Polite? I don't recall seeing spoiler code etiquette in the most recent Emily Post's guide. Even if it's "polite" to spoiler code, what should be spoiler coded? Everyone has their idea of what constitutes "spoilers", though most of them are wrong. If I mention that the TARDIS was spotted in DTI: Watching the Clock, is that a spoiler to you? Because it's not plot relevant, and not even something most people would pick up on if they're not a fan of Doctor Who. If you think that's a spoiler, though, what's to be done by the rest of us who only considered it an easter egg and wanted to mention that we noticed it? Must it be spoiler coded? If we have to be "polite" when it comes to spoiler coding, the person with the lowest threshold for spoiler material (i.e., the person with the widest definition of and the greatest aversion to spoilers) will set the bar for the entire board. Is that reasonable? Thousands of posters are registered here, and yet only one gets to set conditions for what should be spoiler coded?
It is walking on eggshells if someone forgetting to do it means we're subjected to more of your ranting. --Sran
Simmer down, 'k? I'm not "constantly questioning" the mods' decisions on this forum. I think some of the rules here are ridiculous (as in you can use every swear word in existence, but you get infracted for calling someone a jerk who was, in fact, being a jerk), but instead of throwing a public tantrum about it, I told the moderator what I thought of the rule. What you're not getting from my posts here is this: How can a poster question a decision BEFORE it's made? If you don't know a decision has been made, how can you question it before it was made? Unless you know a decision is coming and what it will be, you cannot question it before - you can only question it after. To expect otherwise, you are assuming we all must be telepathic, have ESP, or access to a time machine. You keep ranting at people that the moderators make the rules, so the rest of us must stop having the audacity to question the moderators' decisions, even if we didn't know they'd made the decision in the first place. Well, guess what: YOU are not a moderator, either. YOU do not have the authority to tell the rest of us when we may and may not question the moderators. YOU are assuming the unearned mantle of mod-hood and telling people how to behave when you don't have that authority. Hypocrisy, much? That's the thing - the audience does see the little details. But they're so subtle, the audience usually misses them at the time. Part of the fun of a Columbo movie is in being vigilant enough to try to notice everything. If that bores you, then obviously you're not the sort of person who would enjoy a murder mystery that is different from standard fare. I bet you didn't like the Clue movie, either (based on the board game, and had multiple endings). I'd also bet you don't enjoy live theatre. It's a "wink, nudge" between the playwright, the actors, and the audience. They've all shared a common experience that's fun. All that's being asked is that the audience not spoil the experience for the next batch of people who don't know what to expect. I don't read about them, at least not on purpose. But if I'm reading a thread about a book I have read, I don't want to find spoilers in there about books that aren't part of that thread. Approximately 10 years' worth of Star Trek novels released during that time. I actually own several thousand books, in lots of different genres, both fiction and nonfiction. I've been collecting for decades. I haven't read all of them, but am steadily working my way through them. Depending on my mood and available time, I can read a moderate-sized novel in a day and a half - if it's straightforward and doesn't require much thinking. If it's a longer novel or more complex, it'll take longer. At the moment I'm into Silverberg, Roman historical novels, am reading some time travel short stories on my Kindle, and depending on how one of the arguments goes on another forum, I might be re-reading Tacitus. I've got one of Greg Cox's non-Star Trek novels on the way from Amazon, and will be jumping right into it when it arrives. So I'm not in a Star Trek mood at this time, not even the numerous excellent fanfic series I've been following. I do intend to catch up at some point - after all, winter is coming up, and during a cold snap on the Canadian Prairies, sometimes there's nothing to do but curl up in bed with the cats and a book. Jesus. Effing. Christ. It's people like you who make me want to avoid this forum even if I did manage to catch up and read every single Star Trek novel ever written. It's your attitude that offends me. Stop treating me like I'm one of the other people you're screaming at. All I've said is: 1. I rarely come here. 2. I prefer to post in threads about books I've already read, and get upset if those threads include spoilers about books I have not read (ie. books that aren't the topic of the thread). 3. For various reasons both financial and location-wise (I don't live in a major city and it takes stuff longer to get to the stores here, especially since we've only got 2 new-book stores, they carry only a fraction of the stock they used to, and the 2nd-hand bookstores aren't taking ST books), it's not easy to get new ST books AND read them within the 6-month time limit imposed here. 4. I've said that I think 12 months is fairer, since we're not all rich, we don't all own Kindles, we don't all have access to libraries that have the latest ST books in right away, we don't all have access to bookstores that carry more than a half-dozen ST books at any one time (since they do more business online now, they figure what's the point in having the physical book in the physical store), or if they do carry them it still takes longer to get the books in to the smaller centres. 5. Because the 12-month suggestion isn't on the poll, I couldn't vote. Will this ruin my day? No. It's just how the issue is for me.
Why should the limit be 12 months rather than 6? Why not 2 years, or 5 years? As I've repeatedly said, the only truly "fair" thing to do is to spoiler code everything, which I think is ridiculous.
I wasn't talking about you. I was referring to another poster's repetition of a tired rhetoric. Once again, I wasn't referring to you. That's what you're not getting. My comments were directed at another poster who continually whines about board policy because he believes he's more qualified to run this site than the people who actually do it. Finally, the poster in question wasn't questioning a decision that hadn't been made. He was complaining about a rule-change that had already been made that you were apparently unaware of. It's not my fault if you aren't aware of any decisions made by the moderators. They do an excellent job of making any changes to board policy known to this site's regular users. If you weren't aware of the revisions in spite of this, that's hardly their fault or mine. Familiarizing yourself with the rules and regulations of a message board before posting there is your responsibility. If you're not comfortable with that, I don't know what else to tell you. And I haven't been ranting at "the rest of [you]." My primary target in my posts has been a single poster who happens to be intensely disliked by a number of other members here, myself included. It's his attitude I have a problem with. I never said I had a problem with you. Nor have I ever said that I was. If I had done that, I'd have been punished by now. Nice try, but no. I'd be a hypocrite if I questioned the mods decisions after telling other people not to do it, but I've never had a problem with any of the rules or regulations of this site. You know what I find offensive? That you're taking me to task for something that I never posted. Below is the passage you just quoted in it's original form. As you can see, I never said that. Someone else did. You quoted me by mistake. See? That user is not me. It's someone else. Your beef lies elsewhere. If you actually take the time to read my responses to you, you'll see that I haven't done that at all. As I've explained, I've taken issue with comments made primarily by one poster (not you) who regularly posts in this sub-forum. I've included my responses to your previous posts below to illustrate my point. None of them was an attack on you. I've re-read both of these posts and find them both to be reasonable. Neither one is or was intended as an attack against you. As I said earlier in this post, I think your beef lies elsewhere. I've not attacked you. That you have the impression I've done so is based in part on the fact that you mistakenly quoted another poster's words as my own. --Sran
Perhaps every time you post a spoiler, you should also post three fake spoilers, and every time you respond to a spoiler you have to respond to all of the fake ones too. Then even if someone reads it, whichever one is plot relevant will still be a surprise.
^I can see it now. In the next installment of The Fall, will Captain Sisko... Spoiler: The Fall crash the Robinson into a planet? Spoiler: The Fall play baseball with Jake? Spoiler: The Fall or challenge General Martok to a drinking contest? Spoiler: The Fall Signs point to him doing all three! --Sran
^I'm waiting for JWolf to come here and claim we're mocking him because of the spoiler buttons. --Sran
I think what you are doing is being childish because you don't want to use spoiler codes and this is your way of acting out.
Discussing use of spoilers is fraught enough without being getting personal - stick to discussing the subject please.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm against the idea of spoiler codes for everything all the time, which is the only "fair" thing to do with discussions of any Trek lit. No one has read all of the novels, short stories and comics. Therefore, the only thing to do that will please the spoiler-averse posters here is to spoiler code everything that is posted. If you think that's reasonable, by all means, do so. Just don't expect many people to participate when they see a forum full of threads spoiler coded so that they need to click to see every insignificant little post.
My only point was that when it does happen, someone should be able to flag that post and have a mod fix it. Like we used to. And that part of the rules should say 'be considerate about this'. Yes, it's silly that we need that, but the attitudes of some in this thread have made it clear that intend to follow the rules to the letter and show no consideration to others at all unless they are told they have to by a mod. Someone came right out and said as much. My apologies, as I mentioned I've been off the board because of the spoiler issue for a good while, only checking in periodically. I hadn't realised that this issue had already been discussed and debated in the context of coming up with a new rule. If you could link me to that discussion I'd appreciate it. The problem is that the argument is that people like me have left the board because of these issues. By definition, the current board is only going to contain people who don't have a problem with the way things are at the moment. As for statistical evidence: I'm fairly sure this board is less busy now than it was five years ago.
"The problem is that the argument is that people like me have left the board because of these issues. By definition, the current board is only going to contain people who don't have a problem with the way things are at the moment. As for statistical evidence: I'm fairly sure this board is less busy now than it was five years ago." As they'd say on Wikipedia - Citation Needed.