Spoiler Free Army: SFA Call to Arms!!

[veneticuss]

I'm just happy it works when quoting also. That's the bit I was worried about at first!

Hey Anubis, i actually thought you do read spoilers.

[Anubis]

Hey Anubis, i actually thought you do read spoilers.

I do. But I don't read them without a warning beforehand!

[veneticuss]

I do. But I don't read them without a warning beforehand!

Well, if there is no warning, you cant know it is a spoiler

[Jprime]

Acting Insubordinate Officer Jprime reporting for duty SIR!

*Rimmer-salutes*

[SaharaGate]

Well it's awesome to see that everybody on the forum seems to have gotten right in the swing of using the new spoiler tags.

Unfortunately, it seems this has only gone halfway towards solving the spoiler problem.

So far, about 60% of instances where someone has used the tags, they have not mentioned what season or episode (or even which show: SG1 or Atlantis) the spoilers are for.

I'm afraid that doesn't really cut it. We are people who try to avoid major spoilers, no lepers. Therefore, there is no reason why we shouldn't be able to participate in discussions about episodes we've seen. We can't really do this if we can't tell what people are talking about.

So don't forget that we SFA members need to fight inadequate spoiler warnings, as much as their absence altogether.

When you see people using the spoiler tags ineffectually, please do one of the following:

Pm your favourite mod and ask whether they would mind reminding the person about the correct way to warn of spoilers.

Use the little exclamation mark to 'report bad post' to all the moderators currently online. Don't forget to say which thread/post/poster it is in and exactly what the problem is.

If you feel it is warranted, leave feedback for the person thanking them for remembering spoiler tags but asking them to indicate what the spoilers are for.

And when you've done one of those, you can come here and whinge about it to your hearts content.

I hear we have cake

[Jafana]

Actually to be honest, even with the new spoiler tags, I'm still pretty much avoiding the other threads besides off topic, for the most part anyway.

The other day I ran into (very mild) spoilers, which I pretty much already knew about..and simply gave up. clicked the close browser button and went away from the computer.

sigh.

But then, i've been rather sick too.. so that might account for my lazyness

[Major Fischer]

Is anyone else mildly annoyed when thred titles about a subject matter that is ... not typical of the show, and than the word spoiler, letting you know that at some point that object or person may show up in the near future.

((yes, there is a new thred up on one of the forums that I'm referring to, but trying not to do the same thing I'm complaining about)).

[Anthro Girl]

Is anyone else mildly annoyed when thred titles about a subject matter that is ... not typical of the show, and than the word spoiler, letting you know that at some point that object or person may show up in the near future.

I'm dying to know what you're talking about, but I shall refrain since I don't want to be spoiled. I don't mind that the spoilers are "out there", but revealing it in a thread title seriously irks me.

This sort of reminds me of my recent whine about a headline on GW. I think the mods disagree with me, but I'm not sure if they think I'm complaning about the content or existence of the "spoiler" (which I'm not).

[Jafana]

MF - I know exactly what you mean. And actually now that I've been spoiled for Threads (yes I know!! how can this happen?? My world is going to end!! - well, actually no, it's not. But still I didn't want to know what I know.)
I've noticed a number of spoilery kinds of thread titles. v. irritating really.

And AG - I don't think the mods really got what you were trying to say. I replied to that post, agreeing with it.. but I got the feeling that they thought you were asking that those sorts of things not be posted at all.. sigh.

we're all so misunderstood.


but my sulk - when GW was down last week, I decided to go roaming to find somewhere else to get my stargatey goodness (I knew quite well that I wouldnt be completely satisfied...but i had to do something!!!)
And right on the front page of the stargate solutions website are massive Threads spoilers.
I managed to not read them..but I went in to an article I thought looked interesting - and thats where they were rampant.... stupid spoilery site.
not fair!
by the time I figured out they were spoilers, it was too late.. the knowledge was there.. it was burned into my retinas *(well, im allowed my elaborate speach patterns...)

[Lt.Damnit]

i think that the forums should be split, one forum for spoilers, the other for spoiler free....it has worked on other fan sites/forums.

[SaharaGate]

*pulls out trumpet to assemble troops*

Given the recent uproar about certain spoilers on the main Gateworld page, I believe now is a pertinent time for the SFA to remobilise .

If you aren't aware of the heated discussion about spoilers, go here (but be warned...if by some chance you have managed to stay spoiler free for Moebius,
this thread could change things quite drastically for you).

The main things I got out of this discussion is that

1. Even Gateworld and Darren aren't perfect *gasp*!
2. Spoilerphobes like us are quite lucky to be able to play on a forum where the moderators are sympathetic, and spoiler warnings are quite regularly employed
3. The use of spoiler space is underappreciated.

What I propose is this:

Instead of whining about spoilers to everyone and anyone (not that I'm saying anyone here is doing this...and whining is exactly what this thread is for hehe), we should try a different tactic:

When was the last time you gave somebody a green rep point for using spoiler tags?

I for one *really* appreciate it when people do. So why not tell them?

Obviously, I'm not going to rush out and give every post with spoiler space a rep point (there are limits lol). But there are plenty of instances where I think a green point has been warranted, especially when something big is revealed and people *do not* throw spoiler courtesy out the window...and what better way to say thanks and to promote the use of spoiler warnings?

Everybody loves getting green points. I certainly do . And I bet they'd be doubly likely to keep using spoiler space (and possibly get more green points hehe).

Hmm I think I might go change my sig

[Buzz Lightyear]

Is anyone else mildly annoyed when thred titles about a subject matter that is ... not typical of the show, and than the word spoiler, letting you know that at some point that object or person may show up in the near future.

I've mentioned this a few times, even to the person who started such a thread but the "complexity" of the issue seems to go right over their heads.

First, they fail to warn others that there are spoilers in the new thread they just started, then when they are taken to task for that faux pas, they compound the error by keeping a plot point in the thread title and just adding "spoilers for [episode name]". In other words, you're immediately spoiled when you view the forum subsection page with all the thread subject titles.

This has happened a couple of times recently in the Stargate SG-1 Season 8 main forum page. For example, someone wrote as a thread title, "[character A] and [character B]", then subsequently amended it to "[character A] and [character B] (this contains a [episode name] spoiler)". So just by scanning the thread titles, you're instantly spoiled that characters A & B are both in a certain episode and their appearances happen to be key plot points.

Or this example: one person initially started a thread to discuss a plot device that has been used a few times throughout the SG series. General enough, I grant you, but then he didn't want to have to resort to spoiler tags for each specific episode referenced within his post, so he amended the thread title to read, "[general plot device] - spoilers for [episode name]". Now, whether you wanted to or not, you found out from reading the thread titles that an upcoming episode will use that particular plot device.

Fortunately for me, I had seen both those episodes before seeing these spoilers but that's not the case for many others. It's a shame, but I make it a point these days to completely avoid the forums around the times new episodes are airing anywhere in the world and stay away until I've seen those eps myself. I've still encountered spoilers from folks who can't keep their virtual mouths shut concerning future episodes they've read about on various Stargate fansites, including GateWorld, but at least it helps for some of the biggest spoilers.

[Crazedwraith]

Actually I'm pretty sure you can't amend your own title the mods have to do it for ya.
And i ain't sen this thread in looooong while.

[sueKay]

Yeah...

...I thought the Spoiler-Phobes had taken over the anti-spoiler faction of the forum.

I used to be a Spoiler Phobe for another show, but we got royally birned at the end, and I decided to read spoilers to prepare me for the worst if it came to it.

[VirtualCLD]

This has happened a couple of times recently in the Stargate SG-1 Season 8 main forum page. For example, someone wrote as a thread title, "[character A] and [character B]", then subsequently amended it to "[character A] and [character B] (this contains a [episode name] spoiler)". So just by scanning the thread titles, you're instantly spoiled that characters A & B are both in a certain episode and their appearances happen to be key plot points.

I understand this, but in refference to your post in that "example," I don't think that someone who reads "[character A] and [character B]" should instantly expect major spoillers. I should clarify; at the time, the "(this contains a [episode name] spoiler)" was not there. Now, both characters have been around for a while and even though in was in the Season 8 folder, it might not have been spoillerish. Now the fact that "characters A & B are both in a certain episode and their appearances happen to be key plot points" wouldn't have spoilled me as much since it as nothing new. It was the "surprise" that was stated in the first line or two of the first post. Obviously, this was bad timing on my part as I was one of the first, if not the first viewer of the thread. Had I looked at it later, it may have had the spoiller warning added and I wouldn't have read it.

I'm just saying that I disagree with the fact that just b/c I see "[character A] and [character B]" doesn't mean I should expect a "surprise" or "fifth act" spoiller. "Preview" spoillers are fine (the premise of an episode without the details or "twists").