Spoilers in Books: A Discussion.

[Avro Arrow]

I'm impatient, so I'll admit, I tend to look stuff from stories up as soon as the story details are available. The first thing I did on the release date for STID was look it up on Wikipedia to see who Harrison really was.

Interesting. I guess I'm one of those people that try to avoid most spoilers beforehand. But before I saw STID, I had been spoiled on every major plot point (and a bunch of minor ones). I had deliberately avoided articles and stuff online that were stated to be related to STID, but the spoilers all came from either here or io9 comment sections in articles that had nothing specifically to do with STID!

(To be fair, I did see the movie much later than most due to some personal issues, but I still deliberately tried to avoid spoilers during that time.)

Yeah I think if the title says SPOILERS and I go in the thread and I am spoiled (even a major spoiler) then it is entirely my fault as the reader.

Yeah, this. For review threads that have "Spoilers" right in the title... I don't read the thread until I've finished the book. It's not that hard. If you go in there before reading the book, well, you were warned up front, and if you see something you wish you didn't, it's on you.

The worst part is, though, when people put the spoiler itself in the title of the thread. That takes away your ability to decide whether to subject yourself to the spoiler or not. And then tagging a spoilery thread title with "(Spoilers!)" just adds insult to injury!

 

[JD]

Yeah, that is kind of crappy, but I doubt many people do that on purpose. I think sometimes people just forget that not everyone is up to date on all of the books.

 

[Therin of Andor]

No one's life is so empty that TrekBBS is the only thing they have to look at every day. At least I hope not.

That's like people telling me to watch "Stargate" because I've run out of new "Star Trek" episodes to watch.

For people who buy and read every new novel and original eBook, there's a never-ending parade of them, so in a BBS without spoiler warnings, there'd never be any down time. What you're seemingly asking is that those who want to remain spoiler-free ensure that they get their new novel on the day of release, and read it immediately, or stay off the board for three-and-a-half weeks every month. (And that's still if they're able to stay current with new releases.)

My life is full of many things. I squeeze in daily visits to TrekBBS because I love coming here. If it goes spoiler-warning free, I guess I leave forever. I'm not that worried if I encounter spoilers - but I've found a few I wish I hadn't known. I wouldn't be a part of a bbs that didn't police spoilers - at least for a reasonable grace period - as discussed earlier.

 

[jpv2000]

I haven't yet had to make a decision based on which particular publication date you use and that's because all of you are considerate and do keep your discussions within the review threads. And for that I thank you. You're good people

Yes, they are. I also frequent some game boards and there are numerous trolls on a lot of them. The people here are much nicer and more considerate.

You Mods are pretty cool as well.

 

[Deano2099]

It's mostly just about being sensible surely.

1) If the title of the book is in the title of the thread, it's feasible to expect spoilers. Unless the thread specifically says it's spoiler-free (for speculation on new books).

2) If it's a book in an ongoing series, it's reasonable to expect spoilers for previous books in that series.

The tricky bit is given we have a connected universe, you often want to reference other not directly connected books in a post. But for passing references, you generally don't need to post a spoiler. If I want to mention what happened to the Borg at the end of Destiny, I can just say "what happened to the Borg at the end of Destiny". People who know will get it, people who don't will not.

What I'd actually like to see is the first post in a thread that spoils a book be marked as a spoiler. And that lets me decide if I want to continue to read the thread or not. The rest doesn't matter. I've stopped reading.

To be honest I've mostly stopped coming here now, as it's not worth having the books spoiled for me, as much as I enjoy the conversation about books I've read. But if I can't even just come here and search for the title a book I've just read to see the discussion about it, without possibly seeing spoilers for books I haven't read yet, or even spoilers in the thread titles, then it's not worth it.

And it's not going to be worth it for anyone that isn't at least 6-months current with Trek books. Which is fine if that's how people want to do it, but it's excluding a huge audience.

[I'm also not talking about every single detail about a book being a spoiler either, but big events: character deaths, major changes in situations, etc - is tagging them as spoilers the first time they're mentioned really such a big deal?]

[I'm also fine with some threads just being marked SPOILERS FOR: everything - sometimes people up-to-date with the books do want to discuss the big picture and that's fine too]

 

[JWolf]

I have to agree with Deano2099. Thread titles should not be spoilers as they cannot be avoided other then to stay away. Also, spoilers for books not mention in the thread title should always be in spoiler codes as they are not expected to be spoiled.

Also, I have to agree that six months is just too short a time. It's very easy to not be caught up and I do think that one year is a much better time frame if there has to be a time frame.

 

[JWolf]

In the thread titled TF: Revelation and Dust by DRGIII Review Thread (Spoilers!), there is a spoiler for DTI: Watching the Clock. It comes out of the blue with no warning and no spoiler code used. Does using (Spoilers!) in the thread title give anyone leave to spoil any book other then the one mentioned in the thread topic? I hope not as that's unfair to toss in a spoiler for a book that nobody else was expecting to be spoiled.

Please say that a spoiler code should be used in that case regardless of the book's age.

 

[DimesDan]

I have to agree with Deano2099. Thread titles should not be spoilers as they cannot be avoided other then to stay away. Also, spoilers for books not mention in the thread title should always be in spoiler codes as they are not expected to be spoiled.

Also, I have to agree that six months is just too short a time. It's very easy to not be caught up and I do think that one year is a much better time frame if there has to be a time frame.

In the thread titled TF: Revelation and Dust by DRGIII Review Thread (Spoilers!), there is a spoiler for DTI: Watching the Clock. It comes out of the blue with no warning and no spoiler code used. Does using (Spoilers!) in the thread title give anyone leave to spoil any book other then the one mentioned in the thread topic? I hope not as that's unfair to toss in a spoiler for a book that nobody else was expecting to be spoiled.

Please say that a spoiler code should be used in that case regardless of the book's age.

You know, I created this thread to discuss peoples opinions of spoilers, not be the soapbox for your extreme restrictions on spoilers and highlighting every recent breach of what you deem wrong.

The six month limit sounds good, it's not too short and not too long.

 

[Deano2099]

The six month limit sounds good, it's not too short and not too long.

I think it's kinda pointless actually. People who are up-to-date with all the Trek stuff they read within six months of release are generally reading in release order anyway. They're never going back in publication order.

The problem for someone like me is I could be up-to-date on The Fall, then in the discussion of the latest book, someone just drops in a huge spoiler for the end of Vanguard, because it tangentially links to a plot point in the new book. The last Vanguard book came out years ago, so that's fine right? But casual readers aren't reading everything in order of release.

Meanwhile, what the rule does do is stop me doing is posting a big spoiler for The Fall in an old thread about Vanguard. But it's really unlikely I'm going to need to do that because that book came out first.

As I say, it's up to this board how you do things, and if this board just wants to stay for people that stay up-to-date with everything that's fine. As I mentioned, after reading a certain DS9 spoiler I've stopped coming here for anything but checking for news on new releases. I've also decided not to bother picking up those books until they're on sale now as they've dropped right down the reading list. But I have plenty of stuff to read. It's just a shame.

 

[Scout101]

In the thread titled TF: Revelation and Dust by DRGIII Review Thread (Spoilers!), there is a spoiler for DTI: Watching the Clock. It comes out of the blue with no warning and no spoiler code used. Does using (Spoilers!) in the thread title give anyone leave to spoil any book other then the one mentioned in the thread topic? I hope not as that's unfair to toss in a spoiler for a book that nobody else was expecting to be spoiled.

Please say that a spoiler code should be used in that case regardless of the book's age.

No, even by your ridiculous 2 year rule, that book is still fair game to discuss without code. At some point, there needs to be the assumption that people have read the material if they intend to, or we can't discuss anything. Easier if the books were all standalone, but since this is all one big happy story, it's difficult (and sounds stupid) to discuss current things without referencing the things that already happened. Otherwise, why have a discussion forum in the first place?

Options are to:

-Avoid this place if ANY spoilers (no matter how minor) bother you

-Obviously stay out of threads for books you haven't read, or if you're behind on the series in question.

-If it's the review thread, and says SPOLIERS! right in it, you get what you get. You just used that as an example, and someone complained in the thread, but what did they expect?

-Or just keep up. Easiest way to not be spoiled is to read/watch it when it comes out.

No matter which option you pick, it's on you to police yourself. If they bother you, make an effort to avoid them, and threads which could indirectly spoil it for you as well. For whatever you've seen/read, there's people who haven't you can't discuss anything at all if you have to protect everyone from everything...

 

[Deano2099]

-If it's the review thread, and says SPOLIERS! right in it, you get what you get. You just used that as an example, and someone complained in the thread, but what did they expect?

Spoilers for that book?

The thing is, I'd got to the point of avoiding any general discussion threads (except for news) as I was far enough behind I figured stuff would get spoiled. But what I would do would be, after reading a given book, search for it on here, THEN read the threads about it.

One would think that would be a safe approach, but no. Apparently people NEED the ability to spoil any possible book in any possible thread without marking it. Unless it came out in the last six months.

 

[Scout101]

In the example I was talking about, the spoilers were for the book the entire discussion thread was about...

And like I said, it's difficult to totally avoid mentioning things that could be spoilers when these books are so tied together. For example

Spoiler: Spoiler for new DS9 books

Newest DS9 book takes place on the replacement station. How can you discuss that without any hint that the old one was destroyed? 'Characters were somewhere for some reason when SPOILER happened...' not much of a useful conversation

People try to avoid dropping spoilers for the most part, but the books are pretty tied together, so if you're talking about a new one, sometimes stuff that the new one depends on was from a previous one. If you're allergic to knowing ANYTHING about them ahead of time, you're wise to avoid the threads, or the forum altogether until you've read the book in question.

Personally, I don't get worked up about them, unless it's SUPPOSED to be a mystery/twist, like Sixth Sense, for example. I was 'spoiled' by the thread for The Fall, but more interested in the HOW than the WHAT. Also, I shouldn't have been reading the review thread before the book if I was worried about it, that's my choice.

People define SPOILER too loosely IMO anyway. Giving away the mystery twist ending? sure. Knowing ANY detail? definitely not. And if people need to be completely pure going into the book, reading threads in the LIT forum is a stupid decision. They know they are allergic, but make no effort to avoid. I won't eat peanuts in front of you, but you gotta stop complaining if I eat them at home. Especially if you KNOW I'm doing it and come over anyway. While you may get details ahead of time, not all spoilers actually SPOIL the book for you. Of the ones we're talking about, even if you wish you hadn't read the spoiler ahead of time, how many RUINED the book in question for you? Did you even bother to read it after, since it was ruined?

 

[JWolf]

What I'm trying to is to clarify if it's OK or not to spoil a book not mentioned in the thread title. You've read or not the book in the topic and go into the thread and it the title does say (Spoilers!). But it doesn't say (Spoilers!) for a different book. So any spoilers for a different book should be in spoiler codes as that's not what's expected in the thread.

In the thread about The Fall: Revelation and Dust is a spoiler for DTI: Watching the Clock that is not using a spoiler code and then it gets quoted a few times. So it's rather difficult to avoid the spoiler for the book that should not have been spoiled in a thread about a different book. If you want to spoil a book, start a thread for it.

This is not an extreme reaction. It's perfectly logical. If a thread is on book a, don't then spoil book b. That (IMHO) is rude.

 

[JeBuS]

I would say, if a thread is about a certain book, than any previous book is almost certainly going to be spoiled to some degree or another by it. It's just the way these new books are. They're all tied together. If you don't want to know any details about a certain book, don't read a thread about a book newer than it.

Of course, my opinion counts for absolutely nothing, because no matter what anyone says, some folks are just going to get mad at any details they haven't read for themselves.

 

[Masiral]

Watching the Clock came out more than 2 years ago - I'd say that at this point, any "spoilers" from that book are fair game.

 

[JWolf]

Watching the Clock came out more than 2 years ago - I'd say that at this point, any "spoilers" from that book are fair game.

But only if specifically on a thread about it. No book should be fair game in a thread not about it.

 

[JeBuS]

Watching the Clock came out more than 2 years ago - I'd say that at this point, any "spoilers" from that book are fair game.

But only if specifically on a thread about it. No book should be fair game in a thread not about it.

If the thread is for a book further along the common timeline, why not?

 

[JD]

Watching the Clock came out more than 2 years ago - I'd say that at this point, any "spoilers" from that book are fair game.

Watching the Clock came out more than 2 years ago - I'd say that at this point, any "spoilers" from that book are fair game.

But only if specifically on a thread about it. No book should be fair game in a thread not about it.

If it's that old then it's fair game in any thread. It's easiest for everybody if we just have one uniform rule for every book and every thread. In situations like this it really is best if the rules are simple and uniform across the board. If things in a thread about a specific book don't need to be spoiler coded in that book's threads, then they shouldn't need to be spoiler coded in any threads.

 

[JWolf]

Watching the Clock came out more than 2 years ago - I'd say that at this point, any "spoilers" from that book are fair game.

Watching the Clock came out more than 2 years ago - I'd say that at this point, any "spoilers" from that book are fair game.

But only if specifically on a thread about it. No book should be fair game in a thread not about it.

If it's that old then it's fair game in any thread. It's easiest for everybody if we just have one uniform rule for every book and every thread. In situations like this it really is best if the rules are simple and uniform across the board. If things in a thread about a specific book don't need to be spoiler coded in that book's threads, then they shouldn't need to be spoiler coded in any threads.

The reason they don't need to be in a spoiler code in their own thread is because of (Spoilers!) in the thread's title along with the name of the book. But to just have any book be open to being spoiled, then you will ruin things for a lot of people and this forum could very well die out because it will just seem that many don't care and those that do just won't come back.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

The reason they don't need to be in a spoiler code in their own thread is because of (Spoilers!) in the thread's title along with the name of the book. But to just have any book be open to being spoiled, then you will ruin things for a lot of people and this forum could very well die out because it will just seem that many don't care and those that do just won't come back.

I think the record player's broken again.

--Sran