Spoilers in Books: A Discussion.

[JWolf]

Where the danger lies for me is if I'm reading a thread about a book I've already read, and a recent post from someone who's further along could say, "This reminds me of what happened in the novel that came out last month..." and then they proceed to give away plot points about something recent in a thread that's actually about something else. THAT is what I object to. It's inconsiderate.

What's inconsiderate is thinking that the rest of the posters must stop and consider you first before posting. What makes you think people like me want to post here if we have to walk on eggshells to avoid offending you?

It's not walking on eggshells to use a spoiler code, it's called being polite.

 

[Pavonis]

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?

 

[JeBuS]

the TARDIS was spotted in DTI: Watching the Clock

My apologies to Halliwell

Son of a bitch. That's the worst spoiler to know. Now the book is ruined!

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

It's not walking on eggshells to use a spoiler code, it's called being polite.

It is walking on eggshells if someone forgetting to do it means we're subjected to more of your ranting.

--Sran

 

[Shane Houston]

the TARDIS was spotted in DTI: Watching the Clock

My apologies to Halliwell

Son of a bitch. That's the worst spoiler to know. Now the book is ruined!

No need to apologize.

 

[Timewalker]

It wasn't the spoiling of books, it was the attitude of "Disagree with the decision BEFORE it's made, and forever after, shut up" that was being compared to slavery.

I should explain my point in saying that. I don't have a problem with debate and discussion about a particular topic. But I think it's inappropriate to constantly question the decisions of other people when they have shown themselves to be thoughtful and considerate. I used to be a member of a forum whose moderators were quick to stamp out any dissent by issuing warnings, bans, and numerous "my way or the highway" speeches that alienated several longtime posters, myself included.

I've not found the mod staff at this site to be that way. Every action I've seen them take has been carefully considered before being undertaken. This includes their decision about the rule of six-months for mandatory spoiler tags when discussing novels. It's perfectly acceptable to question the wisdom of a decision before it's made. But once the decision has been reached and implemented, it is the responsibility of everyone to stand the behind the decision and support it.

If people believe that a decision has been improperly or without consideration for all factors involved, the best approach would be for these individuals to present the moderators with new information that may facilitate new discussions and the implementation of a new policy. My problem with the way this situation has been handled is that the moderators have made a decision that- at face value- seems to be fair. But those opposed to the decision have insisted on repeating the same rhetoric they were using before the decision was made instead of presenting the moderators with information illustrating why the six-month rule doesn't work (as suggested by another poster).

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.

Have consideration and forget any such "it's OK after six month to ruin books for others rule". Is anyone going to follow this rule or are you going to use spoiler codes because it's the right thing to do?

It's not your place to tell other people what's right or wrong where this forum is concerned. You're not a moderator and are no more important than any other poster here.

... Who are you to tell other people how to behave when you've no authority to do so?

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?

Did you ever watch the Columbo movies? The suspense in those wasn't in finding out "whodunnit" - that's shown from the get-go. In those movies, the suspense is in following Columbo's investigation, trying to spot the one tiny detail - the one little mistake - the murderer makes that tells Columbo who he/she is. Who cares if the murderer is usually the special guest star? The suspense is in the story itself. I'd have been quite upset if someone had blabbed the solution to Columbo discovering that (in one episode) William Shatner did indeed kill the victim. We know that happened. What the audience wants to know is how Columbo figured it out.

No, I never liked Columbo. Where's the mystery when the crime is shown explicitly, but the "little details" aren't actually shown to the audience? There isn't even the possibility of Columbo not figuring it out. So then it's just a tedious story of how the famous detective caught yet another killer. Woo-f-ing-hoo. B-O-R-I-N-G!

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).

...But secondly, it was a way of drawing the audience in further: "You have experienced this mystery, and now you know the answer. This makes you special, in that you know something the rest of the people don't. By knowing the answer from watching the play, you're a participant in the solution, and that's a wonderful thing. Please don't deprive others of this same special feeling."

Ugh. Keeping secrets doesn't make people special.

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.

So why would you spend time on a bulletin board reading about the books you've not been able to find, buy and read?

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.

This is one reason why I rarely post in this forum. There are approximately 10 years' worth of ST novels I haven't read, and even though I have many of them now, there was a time when I couldn't even afford them second-hand nor could I get to a library to borrow them. So I'm hopelessly behind. And I do the responsible thing and stay out of threads where I know people are talking about these books.

What is "ten years' worth" of novels? Ten novels, or a thousand novels? How fast do you read? And do you really think catching up is realistic at this point?

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.

Where the danger lies for me is if I'm reading a thread about a book I've already read, and a recent post from someone who's further along could say, "This reminds me of what happened in the novel that came out last month..." and then they proceed to give away plot points about something recent in a thread that's actually about something else. THAT is what I object to. It's inconsiderate.

What's inconsiderate is thinking that the rest of the posters must stop and consider you first before posting. What makes you think people like me want to post here if we have to walk on eggshells to avoid offending you?

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.

 

[Pavonis]

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.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

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.

I wasn't talking about you. I was referring to another poster's repetition of a tired rhetoric.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Well, guess what: YOU are not a moderator, either.

Nor have I ever said that I was.

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.

If I had done that, I'd have been punished by now.

Hypocrisy, much?

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.

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.

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.

What's inconsiderate is thinking that the rest of the posters must stop and consider you first before posting. What makes you think people like me want to post here if we have to walk on eggshells to avoid offending you?

See? That user is not me. It's someone else. Your beef lies elsewhere.

Stop treating me like I'm one of the other people you're screaming at.

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 agree with this and think people need to use common sense when it comes to discussing information in other novels that aren't directly related to the thread in question. Having said that, I don't believe that people purposely avoid doing this in an effort to be rude. People make mistakes and forget. It happens.

I should explain my point in saying that. I don't have a problem with debate and discussion about a particular topic. But I think it's inappropriate to constantly question the decisions of other people when they have shown themselves to be thoughtful and considerate. I used to be a member of a forum whose moderators were quick to stamp out any dissent by issuing warnings, bans, and numerous "my way or the highway" speeches that alienated several longtime posters, myself included.

I've not found the mod staff at this site to be that way. Every action I've seen them take has been carefully considered before being undertaken. This includes their decision about the rule of six-months for mandatory spoiler tags when discussing novels. It's perfectly acceptable to question the wisdom of a decision before it's made. But once the decision has been reached and implemented, it is the responsibility of everyone to stand the behind the decision and support it.

If people believe that a decision has been improperly or without consideration for all factors involved, the best approach would be for these individuals to present the moderators with new information that may facilitate new discussions and the implementation of a new policy. My problem with the way this situation has been handled is that the moderators have made a decision that- at face value- seems to be fair. But those opposed to the decision have insisted on repeating the same rhetoric they were using before the decision was made instead of presenting the moderators with information illustrating why the six-month rule doesn't work (as suggested by another poster).

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

 

[Elias Vaughn]

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.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

^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

 

[DonIago]

Tsk, you forgot to include...

Spoiler: Will Captain Sisko?

Stay at home and watch television?

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

^I'm waiting for JWolf to come here and claim we're mocking him because of the spoiler buttons.

--Sran

 

[Shane Houston]

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.

Bravo, sir! That's EXACTLY what we should do.

 

[JWolf]

^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.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

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.

Good luck trying to prove that.

--Sran

 

[DonIago]

I'd discuss how this is going to end, but I'm too lazy to spoiler-tag it.

 

[trampledamage]

^I'm waiting for JWolf to come here and claim we're mocking him because of the spoiler buttons.

--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.

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.

Good luck trying to prove that.

--Sran

Discussing use of spoilers is fraught enough without being getting personal - stick to discussing the subject please.

 

[Pavonis]

...you don't want to use spoiler codes and this is your way of acting out.

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.

 

[Deano2099]

Where the danger lies for me is if I'm reading a thread about a book I've already read, and a recent post from someone who's further along could say, "This reminds me of what happened in the novel that came out last month..." and then they proceed to give away plot points about something recent in a thread that's actually about something else. THAT is what I object to. It's inconsiderate.

I agree with this and think people need to use common sense when it comes to discussing information in other novels that aren't directly related to the thread in question. Having said that, I don't believe that people purposely avoid doing this in an effort to be rude. People make mistakes and forget. It happens.

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.

It's perfectly acceptable to question the wisdom of a decision before it's made. But once the decision has been reached and implemented, it is the responsibility of everyone to stand the behind the decision and support it.

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.

Except that you've provided absolutely no proof that the rule doesn't work. You've only whined repeatedly because you don't agree with its existence. Another poster made an excellent suggestion that you and your supporters poll the members of this forum to determine what they think the best alternative policy should be.

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.

 

[DonIago]

"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.