[Request] Rules update - spoilers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bubble181

Bubble181

As we were discussing in the Olympics thread (ok, as I was pointing out), there's a bit of a problem with the Spoilers rules. Rule 13 states that spoilers are things about the plot of a book or movie. Further on, it's stated a bit more loosely, with an "etc" or a "other media" thrown in there.

Still, I'd suggest updating the rules a bit, to read "the plot of a movie or book, or sports competitions which americans can't catch live on tv because their coverage sucks"
What, I'm the only one who thinks that's just a little bit funny? No? Not even a little bit? Oh, fine....

Seriously, I'd suggest updating it for several things. As I pointed out int hat same thread, technically, tv shows, plays, musicals, whatever, aren't covered byt that rule. Yes, you could classify that under the "rule lawyering" rule, but still. There's also something to be said for other things than the plot being spoiled. Some people might consider it a spoiler if I said that (I think this counts, it's about the new Batman movie, read at your own risk)
there's no mention of venom or whatever that weird drug is called as for where Bane got his strenghth and weakness
It's not at all plotrelated, though.

So...well, I can't really think of a way of putting it that won't make it either horribly subjective, or waaayyy too general. But since this is apparently an issue, I think it's worth talking about here.

"Anything pertaining to relatively recent events or media, containing information some people would not want to know before learning of it themselves through the original source"? Something like that?
 
sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

Spoilering sporting events should go under Rule #1.

Sorry confused this place with another forum. That its first rule was, don't be a dick.
 
strawman

strawman

A spoiler is, simply, some piece of information which might ruin an activity for someone else. Information which is meant the be learned by participating, observing, or otherwise experiencing the activity.

While there are many examples of spoilers, such as how a story ends (be it books, movies, games, etc) to the scores of a competition, they are merely examples and neither all inclusive of the activities or experiences one might have.

For instance, I could tell you what happens when you drink a gallon of milk in under an hour, but I'd want to do so in a spoiler context because some people would actually like to try it out as a challenge and experience it first hand themselves.

While its a complex topic, rule one covers it pretty well. Giving out information that might ruin someone else's enjoyment of a given activity should be behind a spoiler tag, or in a thread marked spoiler. Ruining someone's experience isn't a nice thing to do.
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

sixpackshaker said:
Spoilering sporting events should go under Rule #1.

Sorry confused this place with another forum. That its first rule was, don't be a dick.
Click to expand...
If a Belgian suddenly wins the gold medal in the 100 meter, I'm going to call the doping agency post it right here right away. That's not begin a dick, that's being proud. If you manage not to hear it 'till 5 days afterwards, that's not my problem.

Look, any spoiling is being a dick, up to a degree. Guess what? The Oscars were broadcast in Belgium half an hour later than in the US. Don't ask me why, it was the middle of the night either way. Still true. Does that mean I bear ill will to anyone who posted the results before that time? No, it does not. Does that mean I think all of those peopl were dicks? No, my TV company is. NBC are the dicks, not other people. If you're coming into a thread about the Olympics, results of the Olympics are going to get posted. I was deliberately trying to open up the discussion a bit broader, though - because a discussion on the Olympics doesn't belong on this board.
 
strawman

strawman

Bubble1, are you suggesting that everyone be like you and simply flip the switch that says, "bothered by spoilers" to off?

Its great that you don't mind so much, but is it reasonable to tell everyone that your attitude is right and theirs is wrong?
 
Charlie Don't Surf

Charlie Don't Surf

I don't think any of this applies to sporting events, since it's just straight up fucking news. If you DVR a sporting event, you can't expect spoiler tags for what happens in it. It just so happens that NBC is stupid enough to DVR random shit for all of America.
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

stienman said:
Bubble1, are you suggesting that everyone be like you and simply flip the switch that says, "bothered by spoilers" to off?

Its great that you don't mind so much, but is it reasonable to tell everyone that your attitude is right and theirs is wrong?
Click to expand...
No, I'm not. I'm trying to have a serious conversation about this, and I'm getting pretty friggin' tired of SPS's only response being "you're a dick. A dick. You're all dicks. Dick."
For the record, I haven't posted a single spoiler or medal or whatever in that whole thread. I'm not saying people should be allowed to post those results (I think it should be OK, but that's a personal opinion, not what I think must be the case for everyone.). If the general consensus is the title should say "spoilers", fine by me. But I'm pretty tired of a larger part of the thread being about "dem spoilerz" than about the actual sports. Oh, and I'm also pretty tired of a select few people on this board taking each and every possible opportunity to attack me or try to bring me down, but I guess that isn't covered by Rule #1.

You started bringing the board rules in this, probably in an attempt to stop the name-calling and the pettiness. All in favour of that! And I mostly agree with you! But at the moment, that's not what the rules say. And I don't think we should, on the one hand, just follow whatever the biggest dick says, nor do I think we should use the rules when it suits us and disregard them when they don't.
To take a bloody stupid example, if the law said "Drunk driving" unstead of "Driving under influence", you couldn't use that law to say you're not allowed to drive under the influence of cocaine. That doesn't mean I think driving with cocain in your blood would be a good idea, it means I think the law needs to be reworded. And hey, the law is worded differently.
The board rule is surprisingly specific, and easily proven to be so to a fault. I'm suggesting debating the rule. SPS calls me a dick because everybody knows [something I didn't know] so you're wrong.
 
sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

How am I calling you a dick for spoiling something that you have not spoiled?

Sports is not news, it is just a pastime, a distraction, something that is fun to watch if you don't know the outcome in advance. This is just a TV program that comes around once every 4 years. This was spoiler about a chance to repeat in one event for the 3rd time.

Even Yahoo took to using spoiler tags on its front page.
 
Vrii

Vrii

American sites are conscious of spoiling - I'm pretty sure non-American ones aren't. The population of these forums isn't all American, and if I hadn't read through the whole thread there's no way I would have known that NBC is dumb enough to delay everything for you guys. It just isn't reasonable to be mad at someone for posting a spoiler in there.
 
sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

If NBC did not delay the broadcast they would lose all the money they invested in the games. Because the majority of Americans can't watch it live, and they would have no ad revenue for showing the games.
 
sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

Because there had been only one spoiler in the thread prior to that. I called him on that one too. There is a lot going on in that thread that does not deal with up to the minute updates from someone forwarding an ESPN feed.


THANKS TO ALL YOU FUCKERS* FOR BLAMING THE VICTIM. STAY CLASSY HALFORUMS.

*since I can't use the mild 'dick' any longer.
 
Vrii

Vrii

If the majority of Americans aren't willing to be inconvenienced to watch the Olympics, maybe that should be taken as a measure of how much should be invested for the rights to broadcast them. Just a thought.
 
Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

Ok, I don't see how this is confusing. This is how things should go.

Person A: "Hey, X won the thing!"

Person B: "We're on a delay, mind spoilering that for those that don't want to know yet?"

Person A: "Oh, sure, that sounds reasonable."

Here's how it's been going.

Person B: "Mind spoilering that?"

Person A: "FUCK YOU THAT AIN'T A SPOILER DUMB NBC DELAY RARGL"
 
Allen who is Quiet

Allen who is Quiet

I'll totally blame victims regarding spoilers if they go into a thread about the topic and then get mad that somebody spoiled whatever it was the topic was about. It's not like you're reading a thread about somebody's breakfast and then somebody randomly drops a spoiler for the newest batman film.
 
sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

Allen who is Quiet said:
I'll totally blame victims regarding spoilers if they go into a thread about the topic and then get mad that somebody spoiled whatever it was the topic was about. It's not like you're reading a thread about somebody's breakfast and then somebody randomly drops a spoiler for the newest batman film.
Click to expand...
She should not have walked into that bar with that dress on...
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

Allen who is Quiet said:
I'll totally blame victims regarding spoilers if they go into a thread about the topic and then get mad that somebody spoiled whatever it was the topic was about. It's not like you're reading a thread about somebody's breakfast and then somebody randomly drops a spoiler for the newest batman film.
Click to expand...
Dumbledore is Frodo's father.
 
sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

I'll go back and spoiler the ending for you then.[DOUBLEPOST=1344533049][/DOUBLEPOST]Wow, that was so difficult. I had to perform 3 mouse functions.
 
strawman

strawman

Wow, you all are really going at it aren't you?

So, to recap:

1. There are those who feel Olympic results are spoilers.
2. There are those who think they are not spoilers.
3. There are those who believe that a literal, narrow interpretation of the rules is appropriate.
4. There are those that believe that a "spirit of the law" interpretation of the rules is appropriate.
5. There are those who feel that in order to debate the above four items, name calling and other bad behavior is appropriate.

Take a step back, take a deep breath, and ignore inappropriate posts - that's the best way to make them go away. This no need to respond to someone who can't get their point across without attemtpting to insult or offend others.
 
Vrii

Vrii

I don't even have a clue what's going on anymore, but it sure is entertaining.[DOUBLEPOST=1344534706][/DOUBLEPOST]"classy cuntface" is fantastic.
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

stienman said:
Wow, you all are really going at it aren't you?

So, to recap:

1. There are those who feel Olympic results are spoilers.
2. There are those who think they are not spoilers.
3. There are those who believe that a literal, narrow interpretation of the rules is appropriate.
4. There are those that believe that a "spirit of the law" interpretation of the rules is appropriate.
5. There are those who feel that in order to debate the above four items, name calling and other bad behavior is appropriate.

Take a step back, take a deep breath, and ignore inappropriate posts - that's the best way to make them go away. This no need to respond to someone who can't get their point across without attemtpting to insult or offend others.
Click to expand...
Whoa now. I'd just like to point out that the 3 vs 4 thing totally isn't a thing. Olympics aside, I'm totally in favour of spirit of the law over letter of the law. However, I'm also in favour of, if you find the two of them don't match up, of trying to change the letter to be closer to the spirit. Which is all I wanted to do.
Just to tackle number 5, though, you're a numbskull and a dimwit, and you can't get it up. ....Darn, chose the wrong guy for that insult, didn't I? I suck :(
 
tegid

tegid

Can we please not have the discussion about the Olympics rights and whatnot in here? That's already happening in a couple other places.

I'll admit that it's hard for me to feel the wrongness in posting sports news the minute they happen, because I'm used to news sites posting those news without regard for spoilers, even if the timezones are so different that it hasn't been shown on tv. Even more so when NBC spoils the results of the events they broadcast themselves.

I think it's a matter of common sense and not being a dick if someone politely asks to not be spoiled on one particular thing, then it shouldn't be that hard to just wait a while. It's also true that no one should expect an a priori regard of that: why the hell should I know at what time they are showing which sport on tv in the states?
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
I'm of two minds about this. You all know how I feel about spoilers. I hates them. But as the Olympics are over TOMORROW, why don't we just refrain from talking about who won what without spoilers for one day? Everyone is happy.
 
tegid

tegid

Wow, that shows why you shouldn't reply to a thread after having it open for half an hour.

GUYS PLEASE don't go crazy
Take a step back, take a deep breath, and ignore inappropriate posts
Click to expand...
I hate the phrase, but no one's completely in the right here: if there's been no spoilers going on till now in a thread, it's reasonable to not expect them. Once there have been, you can't get so angry you got spoiled a second time, because that's already going on isn't it?

In any case, please be reasonable, try to understand other's people's points, don't go RAAAAGEing all the time. FFS, if someone purposefully says something that can be interpreted as something bad (see rape thing above) and clarifies that they didn't mean that, you can blame for being assholes, flamebaiters, whatever, but do we need three fucking posts accusing him of meaning what he says he didn't mean? Does that serve any purpose?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top