LAST EDITED ON 11-08-10 AT 04:34 AM (EST)

KB,

As evidenced by the fact that I have been one of West Virginia's seven or so Republicans for over 45 long and lonely years, I am a fervent advocate of checks and balances. I don't think that - over time - any person or process performs well in an atmosphere of unrelieved uniformity. Or, put another way: I’ve never understood what the dickens everyone has against anarchy, anyway …

That said:

For several Seasons, we have been fortunate to have reliable sourced spoilers available to us. But, just as that hasn't always been the case, it may not always be the case. For instance:

Within the past week, because he was misinformed, Missyae was forced to retract some of the S22 information that he had earlier offered.

So I think that it would be wise of us to continue to develop and nurture multiple approaches to the task of spoiling Survivor. And because I think that the independent analysis of their subject matter can be compromised by the inclusion of sourced spoilers, I would prefer that two of this Forum's most frequently cited and broadly acclaimed analytical methodologies/threads - Editing and Vidcaps – be available in sourced-spoiler-free formats. But, because I consider diversity to be a good – stimulating and fun – thing, I would also more than welcome the presence of alternative Vidcap and Editing threads that encourage the inclusion of sourced information.

However, I think that the format of a thread is a call that most appropriately rests - not with an opinion poll - but with that thread's author. So, I agree, very whole-heartedly, with you: I don't think that an author of a thread posted in the Spoiling Forum should ever be expected/required to give notice to the reader that its content is pursuant to the Forum's reason for being. But, it appears to me that we are blessed with more than enough bandwidth to also accommodate threads by authors who prefer that the task at hand be approached sans a particular – or sans several particular – spoiling methods. And who say so – up front. As in a simple header that reads:

The author welcomes the participation of all. However, he/she does request that you not post or reference sourced spoilers in this thread. Thank you.

I also think, though, that the expression of that preference should never carry with it the unrealistic expectation that the author's wishes will always be the reader's command or the inference that contributions to the thread by any Forum member is – by virtue of his/her presumed state of spoiling - inappropriate. There is, in a public forum, no practical way to police - and no polite way to say - "shut up!"

In short: I, too, think that a limited number of civil requests is a much more efficient means of accommodating our broad range of talents than is a sea of - “Caution! There is salt in this ocean!” - warnings. And your suggestions are certainly far more palatable than the decree of a diaspora.

Thank you for making them.

"...Anarchy?" Hmmm. Now there's an interesting "Topic".

This discussion has gone around and around, snaking its way through multiple threads, and is, slowly but surely, making its way back to the beginning.

I think the original problem began with Vidcaps. FWIW, I agree that Vidcaps should have no "Sourced Spoilers" as everyone likes to LOOK AT THE PICTURES (human nature). Veruca's thread is sacred territory, and why take the time/trouble to write/ read the SOTS or Vote when you already know the outcome?

In and of themselves, "Sourced Spoilers" are not the problem. The problem is the proclivity of the Posters to make comments on threads that will spoil (sorry) the fun for lots of other people. I DO think the "Sourced Spoilers" should have some kind of warning. I am not sure why that is soooo hard.

OFG, I would think that you, of all people, would sympathize with the attitude of the "Un-Sourced Spoilers" feelings on this subject. I remember one season when you were watching weather forecasts and calculating rainfall to determine whether Survivors could be dehydrated. I was always amazed by the sheer volume of information you contributed to the Editing and Vidcaps, and none of it was "Sourced". I would purposely read your posts to see what you had come up with, along with those of other prolific posters, some of whom, I might point out, seem to have gone missing recently.

Again, take it FWIW. I admist to being a more casusal observer than the rest of you involved in this discussion.

>>> I think the original problem began with Vidcaps. FWIW, I agree that Vidcaps should have no "Sourced Spoilers" as everyone likes to LOOK AT THE PICTURES (human nature).

No, the problem has surfaced in other topics. The vidcaps thing was just a timely example.

>>> Why take the time/trouble to write/ read the SOTS or Vote when you already know the outcome?

I've yet to see a week that we knew everything. I rarely vote when everyone knows the boot. Actually I stopped voting regularly years ago, because when I played spoiler island, people would make picks based on my vote. At that time, long ago, when the sourced picks came out after the game lockdown, amazingly enough, people all too often copied my vote for purposes of games, so I stopped doing it.

>>> In and of themselves, "Sourced Spoilers" are not the problem. The problem is the proclivity of the Posters to make comments on threads that will spoil (sorry) the fun for lots of other people. I DO think the "Sourced Spoilers" should have some kind of warning. I am not sure why that is soooo hard.

Well, it is. We are not used to the sourced spoilers being segregated. We are used to being able to work in all the topics other than the Editing.

>>> OFG, I would think that you, of all people, would sympathize with the attitude of the "Un-Sourced Spoilers" feelings on this subject. I remember one season when you were watching weather forecasts and calculating rainfall to determine whether Survivors could be dehydrated. I was always amazed by the sheer volume of information you contributed to the Editing and Vidcaps, and none of it was "Sourced". I would purposely read your posts to see what you had come up with, along with those of other prolific posters, some of whom, I might point out, seem to have gone missing recently.

I don't understand the point. There is no group of Source-only spoilers here. We all do whatever it takes to figure it out, whether to research weather or put on our hip waders and slog through Sucks.

What I don't sympathize with is people who want to stay pure so that they can have a track record for picking based on editing, trying to shape the rest of the forum.

Maybe we should look at Veruca's behavior as a model. Many moons ago, she announced that she was going to stay unspoiled, and because of that, she would NOT BE READING other topics. Not the interviews, the vidcaps, the blog, the voting, the clues, nada.

Veruca would never dream of asking the rest of the topics to stay spoiler free in order to help her stay unspoiled. She knew what she needed to do, and that was to not read anything but her own topic.

>What I don't sympathize with is
>people who want to stay
>pure so that they can
>have a track record for
>picking based on editing, trying
>to shape the rest of
>the forum.

If this is addressed to me (and it sure looks that way because there's practically no one else posting in the editing thread at the moment), I'll have you note that I never said anything about any other thread than the editing. Knowledge from Source Spoiler was being passed as analysis so I called it for what it was.

The rest of the forum, I enter or not at my own risk. In THIS thread, I simply mentioned that vidcap analysis should be...vidcap analysis but I didn't demand anything, just suggested.
BTW, I don't give a damn about track records, I do it for fun.

As for the effort of writing a warning, I think it's much worse to have a season wasted than to write a simple warning.

>Maybe we should look at Veruca's
>behavior as a model.
>Many moons ago, she announced
>that she was going to
>stay unspoiled, and because of
>that, she would NOT BE
>READING other topics. Not
>the interviews, the vidcaps, the
>blog, the voting, the clues,
>nada.

But that was her choice. Are you imposing it on others? Anyway, that's what I've had to do this season. (And when I announced I wouldn't be reading your posts, you jumped all over me!!!!)

Still, I should point out that this does't quite match with "to Each his Own"?
Georgianna had a great post that should be read again.

Thank you for noticing, Michel.

G

What I was saying about Veruca was that she realized it was an exception to ask for an unspoiled topic of her own. She realized that she was the exception. She had no intention of opening the door to people complaining about spoilers in the forum because they had gotten used to having an unspoiled topic and then wanted to expand territory.

This whole debate is not centered on you, michel. You don't seem to realize that. It's about complaints that have been made in topics other than editing, topics you don't even seem to read. So how could you understand where I'm coming from?

>This whole debate is not centered on you,
>michel. You don't seem to realize that.
>It's about complaints that have been made
>in topics other than editing, topics
>you don't even seem to read.
>So how could you understand where I'm coming from?

I was ONLY refering to this previouscomment you made:

>What I don't sympathize with is
>people who want to stay
>pure so that they can
>have a track record for
>picking based on editing, trying
>to shape the rest of
>the forum.

Funny, I had quoted it to make it clear which topic I was refering to. That IS the editing thread.

Michel I believe you are the root of all this. I know I will get told about this but I believe in calling a spade a spade - I find your posts to be argumentative and condescending towards other posters.

LOL! I don't know if you are referring to something specific in this subthread or to things overall. In my view, re. things overall, the tensions have built for over a year, and missy or source spoilers in general aren't the sole cause of that, but I tend to view specific examples of those tensions boiling up as symptoms of the problem.

In some cases, yes, specific posting styles may be contributing factors as well. Michel is a valuable contributor but sometimes argumentative, and prone sometimes to making comments about other posters. That sort of thing should be avoided, if only because it tends to take threads off topic. It hasn't been helpful to have Veruca's thread go off topic in that way, obviously, but I have tried to view such matters as symptomatic.

Some things are better handled by PMs to the parties concerned, unpleasant as that may become, or even by alerts to the administration as a last resort (they are busy enough).

Or we could have designated controversy threads I suppose.

Welcome to the boards Rayne and thank you for noticing me!
PS: I think many would get offended at being called a spade.

Dabo, the comments based on spoilers is what took things off topic in Veruca's thread. We've argued a few times but I think I have always respected you. If anything offended you, it must have been a misunderstanding because I never meant to do that.

As for PMs, I got a very pleasant exhange with one poster and we buried the hatchet but my Peace offers by PM to another one have been ignored.

>>> my Peace offers by PM to another one have been ignored.

It was a nice offer (only one), but it required a thoughtful answer. At the time I received it, my grandson was going into a scary and long surgery. My whole family was a little absorbed with all that was going on.

As I said below, you never know what's going on in the life of someone when you send a PM, don't assume they have nothing to do but send a reply. By the time I was able to give it my attention, you had jumped on me in Veruca's topic, and after that silliness, I decided there was no point in trying to communicate. And judging by your last post, you still can't let it go.

I like discussions, but at some point our discussions became nothing but arguments. I don't care for discussing if every point is 100% rejected and we never get anywhere. We may as well just ignore each other.

I do hope your grandson has had a complete recovery or that he is well on the way.

At the time, we were exchanging 2 or 3 messages a day in the public forum so a peace offer by PM did seem like the right thing to do.

"By the time I was able to give it my attention, you had jumped on me in Veruca's topic"

Time stamps give this story: You posted in Veruca's thread on the 12th at 8:00AM (a very detailed, time comsumming post by the way and after I sent my peace offer) The post where I explained I saw it as a spoiler to Dabo was on the 15th at 9:00AM. I don't think my response or its timing constitute jumping on someone. It wasn't meant that way; I was just calling it as I saw it.

LAST EDITED ON 11-19-10 AT 05:52 AM (EST)

Here is why I find it hard to work anything out with you. I explained to you from my perspective some of what was going on with me in not answering your PM. I told Corvis more or less the same, and we were able to agree that life hands us bigger challenges than fighting over a word or phrase in a post about a TV show.

When I explained it to you, you did respond with the appropriate good wishes, but then you went and hunted up time stamps to refute my perspective as bogus. I cannot even explain my own reasons without you arguing that my take on my own motives cannot be right.

Lastly, you cannot even acknowledge that it is NOT REASONABLE for you to first say you will NOT read any of my posts and then you DO read my post and you complain about what you see.

I did not break Veruca's guidelines. I've asked her if I did and she said not at all. It is her topic, so why can't you simply ignore my posts as you promised you would, and stop complaining that I'm breaking YOUR rules when it is HER topic?

ETA remove personal information that was OT. This whole thing is not worth arguing about. I am done with it.

Look, I wanted to end this a long time ago. We are arguing over a simple television program but you make accusations that I do not appreciate.

I used time stamps to show that I didn't "Jump all over you" as was your accusation. The words I used also are far from jumping on someone.

A simple acknowledgment that you had received my PM would have done wonders and that could have been in the public forum. Note that it was out of respect that I did not mention who I had sent the peace offer to.

I can't avoid your posts when you put the subject in the title.

The tradition of the editing thread is "no spoilers allowed". The very definition of Speculation requires that one doesn't know what will happen. Writing "Shannon is dead" after episode 1, to me, was certainly based on spoiler information. The unanimous vote in Dabo's thread was proof.

I've enjoyed Survivor for 20 seasons and there are very few seasons left so having one spoiled is really not fun for me. That's why I've avoided all the other threads besides Veruca's. That's why I haven't made any demands regarding those threads. Writing SOTS used to be one of my favorite things to do but I can't do that with so much info out there. I would appreciate it if people who know don't reveal members of the F3 or make boot "predictions" in the only speculation thread we have.

I'm glad to hear that your grandson is doing well. That's the only truly important thing.

>>> The tradition of the editing thread is "no spoilers allowed". The very definition of Speculation requires that one doesn't know what will happen.

Look michel, I asked Veruca about it. She told me very clearly that the only thing not to go in the topic is a direct source spoiler. She told me that she has always expected that people posting in it are not only spoiled but influenced by what they know, and she welcomes their contributions.

She told me she was very surprised to see the controversy about the Shannon comment, as it certainly didn't bother her to see my posts and Squids. The controversy is what bothered her.

I cannot believe you are still going off about Episode 2 stuff.

You do not get to be the arbiter of what happens in Veruca's topic, not for me. She does.

LAST EDITED ON 11-19-10 AT 05:47 AM (EST)

>>> I can't avoid your posts when you put the subject in the title.

Yes you can. There are thousands of people who can't be bothered to read through my posts, and you could be one of them.

The title was "Revisiting Veruca's Comments on (Player's Name). That is NOT a spoiler! The only reason I redact the name here is because you keep repeating that it is one. In the context of that topic with no one making a fuss about it, it was nothing but an indication that I found Veruca's comments worth revisiting.

You did not need to read my thoughts in the post and I had every expectation that you would not read them, if you were honest in what you said about avoiding them.
"OFG, Squid and Belle, I’m sorry but I won’t be reading your posts."

If you cannot be taken at your word, that is not my problem.

LAST EDITED ON 11-19-10 AT 08:48 PM (EST)

It's always fun to start the weekend with good material to read.

I enjoyed reading this:

>"You did not need to read
>my thoughts in the post and I
>had every expectation that you
>would not read them, if you
>were honest in what you said
>about avoiding them.
>If you cannot be taken at your
>word, that is not my problem."

Because I remembered that you had written:

>I don't care for discussing
>if every point is 100% rejected
>and we never get anywhere.
>We may as well just ignore
>each other."

You wrote that 3 replies ago! Seems we can't resist each other! I had made that promise to no one but myself so I asked myself if it was time to break that promise and myself agreed.
But I am confused: You were upset when I said I wouldn’t read your posts and now you seem upset that I did read one. Which is it?

This one gave me even more pleasure:

>"The title was "Revisiting
>Veruca's Comments on (Player's Name).
>That is NOT a spoiler!"

Censoring the player's name is a wonderful way of proving my point. You know it’s a spoiler so you had to remove the name from this thread. Or are you going to swear that “player name” isn’t part of the F3?

Now, this:
>“I cannot believe you are still
>going off about Episode 2 stuff.”

I am still on episode 2 because I didn’t break my promise earlier. I avoided your responses to my posts after episodes 4, 6 and 7. Your persistence is admirable. Did you have fun writing I was wrong about Alina and Brenda? I told you I don’t mind being wrong, I mind being spoiled. I’ll read those posts after the season.

As for Veruca, I don’t know her personally but I feel she wouldn’t want to be an arbiter. Anyway, original posters, even Veruca, don’t own their threads. It is an open forum and only the moderators are arbiters. I never gave orders. I only said what I would do and that was to avoid reading your posts in response to my editing thoughts. I can certainly decide what I can or can’t do.
(Actually, I have not read a single direct response of yours to my editing thoughts; your F3 spoiler was in response to a whole curl of posts. You probably meant it mostly for me but I don’t want to be too presumptuous!).

Est-ce un adieu ou un au revoir?

Swearing the player isn't F3 would be just as much of a spoiler as swearing the player is F3, this argument is over as of now.

LAST EDITED ON 11-18-10 AT 02:15 AM (EST)

As I said above, I have been regarding various things as symptoms of a problem that has been growing for over a year, indicative of tensions on the forum. The incidents on Veruca's thread among them.

In the first instance you determined for yourself to no longer read posts on that thread from certain posters. As a decision for yourself you are entitled to read or not read anything you want, well and fine. You then elected to post on that thread about that decision, naming those whose posts you would no longer be reading. In terms of the focus of that thread that was entirely off topic and served no useful purpose.

I do not know that you had any motive in posting that; the generous view is that you wanted to inform those posters why you would not be responding to their posts (which could be done by other means), the ungenerous view is that you wished to affect how others reading that thread would view those posters and their posts, the middle view is that you just didn't think about it and there was no motive. In any event, some dozens of posts then resulted which could be deleted from that thread without losing anything in terms of discussions and observations about the editing of the show. I hated to see that thread go off topic in that manner. But it was symptomatic of systemic tension, in my view. We've all been getting a bit distressed.

>In terms of the focus of
>that thread that was entirely
>off topic and served no useful purpose."

The purpose was to say to those who knew what was going to happen that they could present their knowledge as speculation if they wanted but I wouldn't be buying. As for how it would affect other readers, I was thinking of those who venture into spoilers only for the editing thread and hate spoilers.

"I hated to see that
>thread go off topic in
>that manner."

I hated it also but I was attacked for stating my position.

The Vote Thread has an advisory already. Spoiling isn't banned there, spoilers are expected, but it is requested that spoiling be limited to the week in question. That's not a rule, it is a request. If anyone has any suggestions about how that might be reworded for more clarity, great, I'm open to suggestions.

Spoiling should be expected in the Spoiler Forum, but if the unspoiled want to create a discussion thread as a "Spoiler Free Zone", they should be welcome to do so. However, to be effective, it should be labled clearly, with the expectations for that thread clearly outlined up front. I'm sure the spoilers will do their best to respect that request within that thread.

Again, the burden of remaining unspoiled within the Spoiler Forum falls on the unspoiled. They should be responsible for creating and identifying their "safe havens" within this Forum. We spoilers will, of course, do the best we can to accommodate them.

Krautboy

Hey, see what I did there! This post off the main post has a sub-heading subject, this sub-section could be devoted entirely to a topical vidcap threads discussion. That is an example of one of the things we can do here at Blows, how we can take advantage of the threaded programming here, employ an option we have here that isn't available on other sites. Nothing against those sites but wading through page after page of sequentially arranged posts is not condusive to certain types of sanely organized discussions. I'll get back to this.

Okay, consensus. Consensus is basically just a general agreement or understanding about how things are, how we do things. We've had that in the past and we need to get back to having that. That's what I meant by consensus. It doesn't have to be formalized as a contract or anything, the consensus we had before resulted from evolution in the forum as much as from having some guidelines about comportment from AyaK and Webby.

The past is important, I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. It formed us here. Blows went from a very chaotic spoiling site to a very organized spoiling site, it took intent and discipline and some investment in rules, making it work, to do that. And it doesn't have to be complicated; it just has to be understood, and we each have to have the discipline to follow it.

Krautboy has some good suggestion above, some easy things to do and be organized and disciplined. Spoiler warnings in a spoiler forum were always a bit insane, it is after all a spoiler forum. Want a Speculation Only thread each week, that could work, just make it clear it is the weekly Speculation Only thread. We could actually have a few more definitions and hopefully not get too complicated. Veruca's editing threads are actually Analysis threads, we stay on topic in those threads because we understand it is about the editing, what we've already seen. Are there more breakdowns we could consider?

Okay, back to vidcap threads! With the sub-headings we can break weekly vidcap threads into two sections without having to have duplicate threads. How could we work it? Good question. Whoever starts the thread could then immediately post one sub-heading, Visual Analysis Only Section. And then post another sub-heading, Full-On Spoiling Below This Point! Yeah, you might want to come up with a better way of saying that. Anyway, done this way everyone would be able to open the vidcap threads and get what they want from them, it just takes the discipline to make it work.

Would this be too complicated? Well, actually, yes, it might be; and it is not a model of how every thread could be done. With just one promo it could work fairly easily, but more promos come out each week and other visuals, photos, are released each week. So, yes, it could be too unweildy to really work. Maybe we could try it for a week or two and see how it goes, see if it can work, find out what other bugs there may be in the prototypes.

And I'll be honest with you here about something: My least favorite solution is a Speculation Forum. I like having everything organized, I really do, but I also like having it all here where I can find it. But that's me and, hey, that's on the table for discussion as well.

It would be way too complicated, dabo. Please don't even go there with a compartmentalized Vidcap topic. We can't even keep it organized as to the different promos and challenges.

There seems to be a misconception floating around that there are vidcap spoilers and there are spoilers who read sources, and that if we run out of sources, we'll have turned away the pool of people who do non-sourced analysis.

This doesn't bear up under scrutiny. Look at who is doing the heavy lifting in the vidcap topic. All people who also read sources. These are the people doing the analysis, but being told to censor their thought process.

A complaint was made by someone who did not make any contribution to the analysis, who was only reading. That is ridiculous. People here are spoiling for the sake of the process and the results, not performing a public service to non-contributors. Readers are WELCOME as long as they don't tell people what they can and can't say!

Well I thought it was a great idea.

"That is ridiculous." Hmm, so much for the respectful environment we all say we like so much.

"Readers are WELCOME" uh, maybe not so much.

I won't be missing much anyway. I've had to stop reading many of the threads and some people who were otherwise interesting. Whatever.

Sorry, I respect the poster and welcome everybody. But I think it is wrong to stand outside a group of people who are doing work, and say "do this work" because I like it but "don't add this to the work" because I don"t want to see it." I would never do that if I wanted to go unspoiled, thus I labeled it ridiculous that we even need to address it.

I'd like to see some comments from people who actually work on the vidcaps as to the functionality of the proposal. Is that so odd?

Again, I refer everyone to Veruca as a model of the person who decides to go unspoiled, who contributes to the community, and who never complains about what people do outside of her own insulated corner.

Thank you. OFG and I are old friends here at Blows, we know we can still be friends at the end of the day. She knows I am somewhat literally minded and took no offense.

I don't think it is ridiculous but I do realize it would be clunky. The people who have started vidcap threads can tell you first hand, it is a clunky process posting all those vidcaps, and it replicates every time there is a new promo or batch of photos to bring over. Duplicate vidcap threads wouldn't be any less clunky in that respect.

So, I see an advantage in keeping it to one vidcap thread a week with a discipline for strict visual analysis in one section and open spoiling in another section. That is a more complicated way of doing it, and it very well could prove to be too complicated to sustain.

Anyway, a blanket thank you shout-out to all the people who post vidcap threads, that is a lot of work. Every single time.

It is indeed work, and I thank FlowerPower for being there so consistently, and Squid for picking it up when FloPo isn't around. Three cheers!

The reason I am cynical about the partition idea is I've already seen on threads like the missyae topic how convoluted and hard to follow the topics get when people try to organize sections.

If I balk at separate conversations, it may be because I already follow 5 or 6 separate conversations about Survivor, follow and contribute, not to mention emails. That can't be helped from board to board, but to have fractured discourse going on within one topic and one forum seems unnecessarily complicated to me.

>"Look at who is doing the heavy
>lifting in the vidcap topic.
>All people who also read sources."

Maybe, just maybe, vidcappers are only those that are aware of Missyae's spoiling because others know not to enter there anymore. If this community was in full growth, I'd understand but, as far as I can tell, the number of posters has greatly decreased over the years so maybe something is wrong.

For some reason, I was reminded of Clay's funniest moment.

>>> Maybe, just maybe, vidcappers are only those that are aware of Missyae's spoiling because others know not to enter there anymore.

I don't think so. This is week 9 and everyone who knows stuff has been quiet until now, and there hasn't been anything remotely like a boot list discussed there.

Some people haven't been enjoying the casting.

There's another group of people who love to spoil and play the fantasy games. They know they cannot be competitive unless they choose to seek out all the knowledge, so maybe they decide not to play, and choosing not to play dampens their interest in doing the spoiling. Or they don't want to spoil knowing that a bunch of people know the outcome already and it seems not so worthwhile as it used to.

Those people are discouraged because very thorough spoilers exist, not so much that they exist in certain topics.

Um, I haven't gone to the vidcap threads because I was afraid of seeing source spoilers so I don't contribute to figuring vidcaps out. I can't imagine I'm the only one. To say that the only people who do vidcap analysis is the spoilers who use sources is to ignore the fact that there hasn't been a safe place for spoilers who don't use sources to do vidcap analysis. Now maybe the vidcap thread is a safe one - I don't know but I certainly can't count on it.

I would love a vidcap thread that was clear of sources. But I'm just one person and would never think of trying to remake this board into something just for me.

Hi Corvis: It seems to me that Vidcap analysis is a spoiling area that is pretty easy to do without involving sourced spoilers. It is much more objective in nature and involves less speculation than other areas.

Why don't we just try it next week as a "Sourced-Spoiler Free Zone" and see how it works?

Start the thread, label it clearly, outlining the expectations for posters, and let's give it a shot!

Krautboy

Ditto this. I don't see why source spoilers would need to be referenced in the vidcap analysis. The thread by nature has a very narrow focus: What can we determine from these images?

I think for the most part, vidcaps are safe to go into, if you don't mind knowing that week's boot...although I assume I may see something I don't want to know yet... For example, last week, someone wrote some missy info about more than this week.

Is there a white-out feature -- i don't know what you call it -- where you have to highlight the blank area to see the text??
Would missy-spoiled people be willing to use that feature in vidcaps if they want to make comments about longer-term spoils?? Then you only need 1 thread.

hidden text. scroll over this post to find the hidden text.
Here's Waldo!
Just put in square bracket "font color="dddddd"
then text of message
then in square brackets "/font"
Here's Carmen!
You can click on "reply with quotes" on any post to see the coding (if any) used in that post. but not in locked threads of course

I wouldn't want to know the week's boot and would stay out of the vidcap thread if that was going to to discussed there. I imagine there are others who feel the same way.

LAST EDITED ON 11-10-10 AT 11:39 AM (EST)

It would only work if people didn't reference source spoilers in those threads. OFG, for one, is arguing that that is impossible. And below, rachel said it'd be okay if you don't mind knowing the boot for that week. I would mind.

(And for me, it's moot for the rest of this season anyway because I inadvertently saw 2 of the Final 3 for this season in the interview thread - my fault - don't blame anyone else - this is the spoiler forum).

Honestly, while I would like to come to consensus, I don't think that's possible. OFG is too determined to make this a place where sources are discussed in all threads (except Veruca's) and fighting with her about it is really unpleasant for me. After this season, I'll most likely leave again and even avoid innocuous threads like the interview one from now on.

LAST EDITED ON 11-10-10 AT 11:09 AM (EST)

And I'm sure many peoples' heads just exploded. I mean: How can anyone possibly know what it is that someone else doesn't want to know?

Vidcaps are useful for trying to pick out certain things, like who ends up on what tribe after a switch. But promos are source spoilers really, they just happen to come from CBS and have a different context from missy spoilers and so on.

So, instead of trying to readjust the vidcap threads, how about we have weekly Speculation Threads but they can include vidcaps for purely visual analysis? Those threads could be sub-sectioned, other things could be included, like if I continue doing the confessional counts I wouldn't mind copying those into the Spec threads as well. Some weeks these threads might be clunkier than other weeks, perhaps, but we could give it a try and see how it works.

Then the problems are

1) What should be included in those threads, ie. what should the sub-sections be?

2) Who is going to do the work to bring what material into those threads? It really isn't fair to expect FloPo or Squid to duplicate their efforts if they don't want to volunteer to do it, and it is work.

Let's do appreciate the work that has to go into things, by the way. It isn't just vidcaps that are work, SOTS are work, the effort put into the editing thread is work, this stuff takes some dedication and determination every week.

LAST EDITED ON 11-10-10 AT 12:28 PM (EST)

Corvis, I just read through the last three vidcap threads, and there is no mention of the spoiled boot in any of them. Not one mention. So I don't know where rachel got the idea that there are boot spoilers in the vidcap threads.

The only inclusion of a source spoiler was regarding this week's immunity winner, but, as has been pointed out, that was spoilable from the vidcaps anyway. One direct quote from missyae was posted in the Ep 7 thread but it merely pointed out that the promos were showing two challenges and said the reward would be horseback riding.

Everything else was entirely about the content of the images and what could be discerned from them. No boot spoilers, no challenge winner spoilers, just vidcap analysis.

So if people as a matter of course are refraining from mentioning spoilers in the vidcap thread without even (apparently) thinking about it, I don't see why it can't continue to be done in general practice and out of courtesy to those who want to remain unsourced. Krautboy thinks it's feasible, and so do I.

(edited to re-add the rest of my original post, which for some reason disappeared in transit.)

Hi BR, one of the (minor) boot spoilers were apparently edited out after a poster reacted to reading it. Someone's final placement was inadvertently mentioned to help solidify a point that was made in the thread.

Hi Brownroach,

This exchange below in my mind shows that talking about source spoilers, namely missyae, does happen in the vidcap thread. Before editing, kiki posted the next 2 boots. And then OFG says quite clearly who the episode 10 boot will be.

I want to be extra-clear that I am not mad at anyone for doing that. It's the spoiler forum. I get that.

Maybe this week was an aberration, but as OFG says in that thread:

"It is the spoiler forum. Is there something in the guidelines that says no long term spoilers in the vidcaps topic?"

The answer to her question is, of course, no.

Corvis

I have removed the names of the Survivors people are talking about in the part of the thread I copy and pasted below so folks won't be spoiled reading it. But if you want to be extra careful, don't read any further.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

kiki_k 829 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Fitness Correspondent"
11-04-10, 05:33 PM (EST)

2. "RE: Ep 8 Vidcaps"

LAST EDITED ON 11-04-10 AT 08:17 PM (EST)

I'm pretty sure missyae said XXXX wins one IC -- I'm pretty sure this is the one XXXX wins.

eta: to take out boot list spoilers.

Slider 19 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Got Milk? Spokesperson"
11-04-10, 07:05 PM (EST)

6. "RE: Ep 8 Vidcaps"

Hey,TMI. Not all of us in this thread want to know the next 2 boots.

Outfrontgirl 5288 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
11-04-10, 09:29 PM (EST)

8. "RE: Ep 8 Vidcaps"

It is the spoiler forum. Is there something in the guidelines that says no long term spoilers in the vidcaps topic?

We know from spoilers that XXXX wins an immunity before YYYY goes, and XXXX hasn't won one yet.

We also know that ZZZZ gets booted next time.

BR!!! I can't believe you doubted me!!
(Insert DRAMA here)

ha ha ~~ just kidding!! ;) ;)

Happy SURVIVOR Day everyone!!

I absolutely admit to putting the spoiler back in that kiki edited out after the complaint. That is, I never saw kiki's post prior to editing, but I gathered that's what she mentioned. My point was that in this case the spoiler gave us a framework and was useful in conjunction with the vidcaps.

I have been watching what I say in the Vidcaps topic, and that wouldn't have been posted by me if not that the complaint didn't have a guideline to stand on, and it irritated me.

"I have been watching what I say in the Vidcaps topic, and that wouldn't have been posted by me if not that the complaint didn't have a guideline to stand on, and it irritated me."

Just wanted to emphasize this statement for everyone as a reason why the nice idea of a vidcap thread with no mention of sources just won't work. If you irritate OFG, watch out, she'll spoil the upcoming boots whether you like it or not.

And this is not whining. She has every right to do what she did, according to the rules of the forum. And I'm sure she'll continue to do it.

Especially if you irritate her.

No, if there's an actual consensus among the group not to post spoilers there, I'll respect that. What irritated me was having someone with 15 posts, who doesn't contribute, coming out of the woodwork and telling kiki it was TMI -- when there was NO rule and NO consensus, and kiki's post totally belonged in the context as confirmation of the vidcap analysis.

One of my issues with this idea about vidcaps, is that the kind of additional ground we could spoil will be left unsleuthed. Sure we will get information A. But we are not allowed to add Sourced Information B to A, which could get us to C. Some people may enjoy stopping at A, but I'm playing for C.

There's a Dr. Seuss book about that, I think it's called On Beyond Zebra, about not wanting to stop at Z.

>>Sure we
>will get information A.
>But we are not allowed
>to add Sourced Information B
>to A, which could get
>us to C.

OFG, you know that there is no one preventing you from using Information B. If B is common knowledge among those reading Missyea then, knowing A, there should be no need to repeat Information B in the thread containing A to get to C.

The collective process needs for all the available information to be on the table, michel, if it's to go as far as it can.

You are wrong about this in part because you don't know what it's like to have to remember stuff from a topic that long and unorganized. You have this idea of common knowledge. Some is well remembered, some half-remembered, some slips out of people's awareness.

I sure don't sit down and review that topic with my morning coffee.

See, the thing that bugs me is when someone who doesn't even look in these topics makes assumptions of what's there and what people know. If you haven't been reading, you have no idea, because it's in a very different format than any season before now.

Sorry to bug you but the "collective" process isn't going to be helped by telling someone who doesn't want to know. They aren't part of he collective. Info A could just as easily be lifted from the vidcap thread and brought to the thread that has info B to get to C. Why does B have to be brought to A? I don't need to read a thread to use logic.

And, again, I know that there's nothing to prevent your way of proceeding, that it's the way the forum is set up. I just mentioned this because Dabo asked for suggestions. Suggestions aren't meant to bug anyone especially when there's no way to enforce them.

LAST EDITED ON 11-10-10 AT 05:49 PM (EST)

Okay, sorry for the mistake, I didn’t see the post with the boots before it was edited. Also, in counting back I missed the previous vidcap thread (also labeled Episode 8) because I was confused by the episode numbers.

*** we interrupt this post to point out that both this week and last week were labeled Episode 8 on the forum. Tonight’s ep is actually Episode 9 ***

So I went through the vidcap threads all the way to Episode 1. Out of a total of 267 vidcap thread posts, only 4 posts referred to missyae spoilers (I am excluding the two posts in this week's thread for this discussion), each in a different week's thread. One included the Ep's boot, which was apparently deleted later; one included a non-specific longevity spoiler and a game-related spoiler; one included the week’s IC winners; and one, which I mentioned above, spoiled that there would be two challenges and also the horseback riding reward.

In no case was there further discussion of the missyae info in the vidcap thread; it was confined to a single post. And, the info did not add to the vidcap discussion in a way that its absence would have made a difference (imo).

4 out of 267 is less than 2% of the posts. If 98+% of the time people aren’t referring to or discussing source spoilers in the vidcap thread anyway, is it really such an inconvenience to not do it at all?

I wrote the above in response to what Corvis said but since ofg posted in the interim I would like to address her comments too, though it may have to wait until later as I am a bit swamped. But, quickly -- yes the vidcap analysis was always supposed to help spoil the current week's boot, and that needn't and shouldn't change.

wow, I appreciate you doing that research, BR.

>>> 4 out of 267 is less than 2% of the posts. If 98+% of the time people aren’t referring to or discussing source spoilers in the vidcap thread anyway, is it really such an inconvenience to not do it at all?

Well, the numbers are skewed, because the lack of reference and discussion is a direct outcome of responding to disapproval. There's no way to know what the conversation would be like without the disapproval.

For example, I spoil with another group where I would say 100% of the topics make reference to spoilers as an organic part of the conversation, because no one there is going to have a fit. So yes, I have to completely change the way I express my thinking in order to frame it for the situation here, and I got sick of it because it wasn't fun, so that's why I started the conversation.

OK, I just caught up with this subsection. The problem with the vidcap topic for someone who doesn't want to know THIS week's boot, is that whether or not there are source spoilers mentioned, it's always been a focus of that topic to try to spoil the coming episode.

Going way back to the old OFG theory (if I may mention some history), that was nothing more than looking at who was featured and not featured in the promos and speculating on the boot. The vidcap topic has never been only about challenges; we use it in conjunction with the teasers and other info to spoil the ongoing week, and every so often to spoil future episodes when we get some footage.

Now it is true that the vidcap evidence will almost never show us, straight out, who is leaving, but the discussion is pointed at getting there.

This is true for people who want to do what Snidget and Oingo have termed "light" spoiling, going week by week, which would include CTGirl's preferred level of spoiling. I cannot see it ever being suitable for people who want to sit down and watch the episode with no clue about who's going home.

First thank you Dabo for starting this thread. I have been aware and have appreciated the little things you have done this season to try to make the Survivor forums fun again. We are in a tough situation because we all have different ideas – and no one is wrong – and it’s hard to come to a consensus. However, I feel I need to put my opinion in because I don’t just want to disappear. I think I am speaking for some of the people who have already stopped spoiling because I am about to follow that route.

To use LFJ’s analogy – the missy spoilers have created a virus in the spoiler forum. I don’t want to blame the people who follow them because it is common knowledge and they have a right to use that knowledge in spoiling but it has changed the tenor of the forum. I used to be a hardcore spoiler and now I don’t enjoy it at all and my participation has dropped off. I don’t care what the protocol was 10 years ago. Missy’s spoilers have changed the playing field and we need new rules to play by. My vote goes to making certain threads source spoiler free and to label threads where source spoiling is welcome.

I especially think sourced spoilers should not be allowed in vidcap threads. It makes us lazy; maybe someday missy will be wrong! It also keeps the people who are only trying to go week-by-week in spoiling from sharing in the fun. It’s too late to change this season, but at the minimum (if we have the same amount of spoilage for Russell vs. Rob) I would like to see threads labeled whether they were spoiler vs. speculation. A speculation forum would be great, but I know it takes a while for a new forum to be created and I don’t think there are enough people like me left to warrant it. A personal example of a recent experience I had in the vidcap thread. I misread a post (it was in reply to someone else, and I thought it was in reply to me) saying that it didn’t matter what *** had on in trying to see if *** was wearing the immunity necklace because missy already told us that *** had won immunity. I was trying to have a little vidcap fun but the sourced spoilers had already moved on. The reason why they’re doing all the heavy lifting is because there is nothing left for the non-source spoiled people left to do. The people who are following missy’s every word are driving other people away. Blows is not the same forum that it used to be. It seems to me that the pro-sourced spoilers are creating an all or nothing scenario and I’d like to see some compromise.

Thank you. I sometimes think I am the only one left with a healthy distrust of source spoilers. Missy has a good track record but so what, Zenyatta lost her last race, no one's perfect. And they aren't all coming from missy anyway.

I think you misread that post, CT, because I was the one who said it didn't matter if we could see the necklace clearly. However, what I said was not that it didn't matter because of the spoiler. I said it didn't matter because we had a clear view of everyone but that person at TC and could see *** was the only one who could be wearing it, by process of elimination.

Someone else added that there was a corroborating spoiler, but no one disparaged the vidcap analysis. I am sure everyone here enjoys a good vidcap spoiler. Mind you, I saw that shot on my TV when "next time" aired -- on my TV I could see very well that only one person could be wearing the necklace, and I didn't need vidcaps to know. CBS threw that one at us in high def wide shot of Tribal Council.

I do get frustrated by the limitations, because for one thing, the stuff I want spoiled doesn't get solved. I have numerous questions about what will happen next episode, that we could go after if people weren't unwilling to know the basic spoilers we have.

We need to present what we know in order to get more of the picture. I really want to know what happens on the episode. We haven't even come close to figuring out the teasers for this week.

Thanks CTgirl, wonderful post. Most worthy on a thread entitled to restore sanity I believe your words are providing an antidote!

Hello! I've been totally spoiled the last 2 seasons, and this season, I've been trying to not be "missy" spoiled. I said earlier about the SOTS, that I don't mind being spoiled for that week, but knowing the long-term boot list/final 3 at this point -- well, just trying not to... I feel like a newbie that shouldn't have a vote, but I'm one that has stopped reading a lot of stuff because I've seen info I didn't want to see, and I "don't go because I don't want to know"!

A speculation thread would be nice; However, I originally did seek out spoilers; I enjoy spoilers; So I assume I'll seek them out again. I have enjoyed spoilers that are figured out by people on this forum -- you know, seeing an immunity necklace around someone's neck or something like that; Just hearing a list from missy isn't as exciting to me at the moment...

So if no spec thread, how about having a vidcap thread with NO COMMENTS, then have two comments threads (yes, 3 threads for each week; perhaps too much...) One comment thread for missy spoiled people; and one for spec analysis? The problem is, for non-spoiled people, some comments made by missy spoiled people share too much -- they might not say exactly so-&-so is in the final 3 or something like that, but they hint, or agree with someone's spec, or give too much away when you read-between-the-lines, knowing the writer is missy spoiled....if you follow that?!?

Thanks to you all for all you do!! Rachel.

Welcome. You have a very good point, the voice-overs and dialogs aren't needed for the pure visual analysis of what is shown in vidcaps/photos. Or not shown, as in so-and-so is obviously not wearing the II in this TC shot. That stuff is very valuable in other respects, it is necessary to bring that material over as well. This is something FloPo and Squid should brainstorm about, since they've been doing the chores of bringing the stuff over.

Sometimes SEG/CBS do pull some weird editing stunts. Earlier this season, before the switch, there was a very confusing gang of five set promo'ed, and even when the episode aired it wasn't clear what portions were Benry-attended and what were Sash-attended. Since dialog can be lifted and inserted, it's just a very odd and difficult thing to analyze. In confessionals, as well, it is sometimes obvious that a bit here was lifted from some other time and inserted.

It has been inferred that READERS are not so welcome - I am not sure if that applies to opinions, or what? But, I will overlook that inference and say "CTGirl!" Nice to see a familiar "face" and have your input. You are right.

To Dabo: Yes. Thank you for trying to unravel this knot. That being said, the more I read, the more I see that several people have weighed in to say that they don't want to be "Source Spoilere(d)", and feel things were more fun - much more congenial, if you will, when some of the contributors were not slogging through all of missy's posts and bringing them over to this forum. That is not to imply that they have done so indiscriminately. or that they have done so without consideration. Nor, that the posts are not welcomed by some of the community.

In general, that leads me to this point. A strong and stubbornly held belief that is not completely based in reality can be very misleading and hard to discern. Confabulation can be very difficult to spot, IOW, but it is a great defense mechanism and often used to manipulate situations. It makes a "show" of reason where no reason exists.

Survivor Message Board Forums Conferences Moderator Forum Information

Survivor Fanatic Forum
For those fans who truly LIKE THE SHOW and care who wins the $1,000,000.

NOTE: Do not post any spoilers here -- they will be deleted and your account will be deactivated!

Survivor Basher Forum
This board is for those who came here because the show "blows" and would like a place to bash it

Survivor Spoilers Forum
Exclusively for the discussion of possible Survivor spoilers and their speculation

Krautboy

"Survivor Spoilers Forum
Exclusively for the discussion of possible Survivor spoilers and their speculation"

The inclusion of the word "speculation" suggeste the Forum provides for threads that are precisely for that purpose. The introduction of "Sourced Spoilers" into threads intended for speculation effectively terminates speculation. The two may be mutually exclusive, or incompatible at least. Just a thought.

Yes, speculation and spoiling have always been combined into this single forum. And even if we were to have a Speculation forum speculation would still be part of the spoiler forum.

I am not opposed to a Speculation forum being created here, but I will be honest and say that is not what I would prefer. If that is a result of all this, okay, I'll get behind it and let's all do the work to make it work.

Speculation in general, though, is just a term that encompasses pretty much everything that isn't a leak, a source.

There is a difference between speculation that is spoiler free and speculation about the spoilers. The possessive "their" in this clause clearly shows that speculation is to be about the spoilers.

the discussion of possible Survivor spoilers and their speculation

The use of "and" clearly shows it is not EITHER Spoilers OR Speculation. There is no language that excludes spoilers in any way. It is Spoilers PLUS any speculation that is productive regarding the spoilers.

This is a recognized rule of engagement on various forums. For example, The Fuselage for LOST had a forum for pure speculation that was Spoiler Free, and a Spoiler forum where speculation was only allowed if it was clearly tied to a spoiler.

Survivor Sucks has a Spec only forum, and in the Spoiler forum, all spec is to be based on a spoiler or Anti will delete the post.

Blows has always discouraged pure speculation in this forum. There used to be a resident flame-thrower to get rid of it. Obviously, vidcaps and promos and interviews which had the wherewithal to spoil the show were considered valid spoilers, and speculation analyzing these spoilers flourished.

As time went on, analyzing a player's "edit" gained enough recognition that it wasn't tossed as pure speculation. Corvis pioneered confessional analysis as spoiling. And so forth.

In sum, this forum has always been for spoilers, and anything that one can defend as being a useful spoiler has been allowed, along with spoiler-related speculation. It is not a Speculation forum!

If the mods want a speculation forum or if they decree that source spoilers need to be brought in wearing the HazMat suits and signs, that is their call.

"the discussion of possible Survivor spoilers and their speculation"

That is exactly why I do not make any demands on spoiler free zones outside the editing thread.

BUT, it has also been a long standing rule of thumb that 1 thread for 1 spoiler.

In other words: Missyae spoilers should be in the missyae thread, vidcaps spoilers in the vidcap thread. That enables one to get as much or as little info as one wants. Too bad that discipline gets equated to effort or that winning a game becomes more important than respecting your neighbour.

FWIW, Vidcaps are only spoilers because of CBS' laziness. They really are promos and therefore are a way to make people like the show, make them fanatics. Imagine if we'd bring vidcaps and our experts to Fanatics!!!!

"Blows has always discouraged pure speculation in this forum. There used to be a resident flame-thrower to get rid of it."

I'd enjoy Shakes' return!

well, we agree on part of this, anyhow, michel

I agree that promos should not be spoilers, but as I learned with LOST and I think you saw as well, some fans turn off the TV before seeing the "next week." How they avoid ads during the week I don't know, but the far end of Fanatics spectrum could be promo-free. I'm not sure; I've never posted there other than this little bit this season.

As far as I know, there is no 1 thread 1 spoiler rule of thump on Blows. That is a Sucks guideline. The rule here is not to duplicate topics, and the practice has evolved into minimizing the number of discussions while still having separate topics for media, print teasers, vidcaps, SOTS, votes, ECST, and topics that don't fit under the umbrella of the episode topics.

I would think you would know this, as you post at Sucks, but the one spoiler one topic rule isn't to prevent info from bleeding over. Not at all, and there is plenty of cross-discussion and comparison of spoilers.

The rule is for any person who claims to have a legit spoiler, to man up and start a topic, and to risk getting the topic locked and the poster banned if it is bogus. It is also a courtesy to other people with their own topics of their own spoilers, not to horn in on their place in the sun. The rule has absolutely nothing to do with protecting people from seeing information. There is no protection in Spoilers there, and until Veruca's topic came along, there was never any protection here.

>>> Too bad that discipline gets equated to effort or that winning a game becomes more important than respecting your neighbour.

I never said that. You are misinterpreting me.
btw, I do respect my unspoiled neighbors. Those would be the other forums, Bashers and Fanatics. I have never shown any lack of discipline and spoiled those forums. I object to the no spoilers in Spoilers Forum on principle. Look at the guidelines on suitable content for this forum.

But I don't think you need to, because you know as well I do what they say.

Of course Readers are welcome to say what they enjoy and don't enjoy, and how this forum serves them. What I ask readers to consider is whether it is right for spectators to dictate to people who are working, how to do their work. Whether it is right to say that's not much trouble, etc.. when they have never stood in the shoes.

This story comes to mind:
The Little Red Hen
Feel free to volunteer to write a SOTS or bring vidcaps over or collect the interviews or summarize the Insider, or post the weekly clues, volunteer to post the weekly vote topic. Contribute to the serious analysis week in and week out.

Until such point, while you have every right to say what you like and don't like about reading the forum, I don't think you have earned the right to tell the people who contribute the content to the forum how they should do it.

"What I ask readers to consider is whether it is right for spectators to dictate to people who are working, how to do their work. Whether it is right to say that's not much trouble, etc.. when they have never stood in the shoes."

Who has done this? Up to this point, just about everyone has engaged in civil discourse, without making any demands or dictating anything. Suggestions and comments have been made, questions asked - is that demanding and dictatorial? I suppose that depends on your perspective. Debate is healthy, and believe it or not, sometimes leads to improvment.

I cannot help but point out that during this "discussion" the adjectives "working", "sloshing" and "heavy lifting" have been used to describe spoiling. It doesn't sound like much fun.

LAST EDITED ON 11-09-10 AT 10:29 PM (EST)

The grunt work isn't fun, LFJ. It's kind of tedious. Is there a reward for the effort? Generally, yes, and that's why we do it.

Yes, the suggestions seem demanding even if those demanding don't see it as such. Do this work for us, provide content but censor yourself for our reading preferences. Make duplicate topics if you want to be able to use a topic that you start the way you would like to use it. Do twice the work while we read.

I never said there was anything wrong with debate.

ed to fix typo and shorten post.

Great post, LFJ!

I agree that this has been civil discourse.

Although, there may appear to be someone who has been overtly disagreeable, having overlooked part of Dabo's original request:

"2. No Fighting. This is a thread for conversation, maybe some healthy debate, it is not an invitation to square off and go 15 rounds. Disagreements may arise, try to keep it civil and respectful, there is no reason to be disagreeable."

But I will leave that for Dabo to decide, as this is Dabo's thread. A great one at that!

Please see my post #63, Aaron. dabo took on posting this as a continuation of a discussion I started. There can only be one topic per area of discussion, so that is why I am in a sense not feeling bound by dabo's rules, as they weren't part of the rules of Part One.

Obviously I feel bound not to exercise heavy sarcasm, flaming, name-calling, and so forth. I have found other posts here to be disagreeable, including the one you just made, as you put a label on me, i.e. you described me as "overtly disagreeable" -- which is making it personal.

I disagree vigorously with the idea that the Spoiler forum should be revamped to accommodate people who don't want to read spoilers, and despite the mandate dabo put on this topic to reach consensus, as I said I started this conversation, and I don't believe consensus is a reasonable goal in this particular situation. I base my disbelief on ten years of experience with watching this debate play out on various boards. I have never seen a Spoiler forum operate healthily and harmoniously with a restriction on sourced spoilers.

Hi OFG,

Should I ask you personally that you not shoot down my opinion each time I post something in a thread that asked my opinion? I really didn't think it was necessary. Even despite the first time I posted in this thread, although your response was personally picking apart my opinion. Maybe I misunderstood your comment in stating "I'll bow out now" in Post #8, so I didn't initially respond to you. But you now have 25 or so posts in this thread, and many of those posts are in quick response to rebuke someone's opinion. (I'm not labeling you, just simply stating it as I would see it) How respectful is this?

My perception is that this is Dabo's thread, and that's just how I see it. I'm really not in need to be convinced otherwise, so I'm not exactly sure why you would take it upon yourself to do so. I haven't read the aforementioned 'other' thread, nor do I have intentions of doing so. Something that I am witnessing here is that anyone can spend their time telling me or anyone else that something is otherwise, but that is not going to make it so. Or make the sky orange, or a fish a tree-swinging monkey, or Madonna, Tori Amos.

I'm happy to watch a show in which I can speculate about an editor's manipulation of these castaways, and I'm happy to see others spoil what the outcomes may be. I'm also happy to share my thoughts in "the thread to restore sanity" because I was asked to contribute. And I'm happy to make references to other posters BEHAVIOR when I perceive them to be lacking accordance to the lead poster's request. And I'm posting this now, because I'm still happy to do so.

But please, please, please can I ask you to respect my opinion? Can I ask that you not respond to my post by saying things like, I labeled you "Miss Lacking accordance", or saying "How dare you call Dabo mr Lead Poster - I think that term should be stricken from the history of the whole history" - truly, it's insulting. It feels attacking and disrepectful (note: what I am saying here is, I feel attacked and disrespected - no other insinuation to be inferred. What I state here, right now, is not about you, but about me and my feelings and my thoughts about them)

The ironic thing is that I hear you. I really hear you, and I agree with lots of your perspective. But the delivery, oh the delivery...

Just like on the show, we've all seen the loudest players, with repetetive insisting arguments, but that just doesn't make what they say automatically become what is, just because one's behavior is loud, repetitive and insistent, doesn't make something so.

All I can assess is what I see, and I'm likely to share it when given the opportunity.

Thanks again to Dabo for that opportunity, and for anybody who can even resonate slightly to what I'm stating here and trying to get across.

And more importantly than all this, I'm looking forward to the new ep tonight!

LAST EDITED ON 11-09-10 AT 02:42 PM (EST)

You have a very good point, the voice-overs and dialogs aren't needed for the pure visual analysis of what is shown in vidcaps/photos. Or not shown, as in so-and-so is obviously not wearing the II in this TC shot. That stuff is very valuable in other respects, it is necessary to bring that material over as well. This is something FloPo and Squid should brainstorm about, since they've been doing the chores of bringing the stuff over.

I don't think rachel meant not to post the voiceover and transcript, I think her idea was that people would not respond to the initial thread containing the vidcaps, but two secondary threads would be created for responses.

(I don't think multiple threads or multiple thread sections are necessary, though; as I said above I don't see why source spoilers can't easily be kept out of the vidcap analysis thread.)

Before I take off to do other stuff (yay for you guys), I want to clarify why I'm taking such a large part in this topic. It's because I started the conversation. At the point where dabo felt we needed a spoiler-free version, I happened to get sick, and I asked dabo if he would continue the conversation, if it could not wait until I felt better. But I expected that Part II would continue to address the concerns I laid out in Part I, which were shared by a number of people, and so far it has not.

Shile I know that some of you have read Pt I (LFJ, Oingo), because you commented in it, no one on the source free side has acknowledged any of the pro-spoiler comments that were made in the original discussion. Not one of you has addressed them.

I took the time to copy over the topic into a spoiler-free version, and I would like to hear responses to the feelings expressed there, because this is supposed to be all one conversation.

Spoiler Forum Protocol

I presume that dabo did not link Part I because a spoiler-free version didn't exist when he put the topic up.

End of the Innocence