book knowledge and said that he generates a form of energy that lets him bend the laws of physics (hence the lightning bolts you see around him when he runs). When he grabs someone, that energy aura around him likewise compensates for the effects of inertia and lets him start moving the person at superspeed without harming them.

Other questions are "how far apart are those two cities", "how was he able to time travel if he wasn't moving the speed of light", etc.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

astrohip said:


> After 14 years and thousands of posts, I'm neither being dense nor trolling.
> 
> We just disagree.


I've come to understand that to the spoiler-phobic people, EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE THING THAT ISN'T DIRECTLY SPELLED OUT IN THE SHOW, is a potential spoiler, in all circumstances.

I know that it's an exaggeration, but I'm going to take that position on a going forward basis rather than be castigated.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

Astrohip, I would like to apologize for my previous comment which I have deleted. I knew I never should have come into this thread, that was my mistake.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Turtleboy said:


> I've come to understand that to the spoiler-phobic people, EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE THING THAT ISN'T DIRECTLY SPELLED OUT IN THE SHOW, is a potential spoiler, in all circumstances.
> 
> I know that it's an exaggeration, but I'm going to take that position on a going forward basis rather than be castigated.


Well at least you know it's an exaggeration. 

Seriously, it's pretty simple, and common sense usually handles most things pretty well. Discuss what happened in the show you watched, speculate on what things mean that happened in the show you watched, etc.

If a character named Joe is shown to be dead at the end of an episode of a TV show you watch, it's fine to speculate whether he's really dead, or will be saved somehow, and so on. But if you read an interview or article somewhere that says that the actor who plays Joe is committed to another 2 seasons of the show and that the way his character is brought back to life is "wild", then don't post it at all, or if you must, spoilerize it.

The only realistic "edge case" that seems to have reasonable arguments on both sides deals with the GoT information that was posted that dealt with a particular character/storyline, and to me, the most reasonable thing to do is to err on the side of not posting it without spoiler tags, after people who see the information as spoilers let it be known that it's a spoiler to them.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Turtleboy said:


> I've come to understand that to the spoiler-phobic people, EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE THING THAT ISN'T DIRECTLY SPELLED OUT IN THE SHOW, is a potential spoiler, in all circumstances.
> 
> I know that it's an exaggeration, but I'm going to take that position on a going forward basis rather than be castigated.


What this discussion has made me realize is that my understanding of the definition of "spoiler" is different when on TCF than it is outside of this forum. And I think that is the the heart of the problem.

Because of the NP spoiler rules that ban anything from "outside sources," we on this forum have become conditioned to view anything from outside sources as a violation of the spoiler rule, even if the information isn't really spoiling anything.

But outside of this forum, in the "real world," the definition of a spoiler is something that gives away a plot point or upcoming development.

And that's what this whole thread centers around. I'm guessing that most people who are complaining about "spoilers" in the comic book threads understand that most of what's being complained about doesn't meet the traditional definition of "spoiler," but is still a violation of the forum's "outside sources" rule. I wonder if we'd be able to come to more agreement if we came up with different terminology to refer to violations that aren't technically spoilers but are merely against the rule.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> What this discussion has made me realize is that my understanding of the definition of "spoiler" is different when on TCF than it is outside of this forum. And I think that is the the heart of the problem.
> 
> Because of the NP spoiler rules that ban anything from "outside sources," we on this forum have become conditioned to view anything from outside sources as a violation of the spoiler rule, even if the information isn't really spoiling anything.
> 
> ...


That's what I thought all along. The thing is though that the guidelines themselves use examples of spoilers that are in line with what we traditionally think of as spoilers. They mention spoilers as being previews for the next episode (which, of course, shows scenes from the next episode), interviews with the actors or producers, inside knowledge from knowing someone on the show, etc. The guidelines do treat "spoilers" in the traditional sense... as something that reveals future events in the show. And the guidelines were ambiguous at best whether or not outside sources are allowed, they just said _spoilers_ from outside sources should be tagged.

I look at it like this... let's say CBS decided to air a two-part movie that was a modern presentation of Hamlet. Would it be inappropriate to have discussion comparing the new interpretation with the existing one? Or would we be expected to treat the new interpretation as if the original version from Shakespeare didn't exist and never mention it? We can agree that it would be rude and inappropriate to post spoilers for part 2 in the thread for part 1, but it likely wouldn't be seen as out-of-line to compare part 1 with the original source material. I can say "I like how in Shakespeare it was three witches, but here they opened with three campaign managers" and nobody would bat at eye.


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> What this discussion has made me realize is that my understanding of the definition of "spoiler" is different when on TCF than it is outside of this forum. And I think that is the the heart of the problem.


Yup, yup. Good insight.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

This is just rehashing the same old argument. Different people have different definitions of spoilers.

I've been skipping the "scenes from next week" for longer than I've been participating in Now Playing.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

)


bobcarn said:


> I look at it like this... let's say CBS decided to air a two-part movie that was a modern presentation of Hamlet. Would it be inappropriate to have discussion comparing the new interpretation with the existing one? Or would we be expected to treat the new interpretation as if the original version from Shakespeare didn't exist and never mention it? We can agree that it would be rude and inappropriate to post spoilers for part 2 in the thread for part 1, but it likely wouldn't be seen as out-of-line to compare part 1 with the original source material. I can say "I like how in Shakespeare it was three witches, but here they opened with three campaign managers" and nobody would bat at eye.


I think based on the rules here, it would be. At least, doing so in the clear and not tagged. To discuss it without tags (either individual tags or the entire thread being marked **SPOILERS FROM <book/play/etc**") you have to pretend that what you see exists 100% on it's own in the context you see it. I.e. ONLY what is seen on the show and you have to pretend that Shakespeare doesn't exist and the story is 100% original.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

Robin said:


> This is just rehashing the same old argument. Different people have different definitions of spoilers.
> 
> I've been skipping the "scenes from next week" for longer than I've been participating in Now Playing.


I can understand that. Those are very much spoilers. They're literally showing snippets from next week's show. I made the mistake _once_ a few years ago of mentioning something minor from the next week's preview. Believe me, I won't do _that_ again!!! 

I watch the next week's preview, but in discussions, I pretend they don't exist.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

jsmeeker said:


> )
> 
> I think based on the rules here, it would be. At least, doing so in the clear and not tagged. To discuss it without tags (either individual tags or the entire thread being marked **SPOILERS FROM <book/play/etc**") you have to pretend that what you see exists 100% on it's own in the context you see it. I.e. ONLY what is seen on the show and you have to pretend that Shakespeare doesn't exist and the story is 100% original.


And again, I don't see any rules that state that. All the rules state that you have to tag spoilers, and the guidelines are pretty clear in their examples that spoilers are _future_ events.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

bobcarn said:


> I can understand that. Those are very much spoilers. They're literally showing snippets from next week's show. I made the mistake _once_ a few years ago of mentioning something minor from the next week's preview. Believe me, I won't do _that_ again!!!
> 
> I watch the next week's preview, but in discussions, I pretend they don't exist.


I watch previews all the time. But I know not to discuss openly on TCF


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

bobcarn said:


> And again, I don't see any rules that state that. All the rules state that you have to tag spoilers, and the guidelines are pretty clear in their examples that spoilers are _future_ events.


Except if it's for another show.

If you're in the Breaking Bad thread and you reveal about how the Good Wife got rabies last season, then you're spoiling another show for people who might not have seen it yet.

I still want to know what the SOL is though.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> What this discussion has made me realize is that my understanding of the definition of "spoiler" is different when on TCF than it is outside of this forum. And I think that is the the heart of the problem.
> 
> Because of the NP spoiler rules that ban anything from "outside sources," we on this forum have become conditioned to view anything from outside sources as a violation of the spoiler rule, even if the information isn't really spoiling anything.
> 
> ...


YES YES YES. Thank you. This is what I've (inarticulately) been trying to say.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> I still want to know what the SOL is though.


That's a gray area because the only things the rules touch on in that regard is where it mentions things from the "current season" need to be in spoiler tags in more general threads. There are going to be quite a few that don't think there should ever be an SOL and others who think it's ridiculous that you have to spoiler tag something that aired 5 or 10 years ago. It's just another category where people's definition of spoiler is going to vary.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Azlen said:


> That's a gray area because the only things the rules touch on in that regard is where it mentions things from the "current season" need to be in spoiler tags in more general threads. There are going to be quite a few that don't think there should ever be an SOL and others who think it's ridiculous that you have to spoiler tag something that aired 5 or 10 years ago. It's just another category where people's definition of spoiler is going to vary.


Technically, that means that in S02E01, you can't mention anything that happened in the final episode of Season 1 without putting it in spoiler tags.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

bobcarn said:


> I can understand that. Those are very much spoilers. They're literally showing snippets from next week's show. I made the mistake _once_ a few years ago of mentioning something minor from the next week's preview. Believe me, I won't do _that_ again!!!
> 
> I watch the next week's preview, but in discussions, I pretend they don't exist.


Yeah, I only did that on once. It was totally by accident. I thought it was part of that episode. I had misremembered. Fortunately it wasn't all that big of a deal.



jsmeeker said:


> I watch previews all the time. But I know not to discuss openly on TCF


What happens when you incorrectly remember it as part of the show?

I've stopped watching them anyway as they usually confuse me more than anything. (in multiple ways)  I find them pointless.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

waynomo said:


> What happens when you incorrectly remember it as part of the show?
> 
> I've stopped watching them anyway as they usually confuse me more than anything. (in multiple ways)  I find them pointless.


I'm usually pretty good about not doing that. But I suppose it's possible it may happened. Really, though, I watch stuff because I like to and I won't not watch something just because of some related TCF tule.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

Turtleboy said:


> Except if it's for another show.
> 
> If you're in the Breaking Bad thread and you reveal about how the Good Wife got rabies last season, then you're spoiling another show for people who might not have seen it yet.
> 
> I still want to know what the SOL is though.


Well, yeah. I agree with that. I just assumed we'd all agree not to spoil other shows.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

waynomo said:


> Yeah, I only did that on once. It was totally by accident. I thought it was part of that episode. I had misremembered. Fortunately it wasn't all that big of a deal.
> 
> What happens when you incorrectly remember it as part of the show?
> 
> I've stopped watching them anyway as they usually confuse me more than anything. (in multiple ways)  I find them pointless.


And I think we should all agree that if we accidently spoil something, we should be cordial enough, if asked _nicely_, to go back and tag it.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

Just curious if you put spoiler tags around something you know about an upcoming show, would it be proper to remove the tags after the show has aired.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

bobcarn said:


> Well, yeah. I agree with that. I just assumed we'd all agree not to spoil other shows.


But it has happened. In the Game of Thrones thread people shouldn't be talking about how on the BBT, Sheldon is got malaria this week.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

waynomo said:


> Just curious if you put spoiler tags around something you know about an upcoming show, would it be proper to remove the tags after the show has aired.


No, seems unnecessary and if it's in an episode specific thread, it's still a spoiler for that episode, right?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

waynomo said:


> Just curious if you put spoiler tags around something you know about an upcoming show, would it be proper to remove the tags after the show has aired.


No. This is a time shifting forum, and someone will later be reading that episode's thread later, and that person would be spoiled. I should always be able to read an episode thread without future spoilers.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Yeah.


NO


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

bobcarn said:


> And I think we should all agree that if we accidently spoil something, we should be cordial enough, if asked _nicely_, to go back and tag it.


It should be retroactively tagged in any case, but I agree that if the request is made it should be made nicely.


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

I forget, which timeline is this?


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

Turtleboy said:


> But it has happened. In the Game of Thrones thread people shouldn't be talking about how on the BBT, Sheldon is got malaria this week.


Sheldon got malaria!?!?!


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

bobcarn said:


> And I think we should all agree that if we accidently spoil something, we should be cordial enough, if asked _nicely_, to go back and tag it.


I agree that asking nicely is going to get better results. But I also understand when someone expresses frustration initially at reading a spoiler and don't blame them if they lash out. And it's especially frustrating when the OP of the spoiler refuses to go back and tag it.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

bobcarn said:


> Sheldon got malaria!?!?!





Spoiler



I made it up.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

bobcarn said:


> And I think we should all agree that if we accidently spoil something, we should be cordial enough, if asked _nicely_, to go back and tag it.


Which I did. I felt bad as I really try to not spoil anything.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I made it up.


Mark Evanier weighs in on


Spoiler



bad


 spoilers and Abe Vigoda.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

After giving it some thought, the people that don't want outside information in the thread are basically telling us not to post at all. If you think about it, by asking us to do that you are essentially telling us we can't speculate at all in the thread because we have extra information. Sure we can talk about how mean so and so was this episode, how you liked the way they handled the effects for whatever, but you can't really have an honest discussion about what's going to happen. Because well you know, books and comics. 

Interesting that not all people are hamstrung in that way. Nice.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> After giving it some thought, the people that don't want outside information in the thread are basically telling us not to post at all. If you think about it, by asking us to do that you are essentially telling us we can't speculate at all in the thread because we have extra information. Sure we can talk about how mean so and so was this episode, how you liked the way they handled the effects for whatever, but you can't really have an honest discussion about what's going to happen. Because well you know, books and comics.
> 
> Interesting that not all people are hamstrung in that way. Nice.


Oh please. I've read all the GoT books, for example, and I've commented plenty in the GoT threads, and had honest discussions there about things far more meaningful than special effects. Most of the time I don't feel a need to discuss spoiler-ish things at all; if the show is so uninteresting that the only thing you want to talk about is something else, maybe it's not for you.

When I do want to say something that could be spoiler-y, I use a tag. Or, if I want to talk to other book readers about stuff only or mostly in the books, I use the GoT book readers' thread.

Honestly I can't see what the big deal is. This is a TV Show Talk forum. Talk about the TV show. People find plenty of things to talk about in TV shows which are NOT based on books or comics; why should it be that the only things anyone can think of to say in shows that ARE based on books or comics, are spoilers from the books or comics?


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

Turtleboy said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I made it up.





Spoiler



LOL. I know. I was teasing.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

Stormspace said:


> After giving it some thought, the people that don't want outside information in the thread are basically telling us not to post at all. If you think about it, by asking us to do that you are essentially telling us we can't speculate at all in the thread because we have extra information. Sure we can talk about how mean so and so was this episode, how you liked the way they handled the effects for whatever, but you can't really have an honest discussion about what's going to happen. Because well you know, books and comics.
> 
> Interesting that not all people are hamstrung in that way. Nice.


For the 387th time, no one is telling anyone "not to post at all". People are just asking that outside info is spoiler-tagged.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

madscientist said:


> Oh please. I've read all the GoT books, for example, and I've commented plenty in the GoT threads, and had honest discussions there about things far more meaningful than special effects. Most of the time I don't feel a need to discuss spoiler-ish things at all; if the show is so uninteresting that the only thing you want to talk about is something else, maybe it's not for you.
> 
> When I do want to say something that could be spoiler-y, I use a tag. Or, if I want to talk to other book readers about stuff only or mostly in the books, I use the GoT book readers' thread.
> 
> Honestly I can't see what the big deal is. This is a TV Show Talk forum. Talk about the TV show. People find plenty of things to talk about in TV shows which are NOT based on books or comics; why should it be that the only things anyone can think of to say in shows that ARE based on books or comics, are spoilers from the books or comics?


Again though, there's been a couple lines of thought. One of them is that things that could be spoiler should be tagged (fair enough). Another is that any discussion where you draw on comic book knowledge should be tagged, whether it's a spoiler or not (which is part of what we've been debating). And a third recommendation is that there's no mention of comics at all, either inside or outside of spoiler tags, and that a separate thread should be made (which many find way too cumbersome).

Not all of the recommendations are compatible. "It's OK to talk about it if you tag it" versus "It's not OK to talk about it at all. Make a separate thread."

Here's how I'm treating it. Since the show is an adaptation of the comic, it's natural that references to the comics will be made, so if the conversation warrants it, I'll make references to comic books. If what I'm writing could be a spoiler, I'll tag it. So I won't bother tagging something like "Barry's outfit is darker and heavier than what appears in the comics" or "It's interesting that they changed that character's race". But I'll tag things like "in the comics, that character later becomes Superincredible Man" (one of my characters from City of Heroes. Man, I still miss that game. I had a nice homage character to the Flash).


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

scooterboy said:


> For the 387th time, no one is telling anyone "not to post at all". People are just asking that outside info is spoiler-tagged.


My point here is that YOU know any speculation posted by Ereth, Myself, or others that is about future events will likely be based on knowledge that isn't available within the show. We can't help that. We know things and use that knowledge to make predictions. Even if we don't mention the book or comic in the post the only way to prevent not using that information is to not post speculation. Not hard to understand at all really, so for those of us with comic and book knowledge the experience is less.

I can say something like. "I bet DD shows up in a red suit with horns at some point." While that isn't a specific spoiler due to the intro graphics, if those weren't present I'd be prevented from saying that in the clear because I know what his costume is likely to look like.

So while everyone else can post their speculation in the clear, we have to spoiler ours even if we don't know for certain.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

Stormspace said:


> My point here is that YOU know any speculation posted by Ereth, Myself, or others that is about future events will likely be based on knowledge that isn't available within the show. We can't help that. We know things and use that knowledge to make predictions. Even if we don't mention the book or comic in the post the only way to prevent not using that information is to not post speculation. Not hard to understand at all really, so for those of us with comic and book knowledge the experience is less.
> 
> I can say something like. "I bet DD shows up in a red suit with horns at some point." While that isn't a specific spoiler due to the intro graphics, if those weren't present I'd be prevented from saying that in the clear because I know what his costume is likely to look like.
> 
> So while everyone else can post their speculation in the clear, we have to spoiler ours even if we don't know for certain.


Yes, and I know that sucks. I have a good amount of comics knowledge myself, so I do get what you're saying.

The only point I was making was that even though others are asking for that info (or conjecture based on that info) to be in spoiler tags, no one is saying "don't post". Yet some keep claiming exactly that, over and over and over. I get that there's no easy answer, and I get that it's frustrating. But repeatedly saying something that isn't true isn't solving anything, either.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Stormspace said:


> I can say something like. "I bet DD shows up in a red suit with horns at some point." While that isn't a specific spoiler due to the intro graphics, if those weren't present I'd be prevented from saying that in the clear because I know what his costume is likely to look like.
> 
> So while everyone else can post their speculation in the clear, we have to spoiler ours even if we don't know for certain.


It doesn't matter whether you know for certain, you're basing that speculation on what you read in the comics.

You're welcome to speculate about events that aren't in the comics.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

bobcarn said:


> Not all of the recommendations are compatible. "It's OK to talk about it if you tag it" versus "It's not OK to talk about it at all. Make a separate thread."


I don't think those things are incompatible. Nobody is saying, "It's not OK to talk about it at all. Make a separate thread." That's only being proposed as a solution to people complaining that if they spoiler tag their comments, then the whole thread will end up being a discussion in spoiler tags. Basically, if you need to discuss something based on comic books, put it in spoiler tags. If the spoilerized discussion starts to dominate the thread, that will be proof that there's enough demand to support a separate thread for comic readers.



Stormspace said:


> I can say something like. "I bet DD shows up in a red suit with horns at some point." While that isn't a specific spoiler due to the intro graphics, if those weren't present I'd be prevented from saying that in the clear because I know what his costume is likely to look like. So while everyone else can post their speculation in the clear, we have to spoiler ours even if we don't know for certain.


In what situation would you need to speculate about how that character's suit will appear in a future episode? That doesn't sound like discussion about a TV episode, that sounds like someone trying to show off their comic book knowledge. That sounds to me like commenters who post "First" just to get some odd sense of pride at having posted something before someone else could.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Robin said:


> It doesn't matter whether you know for certain, you're basing that speculation on what you read in the comics.
> 
> You're welcome to speculate about events that aren't in the comics.


You don't know if they are in the comics or not, so how can you tell if speculation is originating from that or not if I or someone else doesn't mention it? You can assume that I have outside knowledge though and insist on spoilering everything you think might be from outside sources, even if it isn't.

With the DD costume subject, while I can guess that it's going to be a red suit with Horns if it hadn't been in the intro I wouldn't know for sure since TV adaptations of comics frequently change up a costume. As an example you can look at Bobbi in AoS. In the comics her outfit is much different and it's not likely the CB suit is going to be used, they haven't even used her code name.

Marvel tends to take a different approach on costuming their super heroes than DC, frequently not using a costume at all. As far as I can tell, DD is going to be the first to wear an actual costume in the MCU. (Going to ignore Captain America, because the outfit isn't designed to hide an identity. Thor and IM don't count because one is wearing his normal clothes and the others is functional.) Spiderman when he appears will be the second.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

And then there's the oddball superhero.... Superman. He wears a disguise when he's _not_ Superman.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

bobcarn said:


> And then there's the oddball superhero.... Superman. He wears a disguise when he's _not_ Superman.


Well, dammit, thanks for spoiling _THAT _for me...


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

MikeCC said:


> Well, dammit, thanks for spoiling _THAT _for me...


Nobody expects that. That's why you never knew until now.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Stormspace said:


> You don't know if they are in the comics or not, so how can you tell if speculation is originating from that or not if I or someone else doesn't mention it? You can assume that I have outside knowledge though and insist on spoilering everything you think might be from outside sources, even if it isn't.
> 
> With the DD costume subject, while I can guess that it's going to be a red suit with Horns if it hadn't been in the intro I wouldn't know for sure since TV adaptations of comics frequently change up a costume.


I can't. But you can. If in one of the comics he's wearing a red suit with horns then you're speculating based on the comics. If the comics include ten different costumes and you want to speculate which of the ten he'll end up in, tag it.

However if you think he's going to show up in an eleventh suit, one you randomly thought up that doesn't appear in the comics, then feel free to post that.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

If you are posting speculation based on something you have read and don't acknowledge the source that is cheating.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

Robin said:


> I can't. But you can. If in one of the comics he's wearing a red suit with horns then you're speculating based on the comics. If the comics include ten different costumes and you want to speculate which of the ten he'll end up in, tag it.
> 
> However if you think he's going to show up in an eleventh suit, one you randomly thought up that doesn't appear in the comics, then feel free to post that.


The problem here is, Robin, that I've seen some folks object to speculation like this, because the _OBJECTOR _assumes the poster has special knowledge.

Your suggestion, which is eminently sensible and easily implemented, is that the _poster _is to be relied on as to whether the info posted is speculation based on _specialized _knowledge or pure conjecture. I hope other spoiler-phobes can agree to this: can we assume the poster is playing fair until otherwise proven?

Is that even _possible_?


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

This problem here is, MikeCC, is syntax alone is evidence of where spoiler-phils are coming from,


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

pgogborn said:


> If you are posting speculation based on something you have read and don't acknowledge the source that is cheating.


I don't know if it has been done here but I have seen it done elsewhere. Someone reads a spoiler somewhere and posts it as speculation. Unfortunately there is no way to prove it unless they post a very detailed speculation that is exactly what happens.

There was a speculation that was posted here once that was a spoiler for Dexter. While I don't think the person was cheating in that way because it wasn't that much of a stretch, there is no way of being 100% certain that they didn't get that information from elsewhere.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

pgogborn said:


> This problem here is, MikeCC, is syntax alone is evidence of where spoiler-phils are coming from,


How so?


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that the spoiler-phils cannot be satisfied with anything I call reasonable.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Drewster said:


> Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that the spoiler-phils cannot be satisfied with anything I call reasonable.


What is a spoiler-phil? And what do you consider reasonable?


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> What is a spoiler-phil?





Spoiler


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> What is a spoiler-phil? And what do you consider reasonable?


A spoilerphil(e) would be one who loves spoilers. Which would be the opposite of the people who hate spoilers.

Right?


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

pgogborn said:


> This problem here is, MikeCC, is syntax alone is evidence of where spoiler-phils are coming from,


Seriously, just _how does_ sentence structure give you evidence of where the spoiler-phil[e] is coming from? Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not making the connection you seem to be.

Or have I misunderstood?


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

scooterboy said:


> A spoilerphil(e) would be one who loves spoilers. Which would be the opposite of the people who hate spoilers.
> 
> Right?


I suppose it would be spoiler-phobe.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Drewster said:


> Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that the spoiler-phils cannot be satisfied with anything I call reasonable.


Totally unfair and untrue.

Most people don't want to ruin other people's experiences, don't purposely spoil things, and are amenable to editing past open "spoilers."

You say it's easy to do.

Putting aside the fact that a spoiler-boxed conversation is jaunty and breaks up conversation, I think we all agree that spoilers should be spoilierized.

But I continue to be surprised at what the spoiler-phobes think are spoilers. There are so many "innocent" comments that people who post them don't realize are spoilers. We try, but some people take it too far.

Going back to Gotham. Why is "Bruce Wayne becomes Batman" not a spoiler? You say because it's "common knowledge." But to Ereth, all sorts of things are common knowledge to him that he assumes that everyone knows.

Can I say, "It was a Romeo and Juliet story, except they didn't kill themselves at the end." Am I spoiling Romeo and Juliet? Or no, because it's "common knowledge."

I don't know what is reasonable. It is unreasonable to spoilerize _everything_, because then it will just be a forum of spoilers. Person A is going to respond that we don't need to spoilerize everything.

But spoilers are subjective and not objective. I understand when we are talking about any scintilla of material in the outside world that didn't happen directly in the show. I think it's silly, but so be it. But I'm still not always sure what someone will think is a spoiler there. Was the fact that Charlie Sheen was fired from Two and a Half Men and that Ashton Kutcher was hired a spoiler, if we don't talk about HOW the show is getting rid of Charlie?

But when we have comparative discussions, I get a little more confused. It's not just driving away spoiler-phobes, but people who want to have discussions too, don't want to spoil, but have to type on eggshells because they have no idea what someone will subjectively think to be a spoiler.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Turtleboy said:


> Totally unfair and untrue.
> 
> Most people don't want to ruin other people's experiences, don't purposely spoil things, and are amenable to editing past open "spoilers."
> 
> ...


Then there are the posters that untag your spoiler thinking it's not a spoiler. Hey I went to the trouble of spoilerizing that comment and someone outted the information. What's the point of having a tag if someone can come behind me and remove it?


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> Then there are the posters that untag your spoiler thinking it's not a spoiler. Hey I went to the trouble of spoilerizing that comment and someone outted the information. What's the point of having a tag if someone can come behind me and remove it?


I've seen people spoilerize a comment, specifically about the show we're discussing, in a thread for a specific episode. Many people will un-spoilerize that comment, so future readers will know it wasn't a spoiler. That's not to say the vast majority of spoilerized comments aren't appropriately coded, but that doesn't mean ALL of them are.

So... like everything else in this thread/subject, it's a judgment call. Yes, lean in the direction of being safe, but at times, you just gotta do the right thing.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

I've been slowly catching up on Daredevil. So as I enter each thread I'm expecting all sorts of spoilerized comments to start popping up. I'm on e12 now and still not a lot of comments spoilerized. Did this thread accomplish nothing or was it too late? I'm afraid to comment but since I see stuff that people here would call spoilers I don't know. 

Feeling the buzz kill.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

I did not expect anyone to go back and spoilerize stuff in existing threads, unless someone specifically asked. If you want to post stuff, just post. Spoilerize if you think it is needed. Don't see the buzz kill.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

eddyj said:


> I did not expect anyone to go back and spoilerize stuff in existing threads, unless someone specifically asked. If you want to post stuff, just post. Spoilerize if you think it is needed. Don't see the buzz kill.


Not going into any thread like that and responding to anything remotely spoilerrish. I got the message loud and clear. Robin and Eddyj don't want to see spoilers.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

astrohip said:


> I've seen people spoilerize a comment, specifically about the show we're discussing, in a thread for a specific episode. Many people will un-spoilerize that comment, so future readers will know it wasn't a spoiler. That's not to say the vast majority of spoilerized comments aren't appropriately coded, but that doesn't mean ALL of them are.
> 
> So... like everything else in this thread/subject, it's a judgment call. Yes, lean in the direction of being safe, but at times, you just gotta do the right thing.


Thinking about this and yeah. If someone tags something we can't take upon ourselves to untag it regardless of what it is since one person doesn't make a consensus.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> Thinking about this and yeah. If someone tags something we can't take upon ourselves to untag it regardless of what it is since one person doesn't make a consensus.


Disagree. There are many people here on the forum who are afraid of raising the ire of the spoiler police, and so they're overly cautious and spoil things that don't need to be spoiled, i.e. discussion about the plot of an episode in the thread for that episode, or pure speculation about upcoming plots. Those things should be untagged and discussed openly to avoid perpetuating the idea that the spoiler rules on this forum are so ridiculous that such things need to be spoiled.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

Turtleboy said:


> TGoing back to Gotham. Why is "Bruce Wayne becomes Batman" not a spoiler? You say because it's "common knowledge." But to Ereth, all sorts of things are common knowledge to him that he assumes that everyone knows.


If someone is planning on watching Gotham, (or is watching Gotham) and has no idea about Batman, Bruce Wayne, etc., what do they think the show is about...the font Gotham?


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

inaka said:


> If someone is planning on watching Gotham, (or is watching Gotham) and has no idea about Batman, Bruce Wayne, etc., what do they think the show is about...the font Gotham?


Again, I've come to see that to someone, everything can be a spoiler. I will proceed with extreme caution, either spoilerizing everything that could possibly be considered a spoiler, or more likely, just not posting it at all.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

DavidTigerFan said:


> Seriously Robin?
> 
> The fact that GoT doesn't have a particular plot line this season doesn't spoil one iota of plot for this season. I can't conceive of any way that knowing that diminished your viewing pleasure of this season or revealed ANY plots going on.
> 
> ...


(at the risk of restarting this debate) I also view that as a (more minor) spoiler.

To my mind the spoilers are bad because they ruin the entertainment of being able to freely speculate about what it going to happen next.

So the worst kind of spoiler is one which completely disclose what's going to happen. No possibility of speculation left, and I can't help but look for clues of how we get from where we are to the spoiled moment.

Almost as bad is 'negative' casting spoilers - the actor who plays character 'x' is leaving the show. First, that likely means that character is dying off, but even if the writers pick another way to write them out it still closes off avenues of speculation about that character.

But disclosing that something definitively won't happen _also_ hurts my ability to speculate about what's going to happen (though to a lesser extent).

And even more minor (but still slightly annoying to me) is the weaker version of that, letting me know that a given cast member or character won't be appearing for a while. Because even that puts limits on the speculation; if they're not back for 10 episodes because the actor is off making a movie then I know that the plots for those episodes can't involve that character.
I find having that knowledge less enjoyable than being free to speculate more widely.

Hopefully that gives some insight into why some people don't like known that a given plot won't, or can't, happen; even though it doesn't reveal what _is_ in the future plot.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Turtleboy said:


> Again, I've come to see that to someone, everything can be a spoiler. I will proceed with extreme caution, either spoilerizing everything that could possibly be considered a spoiler, or more likely, just not posting it at all.


I'm pretty much there as well. It's hard to work up any enthusiasm for a thread when you have to edit yourself so closely, people untag your posts, and others make the rules about what's a spoiler even when they can't all agree on what that is.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

inaka said:


> If someone is planning on watching Gotham, (or is watching Gotham) and has no idea about Batman, Bruce Wayne, etc., what do they think the show is about...the font Gotham?


Gotham being connected with Batman is a pimple on the time line.

Gotham being a nickname for New York goes back 200 years. The nickname is derived from a tale about a real Gotham that goes back 500 years.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Does the city in that particular TV show look even remotely like any version of New York City that has ever existed?

I realize most people think of Gotham and NYC as one and the same, but this city clearly is not the home of the Yankees, but the home of the Batman, and if you went looking for a show about New York City I think you'd be rather disappointed.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Stormspace said:


> Not going into any thread like that and responding to anything remotely spoilerrish. I got the message loud and clear. Robin and Eddyj don't want to see spoilers.


Don't worry about me. 
1) I have never reported a post for spoilers.
2) I have never requested stuff to be spoilerized.
3) Do not participate in threads where I care about spoilers, since I know some people will not use tags, regardless of the rules.

So post away, you have already gotten rid of those that care about spoilers.

I started participating on this thread, hoping that people would be reasonable. It is obvious that they are not going to be, so I will go back to not participating. I got the message loud and clear.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

eddyj said:


> I started participating on this thread, hoping that people would be reasonable. It is obvious that they are not going to be, so I will go back to not participating. I got the message loud and clear.


How is it that both sides feel the exact same way? I got the same message to not participate.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

One side asks: Try to be reasonable in what you tag, and if someone asks after the fact, then tag it.

Other side says: I cannot tell what needs to be tagged. It is too hard to think about what to tag. All the threads will be all spoilers. Having separate threads is too much hassle. I don't care if you think that is a spoiler, I don't, so **** you. If I have to tag anything, I won't post. Anything I post will be a spoiler, to one of the 6 billion people in China, so I would have to tag everything.

Both sides are not the same.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Both sides certainly do seem to be the same in that they mischaracterize the other side rather dramatically.

They are also the same in that not every body on each "side" actually has the same position.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Ereth said:


> Does the city in that particular TV show look even remotely like any version of New York City that has ever existed?


It might not look like NYC, but it's filmed there. It's heavily modified with CGI, but the close up buildings are all real buildings in NYC.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

I think it's the scope of the thing that's truly the issue dividing people. I don't think the non-comics people understand the scope.

On the one hand we have the position "Anything that has EVER occurred in the comics needs to be in spoiler tags, regardless of whether it is unlikely or not. You can speculate only about things that have never occurred in the comics".

On the other hand we have "It's 70 years. There ISN'T anything that has never occurred in the comics. IF we were capable of coming up with original storylines that had never, ever, been used before, we'd be writers making lots of money writing those original storylines. It's a very broad brush you are painting with".

An ongoing, continuously refreshing series is probably unique here. Even Andre Nortons Witch World wouldn't be this difficult, because you would probably get a movie (or more) per book. 

But we are talking not just hundreds of issues of the Flash, but 1000 issues of the Flash. And similar numbers with other comics. If there were a book series with 1000 sequels, we might have a similar situation, but I'm not aware of any.

I suppose it'd be like a discussion of a comic strip, running daily for 50 years. When the Peanuts movie comes out, it'll be very difficult to police discussions of the movie without any comparisons to the comic strip. And it'll probably be ok, because once the movie is out, it's just spoilers allowed, and the comic strip comparison fits. But if Peanuts were to be a weekly TV show, then it would be just as difficult. 

Or Bloom County. Or (oh, please let it happen!) Calvin and Hobbes. Imagine, for a moment, a Calvin and Hobbes animated TV series, one episode a week. Try to imagine being a C&H fan and not being allowed to reference anything that ever happened in the comic strip while discussing this new (and amazing!) TV show. No snowman gags, no Spaceman Spiff, nothing. This thing you love, you can't talk about because someone in the room may have never seen it. (I'm pretty sure we didn't do that for the Dilbert TV show, assuming anybody who watched it had read the comic strip).


That's what we are up against. We promise not to spoiler anything that is an honest-to-god spoiler, in that we know for sure it's coming in future episodes. All of us have always done that. But pretending we've never read a comic book, let alone 50 years of them, is an awful lot to ask. We are going to want to talk about those comics, because we love those characters, and how those easter eggs play out. It's fun. 

I'm not convinced we don't actually need two threads, one for comic book geeks and one for everybody else, because, and I'm not trying to be rude here, when I come to talk about the Flash I want to talk to JYoung and Rob and Bobcarn and people like that who have history and we can have a real conversation. I don't want to have to have a conversation like adults do when they are trying to talk with children in the room so they have to talk around the subject (not to suggest anybody here is a child, just an analogy to the type of conversation). And you guys want to talk to people who have NO experience, who are experiencing it for the first time and so have the same "WTF?" reaction you had. Talking to us doesn't give you the same thrill, because we don't see it with the same eyes you do. It's really two different conversations, with only a little overlap.

I just don't see that the forum can really support two threads for each show, each thread about 8 posts long. The logistics of that strike me as unsupportable. 

In a real life discussion, the comic geeks would go off into one corner and the non-comic people would congregate elsewhere and we'd have our own private conversations, with maybe the post-show "wasn't that awesome?" bit just before splitting up into smaller groups. But forums don't work quite like that. And even if they did, sooner or later, someone would want to come over to the comic geek table but they'd feel like they weren't welcome because they weren't comic geeks and we get the insider/outsider debate all over again. And I absolutely do not want that.

In the end, I agree with TB. It appears that both sides feel they aren't welcome. I know I feel that way.


----------



## SoBelle0 (Jun 25, 2002)

Ereth said:


> ... I'm not convinced we don't actually need two threads, one for comic book geeks and one for everybody else, because, and I'm not trying to be rude here, when I come to talk about the Flash I want to talk to JYoung and Rob and Bobcarn and people like that who have history and we can have a real conversation. I don't want to have to have a conversation like adults do when they are trying to talk with children in the room so they have to talk around the subject (not to suggest anybody here is a child, just an analogy to the type of conversation). And you guys want to talk to people who have NO experience, who are experiencing it for the first time and so have the same "WTF?" reaction you had. Talking to us doesn't give you the same thrill, because we don't see it with the same eyes you do. It's really two different conversations, with only a little overlap. I just don't see that the forum can really support two threads for each show, each thread about 8 posts long. The logistics of that strike me as unsupportable. In a real life discussion, the comic geeks would go off into one corner and the non-comic people would congregate elsewhere and we'd have our own private conversations, with maybe the post-show "wasn't that awesome?" bit just before splitting up into smaller groups. But forums don't work quite like that. And even if they did, sooner or later, someone would want to come over to the comic geek table but they'd feel like they weren't welcome because they weren't comic geeks and we get the insider/outsider debate all over again. And I absolutely do not want that. In the end, I agree with TB. It appears that both sides feel they aren't welcome. I know I feel that way.


Forum runner does a horrible job with quotes - apologies for cutting part of your post.

This is the part I don't get. Why can't the forum support two threads?

I completely understand that you want to talk a much wider conversation than non-readers are able to have. And I do want to see things new, fresh with no preconceptions. Two threads seems like the best option. These comic turned TV shows are certainly a different situation. I am hopeful that we can come up with something to compromise, and two threads seems pretty easy.

Personally, I wish I could still get some of the trivia - like the cool nod to the writers in the street names - because I sure can't read anywhere else... It's a scary world out there for a TV watcher. Part of why I've always been so thankful to be a member here. Great discussion and generally minimal spoiler info. But I can get along without it, or pm someone if I need a little fill-in. I've never felt that I couldn't ask for more from folks in the know.

Every person has a different level of what they want to know or accidentally learn... This truth lends even more credence to the idea that two threads should work. And then no one has to worry about deciding what might lead to a plot point and what is just an interesting tidbit. They won't have to tag every single post or complain about line after line of tagged spoilers. People make a choice of where to read and how to post by picking one or both threads.

Which leads me to the last bit: I haven't seen anyone indicating that they would feel unwelcome if they don't have enough comic knowledge to join in that discussion. Some people who haven't read anything prior may still want to converse with the readers. Who knows. Right now, though, all the threads suffer.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

I didn't feel unwelcome until it became "quiet, children, the grown ups are talking". Come on, Ereth, you knew that was an offensive analogy. You even acknowledged it. If you didn't want to offend you should have deleted it.

I really don't understand the push back against two threads. You do realize we don't pay by the thread, right?

It might not work. Fine. That doesn't mean there's no point in trying.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I think the feeling that two threads won't work is based on the fact that very few shows have sufficient support here at the forum to even sustain a single thread for each episode. Most episode threads get 10-20 posts and then die out. And that's not usually 10-20 different posters, but 5-8 posters who then reply to each others posts and further the discussion. So if you take a show like that and then split it into two unique threads, then you have 4-5 posters in one thread and 3-4 posters in the other. And so neither thread gets the critical mass it needs to build the conversation, so they both die out after just a few posts.

I think that's the expectation, and except for a few very popular shows, I think that's a realistic expectation. I think that when these comic book shows start up again next fall, the best option will be for those who have read the comic books to start the episode threads and tag them so it's clear that the threads can contain outside info from the comic books. And I suspect those will become the de facto threads for those shows, and nothing will really change for the comic book readers. And I suspect that most non-readers will still participate in those threads, and if they end up getting spoiled about something, they won't be able to complain because they will have voluntarily participated in a thread that allowed that info.

If the shows in question have enough thread participation that the non-readers want to start a second, spoiler-free thread, I think that would be great, but I strongly suspect that the spoiler-allowed threads will end up being the only threads for those shows, and there will only be a couple non-readers who decide not to participate.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

Robin said:


> I didn't feel unwelcome until it became "quiet, children, the grown ups are talking". Come on, Ereth, you knew that was an offensive analogy. You even acknowledged it. If you didn't want to offend you should have deleted it.


Yeah... come on, really? That was extremely offensive. :down: :down: :down:


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

This entire debate reminds me of the definition of speeding on the freeway from George Carlin. Regardless of the posted speed limit, anyone driving slower than you is an idiot and anyone driving faster than you is a MANIAC! 

Anyone that assumes you need to spoiler common knowledge like Bruce Wayne being Batman is silly, and anyone that then says EVERYTHING must be tagged because EVERYTHING can be a spoiler is a posting MANIAC! 

Answer: use common sense, and air on the side of being cautious/considerate of others when posting something not directly revealed on the show.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Robin said:


> I didn't feel unwelcome until it became "quiet, children, the grown ups are talking". Come on, Ereth, you knew that was an offensive analogy. You even acknowledged it. If you didn't want to offend you should have deleted it.


I went out of my way to say that was NOT what I meant. But you chose to take offense anyway, even with me saying it was not intended that way.


Ereth said:


> ...not to suggest anybody here is a child...


Do those words not appear in the version you read? How do you read that and come away with "Ereth says I'm a child"? Willful, purposeful misreading is the only answer I can come up with.

There's no winning with you.

And I NEVER said "quiet, the grownups are talking". You've completely misunderstood what I was saying, or mischaracterized it. What I said was that sometimes people talk AROUND a subject. I was thinking specifically of holidays or birthdays, where people were talking about a subject where the content was not for consumption by someone else in the room, so they had to talk in code, or use vague words.

If you want to be offended by the analogy of someone having to talk in code to avoid spoiling a surprise, in a thread about people complaining about having surprises spoiled, then there is no hope for conversation and we should simply stop now.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

Saying "no offense, but..." before you say something offensive doesn't absolve you from any responsibility for what you say.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

David Platt said:


> Saying "no offense, but..." before you say something offensive doesn't absolve you from any responsibility for what you say.


I don't see anywhere in Ereth's post where he says, "No offense, but ..."



Ereth said:


> I'm not convinced we don't actually need two threads, one for comic book geeks and one for everybody else, because, and I'm not trying to be rude here, when I come to talk about the Flash I want to talk to JYoung and Rob and Bobcarn and people like that who have history and we can have a real conversation. *I don't want to have to have a conversation like adults do when they are trying to talk with children in the room so they have to talk around the subject (not to suggest anybody here is a child, just an analogy to the type of conversation)*. And you guys want to talk to people who have NO experience, who are experiencing it for the first time and so have the same "WTF?" reaction you had. Talking to us doesn't give you the same thrill, because we don't see it with the same eyes you do. It's really two different conversations, with only a little overlap.


He simply makes an analogy and then specifically says that he's referring only to the type of veiled conversation and not insinuating that the no spoilers crowd is acting like children.

People are really taking this issue way too personally. It's not that big of a deal. Let's just all agree to be good forum citizens and either properly tag potential spoilers, or create threads that specifically say such outside info is allowed. That should make everyone happy. No need for anyone to get bent out of shape over something so petty.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't see anywhere in Ereth's post where he says, "No offense, but ..."


I didn't say he did. But he said something roughly equivalent.



> People are really taking this issue way too personally. It's not that big of a deal. Let's just all agree to be good forum citizens and either properly tag potential spoilers, or create threads that specifically say such outside info is allowed. That should make everyone happy. No need for anyone to get bent out of shape over something so petty.


I agree. I really, really wish it could be solved that easily.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

bobcarn said:


> Not all of the recommendations are compatible. "It's OK to talk about it if you tag it" versus "It's not OK to talk about it at all. Make a separate thread."


 I've never, ever seen anyone say that it's not OK to post spoilers if they're tagged.

I have heard people say that if it gets to the point where the entire thread becomes a long series of tagged spoilers, it would probably be more pleasant for everyone concerned, including the people posting the spoiler-tagged content, if they created a different thread.



Stormspace said:


> You don't know if they are in the comics or not, so how can you tell if speculation is originating from that or not if I or someone else doesn't mention it? You can assume that I have outside knowledge though and insist on spoilering everything you think might be from outside sources, even if it isn't.


 We believe that people are telling the truth. Or, if we suspect they're not, we can put them on Ignore.



Ereth said:


> On the one hand we have the position "Anything that has EVER occurred in the comics needs to be in spoiler tags, regardless of whether it is unlikely or not. You can speculate only about things that have never occurred in the comics".


 Unlikely != impossible.



Ereth said:


> On the other hand we have "It's 70 years. There ISN'T anything that has never occurred in the comics. IF we were capable of coming up with original storylines that had never, ever, been used before, we'd be writers making lots of money writing those original storylines. It's a very broad brush you are painting with".


 There is a TV show. The TV show has characters and a plot. We've watched the TV show. We can discuss the characters as revealed in the TV show, and plot of the TV show. Just like _every other TV show we watch_ that isn't based on a comic.



Ereth said:


> This thing you love, you can't talk about because someone in the room may have never seen it.


 You CAN talk about it. You can talk about it in whispers with your friends where other people can't hear you (by putting your discussion in spoiler tags). You can have a separate room with a sign on the door that says "we're talking about all aspects of this character from comics and everywhere else in here" (by making a separate thread).

There are so many ways for spoiler-philes to discuss spoilers. Why is it such a burden to not infringe on the ONE way for spoiler-phobes have to avoid them (except, I guess, not reading forums at all)?



Ereth said:


> That's what we are up against. We promise not to spoiler anything that is an honest-to-god spoiler, in that we know for sure it's coming in future episodes.


 Just because you don't know for sure it's coming, doesn't mean it's not coming.



Ereth said:


> We are going to want to talk about those comics, because we love those characters, and how those easter eggs play out. It's fun.


 That's excellent, no one wants to keep you from talking about these things. But here's the thing, and I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but _some people don't want to hear about it!_ They want to talk about the TV show, without the extra info. So if you want to talk about something that is not the TV show, like the comics, please use spoiler tags or else create a new thread.



Ereth said:


> I'm not convinced we don't actually need two threads, one for comic book geeks and one for everybody else, because, and I'm not trying to be rude here, when I come to talk about the Flash I want to talk to JYoung and Rob and Bobcarn and people like that who have history and we can have a real conversation.


 If you want to talk to a subset of people, make a place for that discussion to happen. I just don't understand why this is so anathema.



Ereth said:


> I just don't see that the forum can really support two threads for each show, each thread about 8 posts long. The logistics of that strike me as unsupportable.


 I don't understand this. Maybe you can explain. Either there won't be enough comic-based conversation to justify _one extra thread_, in which case great: there can't be much of a spoiler problem at all in the first place! Just use spoiler tags on those few comic-based comments that people want to make.

Or, there will be too much comic-based conversation such that it's annoying for both the spoiler-philes and spoiler-phobes to read those threads, in which case great: create a new thread (one thread for the entire show, mind you, not one extra thread per episode).

Robin is right: it's not like we're paying per-thread. I mean, how many comic-based shows are we even talking about? There can't be more than 10 or so of them. Is 10 extra threads going to bring down the forum software?



Ereth said:


> In the end, I agree with TB. It appears that both sides feel they aren't welcome. I know I feel that way.


 As with any other TV show, I welcome any comments you'd like to make based on the content of the TV show. If you have comments that discuss plots, characters, etc. that haven't been shown on the TV show, please spoiler-tag them.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

David Platt said:


> Saying "no offense, but..." before you say something offensive doesn't absolve you from any responsibility for what you say.


I didn't say anything offensive. Ergo, there was no reason for a "No offense but..".

People choosing to take offense at things I didn't say are outside my control.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

madscientist said:


> There is a TV show. The TV show has characters and a plot. We've watched the TV show. We can discuss the characters as revealed in the TV show, and plot of the TV show. Just like _every other TV show we watch_ that isn't based on a comic.


And when somebody posts "How can the Flash run 100 mph and catch a guy who was going just a couple of miles per hour without breaking all of his bones?" the only people who could possibly know the answer are forbidden from telling him.

What, then, is the point of participating in the thread?



> Just because you don't know for sure it's coming, doesn't mean it's not coming.


Then NOTHING can be speculated about. That should apply to you guys, too. No speculation whatsoever, because just because you don't KNOW it's coming, doesn't mean it's not coming, right? You just said so.



> That's excellent, no one wants to keep you from talking about these things. But here's the thing, and I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but _some people don't want to hear about it!_


Trust us, we know. It's the entire crux of this thread. You think it's a surprise at this late stage of the conversation?



> As with any other TV show, I welcome any comments you'd like to make based on the content of the TV show.


This sentence, right here, is "Don't participate". I know you don't see it that way, but it really is. Because there is NO WAY for me to make any comments whatsoever about the content of the show that are not colored by decades of comic book knowledge.

Well, any comments that would be worthwhile to make. I suppose "Felicity sure looked nice this week" would be safe, but it would be a pointless thing to say and I wouldn't waste my time posting it.

We must talk only about THIS particular production of "King Lear". No other productions of "King Lear" can be referenced. No background on the play, no knowledge of how plays are produced. No comparisons, no conversations about the choices the actors made, how this production differs from any others. Did Olivier do it better? We'll never know, because that discussion is off-limits. Don't care if you are the worlds foremost scholar on "King Lear", you may say nothing about anything that did not occur directly in this production. It was hinted at you say? Too bad! That would qualify as outside-knowledge! If it was not spelled out, it did not happen. No reading between the lines! That is reserved only for those who have never seen or heard of "King Lear" before! They can interpolate, suggest, imagine, dissect and digest to their hearts content, but you, oh scholar of Shakespeare, you are to remain SILENT at all costs, lest you reveal a hint of a thought of the merest conception of something that perhaps might have been imagined in another incarnation of "King Lear". Oh, sure, you've spent your life discussing it, but why should we allow that knowledge to interfere with our enjoyment of seeing it unvarnished, even after it has aired?

I truly hope that some day you find that something you have loved your entire life, but that has not been accepted by the mainstream, and that maybe even you've been ridiculed for liking, suddenly gets mainstream acceptance and becomes gigantic, and now you are not allowed to express your love and admiration for it, because people want to experience it without any knowledge whatsoever, and you find yourself on the outside looking in yet again.

Maybe then you'll understand.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

madscientist said:


> I don't understand this. Maybe you can explain. Either there won't be enough comic-based conversation to justify one extra thread, in which case great: there can't be much of a spoiler problem at all in the first place! Just use spoiler tags on those few comic-based comments that people want to make.
> 
> Or, there will be too much comic-based conversation such that it's annoying for both the spoiler-philes and spoiler-phobes to read those threads, in which case great: create a new thread *(one thread for the entire show, mind you, not one extra thread per episode).*


I totally disagree with the bolded part. If people want to have episode-specific threads where outside information can be discussed, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do that. As I stated above, I'm guessing these types of threads will end up being the default threads for such shows anyway, since I think the majority of people who are passionate enough about the show to want to talk about it online will be fine participating in a thread where such info is discussed openly.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Perhaps we have a disconnect.



eddyj said:


> One side asks: Try to be reasonable in what you tag, and if someone asks after the fact, then tag it.


If this is the stated goal, then as far as I know we've all already been doing that. I'm not aware of any comic book threads that have devolved into "spoiler/not spoiler" arguments. (The most recent thread I'm aware of that did was a Game of Thrones thread, not a comic book thread).

But - if what we were doing all along is what you wanted, this thread wouldn't exist. Within a couple of days, we had 2 separate threads created to talk about spoilers in comic book threads.

Nobody creates threads to complain about something that isn't happening.

So, if all you want is for us to do what we've been doing, to the best of our ability all along, this thread shouldn't exist. But it does. So we have to assume that you really want something more. (Or at least, somebody does).

If I'm wrong, if there's a "that's not a spoiler" argument in a comic book thread (or, realistically, in order for the existence of this thread to make sense, in a LOT of comic book threads), someone please point me to them?

Because as far as I can tell, you aren't taking "ok" for an answer. You won't accept that we try to mark things in spoilers, but surely seem to want something more, but I haven't been able to figure out exactly what. So I'm guessing. Maybe I'm guessing wrong.

Maybe it's about "Gotham" and characters that are there solely to be easter eggs and somebody thought they were spoilers? For a show that wouldn't happen for about 18 years from now? Does anybody think "Gotham" will run 18 years? I don't. It would be unprecedented. I think 5 is an outside shot, to be honest, and 3 is more likely.

Is the fact that the premise of the show is set in the past, and we've been told it absolutely won't get to Batman really a spoiler? Any more than the Smallville "No Flights, No Tights" rule that we discussed regularly, and I don't think anybody ever complained about? The show was about Clark Kent growing up. We knew from day one he wouldn't be Superman, until, maybe, if we were lucky, the final episode. There was no secret about it, and we didn't feel the need to keep that a secret in the show threads. Why is Gotham different? There won't be a Batman. We know that. It's set in the time period before that happens. So there won't be a Robin, either. Why is that a spoiler, but "there won't be a Superman" wasn't?

Is that the spoiler/not-a-spoiler debate you've been having and I just didn't realize? If so, I've been having a completely different conversation and it's no wonder we weren't getting anywhere.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Ereth said:


> I went out of my way to say that was NOT what I meant. But you chose to take offense anyway, even with me saying it was not intended that way.
> 
> Do those words not appear in the version you read? How do you read that and come away with "Ereth says I'm a child"? Willful, purposeful misreading is the only answer I can come up with.
> 
> ...


And if you had used that analogy we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Any time you compare your "opponent" to a child it's going to end poorly.

You said that wasn't what you meant but it's still what you said.

"I don't mean to call you an idiot but that is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard."

Isn't that still calling the person an idiot?



Ereth said:


> And when somebody posts "How can the Flash run 100 mph and catch a guy who was going just a couple of miles per hour without breaking all of his bones?" the only people who could possibly know the answer are forbidden from telling him.
> 
> What, then, is the point of participating in the thread?
> 
> Then NOTHING can be speculated about. That should apply to you guys, too. No speculation whatsoever, because just because you don't KNOW it's coming, doesn't mean it's not coming, right? You just said so.


Sure, you can tell them. It goes like this: "according to the comic books: *spoiler*."

Easy.

You know full well that the rule isn't "NOTHING can be speculated about." It's "NOTHING from outside sources."

If you think it up in your head? Post away. If it's something you got from a comic book? Spoiler tags. If you can't tell whether it was in the last forty two minutes or not? Tags just to be safe.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Ereth said:


> Perhaps we have a disconnect.
> 
> If this is the stated goal, then as far as I know we've all already been doing that. I'm not aware of any comic book threads that have devolved into "spoiler/not spoiler" arguments. (The most recent thread I'm aware of that did was a Game of Thrones thread, not a comic book thread).
> 
> ...


Yes, that is the disconnect. Some people do NOT do what you do. Spoilers get posted all the time, and when called out, there is often pushback, rather than just tagging them. The reason you may not see it happen too often any more is probably that most of us that care have just given up on the threads.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Robin said:


> If you think it up in your head? Post away. If it's something you got from a comic book? Spoiler tags. If you can't tell whether it was in the last forty two minutes or not? Tags just to be safe.


That's all that really needs to be said right there.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Ereth said:


> Is the fact that the premise of the show is set in the past, and we've been told it absolutely won't get to Batman really a spoiler?


Were we told this in the show itself? If yes, it's not a spoiler. If no, it's a spoiler.

Why is this hard?


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

Ereth said:


> I didn't say anything offensive. Ergo, there was no reason for a "No offense but..". People choosing to take offense at things I didn't say are outside my control.


 And yet you chose to qualify the particular analogy you used with a statement warning us that you don't mean it offensively, so you must have realised the potential was there.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

heySkippy said:


> Were we told this in the show itself? If yes, it's not a spoiler. If no, it's a spoiler.
> 
> Why is this hard?


I've quit watching Gotham, so I could be wrong, but AFAIK, based on the show, there is no Batman anyway. There's a child who's parents were killed, there's a policeman trying to do the right thing while surrounded by corruption, and there's a whole bleepload of very strange people. I never saw or heard any reference to a "Batman".


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

heySkippy said:


> Were we told this in the show itself? If yes, it's not a spoiler. If no, it's a spoiler.
> 
> Why is this hard?


It is hard.

The fact that Bruce Wayne in the show Gotham grows up to be Batman is a spoiler?

Eddyj? Robin? David?

Do you agree?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> It is hard. The fact that Bruce Wayne in the show Gotham grows up to be Batman is a spoiler? Eddyj? Robin? David? Do you agree?


Technically, yes. But I am willing to bet no one would complain about that. Or about whose father Darth Vader is.

But if unsure, just tag it. Done. That was easy.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Let me say, again, that NO ONE EXPECTS PERFECTION. Just a little consideration. And a willingness to tag something when asked, even if you think it is silly.

So I would mention Bruce Wayne being Batman without a second thought. But if someone asked me to tag it, I would just do it, even if I thought it a bit silly.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

eddyj said:


> Let me say, again, that NO ONE EXPECTS PERFECTION. Just a little consideration. And a willingness to tag something when asked, even if you think it is silly.
> 
> So I would mention Bruce Wayne being Batman without a second thought. But if someone asked me to tag it, I would just do it, even if I thought it a bit silly.


I'm happy to do so too. And I'll be much more cautious at spoiling things going forward. It's just that sometimes spoilers are inadvertent.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

Ereth said:


> Does the city in that particular TV show look even remotely like any version of New York City that has ever existed?
> 
> I realize most people think of Gotham and NYC as one and the same, but this city clearly is not the home of the Yankees, but the home of the Batman, and if you went looking for a show about New York City I think you'd be rather disappointed.


You thinking of Batman when you hear Gotham is part of your knowledge

Other people think City of Fools when they hear Gotham. Perhaps a generic city or village, perhaps specifically New York.

For people who have knowledge of a particular place television/Hollywood representations sometimes do not look like that place but it will work for other people.


Spoiler



Austin Powers cruising the "English countryside" with Felicity Shagwell 
You know what's remarkable? Is how much England looks in no way like Southern California.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

SoBelle0 said:


> ...
> This is the part I don't get. Why can't the forum support two threads?


The forum can, it just comes down to the nature of discussion. Someone asks a question or within the show something comes up that correlates to the comics, so the response becomes a post. For instance, I'll use the Flash discussions we have (that's the main comic-book-based show I watch) as an example. Someone asks "why don't people get smashed and killed when he runs up to them and starts moving them at 700mph?" It's a valid question and one that other viewers can benefit from even if they didn't ask it, so we say "he generates a special field of energy around himself that lets him break the laws of physics. When he grabs something, this energy extends into it/them so he can move them without them suffering the effects of inertia". The show has never addressed that (and maybe never will), but it's something we've culled after decades of reading the source material from which the show is based. It _can_ be placed in a separate thread, but that's clumsy to have to say "well, I can tell you, but you have to go here to read it." Then we have to create a separate thread and people have to go back and forth. It can be tagged as a spoiler, but it's not a spoiler and the tags can make reading the thread awkward _if tags aren't needed_. By some of the reasoning here, what I said above should have been tagged, but let's be realistic... it's not a spoiler and it would break the flow of the discussion.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> I'm happy to do so too. And I'll be much more cautious at spoiling things going forward. It's just that sometimes spoilers are inadvertent.


And that is all most of us are asking. Be aware, be courteous, and if you slip, be willing to fix it. I don't think anyone here has asked for more.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

bobcarn said:


> It _can_ be placed in a separate thread, but that's clumsy to have to say "well, I can tell you, but you have to go here to read it." Then we have to create a separate thread and people have to go back and forth.


No thread needed, just tag it.



> It can be tagged as a spoiler, but it's not a spoiler and the tags can make reading the thread awkward _if tags aren't needed_. By some of the reasoning here, what I said above should have been tagged, but let's be realistic... it's not a spoiler and it would break the flow of the discussion.


For YOU it is not a spoiler. For others, it might be. So you either tag it (if you think others will find it spoilerish), or don't tag it (if you don't), but if someone does ask you, then go back and tag it.

Personally, I am not sure I would consider that a spoiler, but I might tag it anyway. And certainly be willing to tag it later if someone asks.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

bobcarn said:


> The forum can, it just comes down to the nature of discussion. Someone asks a question or within the show something comes up that correlates to the comics, so the response becomes a post. For instance, I'll use the Flash discussions we have (that's the main comic-book-based show I watch) as an example. Someone asks "why don't people get smashed and killed when he runs up to them and starts moving them at 700mph?" It's a valid question and one that other viewers can benefit from even if they didn't ask it, so we say "he generates a special field of energy around himself that lets him break the laws of physics. When he grabs something, this energy extends into it/them so he can move them without them suffering the effects of inertia". The show has never addressed that (and maybe never will), but it's something we've culled after decades of reading the source material from which the show is based. It can be placed in a separate thread, but that's clumsy to have to say "well, I can tell you, but you have to go here to read it." Then we have to create a separate thread and people have to go back and forth. It can be tagged as a spoiler, but it's not a spoiler and the tags can make reading the thread awkward if tags aren't needed. By some of the reasoning here, what I said above should have been tagged, but let's be realistic... it's not a spoiler and it would break the flow of the discussion.


I would think an explanation like that would not need to be spoilerized. But as Eddy said, don't argue if someone does ask you to put it in tags. But I'd be shocked if anyone did. That's not the type of thing someone is going to consider a spoiler.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> That's not the type of thing someone is going to consider a spoiler.


Yeah, good luck with that.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> I think the feeling that two threads won't work is based on the fact that very few shows have sufficient support here at the forum to even sustain a single thread for each episode. Most episode threads get 10-20 posts and then die out. And that's not usually 10-20 different posters, but 5-8 posters who then reply to each others posts and further the discussion. So if you take a show like that and then split it into two unique threads, then you have 4-5 posters in one thread and 3-4 posters in the other. And so neither thread gets the critical mass it needs to build the conversation, so they both die out after just a few posts.
> 
> I think that's the expectation, and except for a few very popular shows, I think that's a realistic expectation. *I think that when these comic book shows start up again next fall, the best option will be for those who have read the comic books to start the episode threads and tag them so it's clear that the threads can contain outside info from the comic books. And I suspect those will become the de facto threads for those shows, and nothing will really change for the comic book readers. And I suspect that most non-readers will still participate in those threads, and if they end up getting spoiled about something, they won't be able to complain because they will have voluntarily participated in a thread that allowed that info.
> *
> If the shows in question have enough thread participation that the non-readers want to start a second, spoiler-free thread, I think that would be great, but I strongly suspect that the spoiler-allowed threads will end up being the only threads for those shows, and there will only be a couple non-readers who decide not to participate.


I _LOVE _this idea! Just start a thread for each ep with a heading about spoilers and that any outside sources may be referenced.

I suspect that will become the de facto thread, since comic book readers tend to be the most passionate viewers and posters for these shows. If nonspoiler folks wish to start their own thread, so be it, but candidly, I suspect those will wither on the vine.

Personally, I love the Easter eggs, and I enjoy finding out about DC (or Marvel or whatever) history. We just need the proper warning in the episode thread title, and "Presto!" we can post freely and in the clear.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

MikeCC said:


> I _LOVE _this idea! Just start a thread for each ep with a heading about spoilers and that any outside sources may be referenced.
> 
> I suspect that will become the de facto thread, since comic book readers tend to be the most passionate viewers and posters for these shows. If nonspoiler folks wish to start their own thread, so be it, but candidly, I suspect those will wither on the vine.
> 
> Personally, I love the Easter eggs, and I enjoy finding out about DC (or Marvel or whatever) history. We just need the proper warning in the episode thread title, and "Presto!" we can post freely and in the clear.


This is what I feel the threads are now, and why I don't participate.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

pgogborn said:


> For people who have knowledge of a particular place television/Hollywood representations sometimes do not look like that place but it will work for other people.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


That's a perfect example of "how not to post a spoiler".


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

MikeCC said:


> I _LOVE _this idea! Just start a thread for each ep with a heading about spoilers and that any outside sources may be referenced.


So, a thread that contravenes the rules is okay if it says so in the thread title? That's going to end well.

I'll say it right now. I'm not going to quietly put up with another season of Daredevil threads like the ones we just had. I didn't speak up when I should have and it mushroomed to the point where there wasn't any point, but I'll be much more proactive next time.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

heySkippy said:


> So, a thread that contravenes the rules is okay if it says so in the thread title? That's going to end well.




What is against the rules about a thread that specifically states that it allows certain spoilers? Those kinds of threads have always been permitted here.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> What is against the rules about a thread that specifically states that it allows certain spoilers? Those kinds of threads have always been permitted here.


Tagged? Sure, no problem. Untagged? Problem.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

heySkippy said:


> Tagged? Sure, no problem. Untagged? Problem.


Again, 

If the thread title and OP specifically state that certain things can be discussed within the thread without the need for spoiler tags, then those things are fair game within that thread. Why would that be a problem?

For example, in The Walking Dead threads, we had people complaining about discussion of information from Talking Dead. So then the threads were titled to include Talking Dead as well and now the info from TD didn't have to be put into spoilers.

So if someone creates a thread titled "Flash "Episode Title" - S02E01 - 09/28/15 *spoilers for episode and comic books*" then I don't see any problem with comic book readers discussing comic book back stories within that thread without spoiler tags. If that's not something you want to read, then you simply don't read the thread.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> If that's not something you want to read, then you simply don't read the thread.


Again? 

You know what it says in the sticky at the top of the page as well as I do.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

heySkippy said:


> Again?
> 
> You know what it says in the sticky at the top of the page as well as I do.


That's something then that renders the whole suggestion about two separate threads moot.

The rules aren't set in stone. We could always request the rules to be spelled out to allow for DevDog's suggestion on thread titles.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Azlen said:


> The rules aren't set in stone. We could always request the rules to be spelled out to allow for DevDog's suggestion on thread titles.


You could, and I will advocate against it. We will see how it shakes out.

The thing is, I like the spoiler rule. It is literally the only thing that makes this forum better than all the others on the internet.


----------



## SoBelle0 (Jun 25, 2002)

eddyj said:


> Let me say, again, that NO ONE EXPECTS PERFECTION. Just a little consideration. And a willingness to tag something when asked, even if you think it is silly. So I would mention Bruce Wayne being Batman without a second thought. But if someone asked me to tag it, I would just do it, even if I thought it a bit silly.


I'm looking forward to the rest of Daredevil. Last say I find I have something to discuss about a particular ep. If I were to start a thread how do I designate that I would like the above to happen. I realize this may not appease all readers nor non-readers... What's the closest I can get?

If the thread dies after 8 posts, or 3, so be it. 
And, if I end up joining the existing discussion, so be it.

It will organically become whatever works for each individual who has something to discuss or ask. Right?

I don't see why either of those creates a problem.

It would be awesome to have everything in one thread. But that would require an obviously unwelcome compromise. There are the _absolutely nothing not gleaned in the past 42 minutes (and previously aired?) _ crowd and the _I cannot possibly ever use spoiler quote tags it will ruin the discussion_ crowd and then a bunch of middle folks. Is it pretty evenly divided? Does it matter? Why must it be so absolute? "Only one thread!" Now everyone is steering clear of threads or making constant sarcastic comments about spoilers. How is that better?

To repeat the original question:
I'm looking forward to the rest of Daredevil. Last say I find I have something to discuss about a particular ep. If I were to start a thread how do I designate that I would like the above to happen. I realize this may not appease all readers nor non-readers... What's the closest I can get?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

heySkippy said:


> You could, and I will advocate against it. We will see how it shakes out.
> 
> The thing is, I like the spoiler rule. It is literally the only thing that makes this forum better than all the others on the internet.


I agree. I like the spoiler rule as well. And it would still be in place for all threads where the thread title and/or OP doesn't specifically provide for spoilers.

Are you seriously trying to say that the forum rules would PROHIBIT creation of an episode-specific thread which would allow untagged discussion of comic book spoilers? If so, I'm baffled by that. How do you explain the many other threads in this forum which are specifically created for discussion of information that would be considered spoilers in a thread without that specific title? Are you saying all such discussions are against the rules?


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

Azlen said:


> That's something then that renders the whole suggestion about two separate threads moot.
> 
> The rules aren't set in stone. We could always request the rules to be spelled out to allow for DevDog's suggestion on thread titles.


I see now why some people have complained about the overly rigid Spoiler-Nazis. Sheesh. In an attempt to clearly accommodate the posters who do NOT wish to be spoiled, DevdogAZ suggested a separate thread to discuss the episodes of these comic book shows, with the thread title clearly warning about spoilers and references to outside sources. I even think some spoiler-phobes may even have encouraged a separate thread like this.

But then comes heySkippy who insists such a thread is improper, because well, it violates the rule as he reads it.

Yet, when we go to the PURPOSE of the rule, which is to keep posters unspoiled if they want to remain unspoiled, DevdogAZ's suggestion is not only perfectly in alignment, it is a terrific refinement.

By having an episode thread for comic book aficionados, any and all possible outside references is contained, and those who want to remain away from those discussions can start their own thread without fear of inadvertent exposure.

Seems like a very accommodating way to help our spoiler-free brethren remain unsullied by those comments from pesky comic book fans.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

SoBelle0 said:


> To repeat the original question:
> I'm looking forward to the rest of Daredevil. Last say I find I have something to discuss about a particular ep. If I were to start a thread how do I designate that I would like the above to happen. I realize this may not appease all readers nor non-readers... What's the closest I can get?


I'm totally confused by this question. As far as I know, there are already episode-specific threads for all available episodes of Daredevil. Are you asking about how to start a thread for future episodes when they're released by Netflix? Or are you asking about starting a different thread to discuss the already-released episodes?

Assuming the latter, what is it about the existing threads that does not work for you? What would you like your new thread to include that isn't already included in the existing threads?


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

I'm a spoiler phobe and have advocated for multiple threads. Skippy doesn't speak for all of us.


----------



## SoBelle0 (Jun 25, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> I'm totally confused by this question. As far as I know, there are already episode-specific threads for all available episodes of Daredevil. Are you asking about how to start a thread for future episodes when they're released by Netflix? Or are you asking about starting a different thread to discuss the already-released episodes? Assuming the latter, what is it about the existing threads that does not work for you? What would you like your new thread to include that isn't already included in the existing threads?


I would like to start a separate thread that does not include untagged spoilers. I stopped reading the existing threads when I read something that I would rather learn when the writers share it... It's not a huge deal, I made no formal complaint - I'd just rather avoid additional spoilers.



Robin said:


> I'm a spoiler phobe and have advocated for multiple threads. Skippy doesn't speak for all of us.


This.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

eddyj said:


> No thread needed, just tag it.
> 
> For YOU it is not a spoiler. For others, it might be. So you either tag it (if you think others will find it spoilerish), or don't tag it (if you don't), but if someone does ask you, then go back and tag it.
> 
> Personally, I am not sure I would consider that a spoiler, but I might tag it anyway. And certainly be willing to tag it later if someone asks.





DevdogAZ said:


> I would think an explanation like that would not need to be spoilerized. But as Eddy said, don't argue if someone does ask you to put it in tags. But I'd be shocked if anyone did. That's not the type of thing someone is going to consider a spoiler.


Like you two said, if it's a spoiler or spoilerish and someone wants it tagged, it's reasonable to tag it. But I sincerely hope people only make that request because it's something that actually should be tagged because it's a spoiler, not because they just don't want to see certain things being discussed in the thread.

LOL. Did you really just say, in a TCF thread, "don't argue?"


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

SoBelle0 said:


> I would like to start a separate thread that does not include untagged spoilers. I stopped reading the existing threads when I read something that I would rather learn when the writers share it... It's not a huge deal, I made no formal complaint - I'd just rather avoid additional spoilers.


Per the rules of the forum, the existing threads are not supposed to include untagged spoilers. If there's something in those threads that you think is a spoiler, you need to politely ask the poster to edit the post and put it in spoiler tags. And the posters should not argue about whether said item is a spoiler, and the thread should not devolve into a multi-page discussion about what is and isn't a spoiler.

This whole problem has been made worse by the spoiler-phobes thinking they're being nice and not complaining. Without the complaints, the other posters in the thread don't think such things are spoilers, or think that nobody cares, and therefore they will continue to post such things openly in the threads. If those who don't want spoilers will speak up and educate everyone on the things they consider to be spoilers, then the threads will get back to the way they're supposed to be.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

Robin said:


> I'm a spoiler phobe and have advocated for multiple threads. Skippy doesn't speak for all of us.


Oh I know. I hope I didn't seem to suggest all spoiler-phobes are as fanatically rigid and uncompromising as Skippy. There are partisans on both sides, but Skippy's position is about as unyielding and restrictive as anything I've ever come across.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Robin said:


> I'm a spoiler phobe and have advocated for multiple threads. Skippy doesn't speak for all of us.


And note that some of the more egregious "let's put who won the super bowl into thread title" people don't speak for all of the spoiler-philes.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

bobcarn said:


> But I sincerely hope people only make that request because it's something that actually should be tagged because it's a spoiler, not *because they just don't want to see certain things being discussed in the thread.*


Has that ever actually happened? Just curious. I can't conceive of something that falls into that category, but that might just be my lack of imagination.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Turtleboy said:


> And note that some of the more egregious "let's put who won the super bowl into thread title" people don't speak for all of the spoiler-philes.


I don't even like the term spoiler-phile. I believe that most people are anti-spoiler. They just disagree on the definition of spoiler.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

realityboy said:


> I don't even like the term spoiler-phile. I believe that most people are anti-spoiler. They just disagree on the definition of spoiler.


Some people LOVE spoilers. At least reading them.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

eddyj said:


> Has that ever actually happened? Just curious. I can't conceive of something that falls into that category, but that might just be my lack of imagination.


I don't know if it's happened. I haven't read all of the threads. I don't watch Gotham (I'll maybe catch up this summer, I'm seeing it as a crime drama more than a comic book show) and I don't watch the Agents of Shield or Daredevil, so I don't see those threads.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

realityboy said:


> I don't even like the term spoiler-phile. I believe that most people are anti-spoiler. They just disagree on the definition of spoiler.


I believe we have two different terms:

spoiler-phile: someone who loves spoilers, or inside information. The _phile _suffix is from the Greek _philia_, meaning affinity. For example, think of terms _Anglophile_, someone who loves all things British; or _audiophile,_ someone who loves music and the audio equipment to produce the purest sound.

Spoiler-phobe: someone who wants to avoid spoilers or something that may ruin a surprise twist. The phobe suffix is from the Greek _phobia_, meaning fear or panic. Think_ techno-phobe_, one who dislikes technology; or germophobe, someone afraid of germs.

Clearly, both sides have a broad continuum, and many along the continuum dispute what might be classified as a "spoiler."


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Robin said:


> I'm a spoiler phobe and have advocated for multiple threads. Skippy doesn't speak for all of us.


Separate threads worked well enough for GoT and I'm not against the idea.

I was speaking against the idea of a single _episode_ thread with open spoilers. The conversation I jumped into seemed to have acknowledged that Daredevil probably doesn't have enough posting to support separate threads, a conclusion I think is probably correct. Still, I'd give that a shot if that's how it has to be. Game of Thrones was done differently. There was one "book" thread for all episodes and then separate episode threads with the normal spoiler rules.

Would the comics readers be satisfied with a single season thread for Daredevil untagged comics discussion while the episode threads use the usual rules?

If not, it would be all sorts of entertaining to see 26 new Daredevil threads show up on the same day in the forum, though. No one would whine about that.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

SoBelle0 said:


> I would like to start a separate thread that does not include untagged spoilers. I stopped reading the existing threads when I read something that I would rather learn when the writers share it... It's not a huge deal, I made no formal complaint - I'd just rather avoid additional spoilers.


I'd put something like "all outside information, including comic books, must be in spoiler tags" in the thread title.

In theory that should already be the case but since you're talking about threads that are already "sullied" that's what I'd do.


----------

