Spoilers vs. Speculation

[Admiral_Kelly]

In the OotS forums there is a rule saying "You must flag speculation as SPOILERS." Personally, I find the need to hide spoilers stupid but rather than argue about it I have come up with a compromise that works for everyone.

Just do what Sluggy Freelance Forums dose. (http://www.sluggy.net/forum/index.php?c=3&sid=48501aa261cbcbd98a0b8b61ad73dbc6) They have a reactions section and a speculation section.

The rules for the reaction section would work like this:

No one is aloud to start a new thread except the mods/admins. After each comic comes up, Burlew (or any other mod/admin) will post and sticky a new thread for the new comic. When the next comic is posted, the old sticky is taken down, however it remains open for any further discussion.

No open speculation is aloud; any speculation posted MUST have spoiler tags or it will be removed.

The speculation section will work as the current OotS section, except there is no need to post speculation tags. Also, Burlew can choose not to look at the speculation section so no one can say "Hey! You stole my idea from the forums!" Like Abrams dose.

Good system or what?

[EmeraldRose]

From the OoTS Forum... (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6468)

[Admiral_Kelly]

And your comment or point is...?

[Samiam303]

It doesn't matter, it's Rich's site and you're just being picky about where things are put? Is it really that hard to open a spoiler box?

[Azrael]

And your comment or point is...?

I would imagine that her point was to politely and helpfully provide the thread with all the relevant & available official reasoning.

I will also point out that the convention currently used by posters in the section is ... wrong? ... well, unintended. The Giant made the [spoiler] proclamation a year and a half ago, before we had board software that coded these little boxes:

See?

His intent was that each thread be listed as either containing spoilers, or the potential to contain spoilers, or not. He certainly never intended for every individual to post their own little bit of "insight" in their own hidden little box.

(Nevermind that the typical fashion used now actually requires someone to reveal the hidden text before being able to learn what the poster is spoilering about. But that is just bad posting habits.)

And, lastly:

I have discussed on numerous occasions how predicting what is going to happen ruins the strip for others...

The spoiler tags aren't there to hide things from him.

[Admiral_Kelly]

I happen to find this whole "flagging speculation as spoilers" to be highly annoying. Firstly, its a form of censorship; you can't make certain thread titles because someone could "accidentally glance at it" and "ruin the story for them". And if I ever want to have a discussion, I have to click a box to read what it says. Oh yes, I know it only takes two seconds to click on a box and start reading whatever is inside, but the point is the annoyance of it. And now there is even a discussion about censoring signatures because they might "ruin the joke for some newbie who's browsing the forums."

Let's apply some common sense here. Speculation is not spoiling the story. No one has a glass crystal ball or knowledge of the future plot. Speculation may or may not be true. In fact, most of time it isn't, and in the cases where it is the story is not ruined because someone guessed future events beforehand. Obviously the people who don't speculate on the plot because they fear of "spoiling the story" don't have a brain or else there minds would somehow articulate and come up with something Burlew might do.

About newbies; if you look at a forums for a webcomic then expect spoilers. All discussions on the comic are not going to stop because you didn't read page three-hundred and forty-nine. What you should do is be up-to-date on the comic first, then post. And I know that this site has two webcomics, but then there is two separate sections for them.

Furthermore, if a person know of future events pertaining to the plot and thinks that the whole story is ruined because of it then either the story wasn't too good to begin with or he cannot appreciate a good story.

And I know that the spoiler tags were not to prevent Burlew from reading things, but what I said was he can decide not to visit the speculation forum if he wants too, so that isn't an issue.

[Azrael]

Trust me, I understand your frustration*. But maybe you could notch it down a bit? You're dangerously close to insulting ... well, just about everyone.

I tried to clarify Rich's original intent for you so you'd understand what the policy is and what it isn't. Attempting to point out that ...

... you don't need to do this all the time ...
... after a thread is labeled This is my new thread about stuff ... and things [spoilers] has repeatedly fallen on the deaf ears of those who don't understand the how/why/when. And I imagine that it will continue to do so.

As for editing thread titles, I partially agree with you. Anyone who hasn't read the latest comic shouldn't expect to head to the forums and not have things dampened for them. But, on the other hand, a titling a thread Miko's Future [Spoilers, obviously] instead of HOLY COW, SHE'S REALLY A SUCCUBUS! would not be terribly taxing on a responsible poster. And would, probably, have the added benefit of being a catch all topic -- eliminating the need for a dozen redundant threads.

*Every once and a while I pop back into the OOTS forum for a quick reminder of why I don't spend any time there. Why I chose monday to do so, I'll never fully understand. :smallbiggrin: But perhaps there's another lesson to be learned: Sometimes your own frustrations just aren't worth it.

[SteveMB]

People ought to respect the Giant's wishes when using the Giant's forum.

Ultimately, the most reliable defense against somebody's enjoyment of a plot twist being spoiled by advance speculation is the large mass of mutually excuslive and mostly off-base speculations that has developed. The people who put two and two together correctly are less noticeable when they're surrounded by people putting two and two together and geting seven and a half times the square root of pi.

[Burrito]

Sorry, bored and I couldn't resist

2 + 2 = 13.293375...


But as far as the relevant discussion goes, it is a moot point. The rules and FAQ's clearly state what needs to be done when posting spoilers/speculation. Open and shut.
Mr. Berlew is the biggest and baddest Giant in this Playground, so we all need to follow his rules. Rules are usually in place for a reason, some of us may not agree with the reason, but that doesn't make us any less responsible for following them.

[bluish_wolf]

and

1 + 0 = .99999....

Still, while rules are rules, it's annoying when they stifle discussions.

[Zherog]

How does this rule stifle discussion? You just have to mark the title of your thread so it's clear there's speculation taking place - typically by including the tag [SPOILER] in the title.

[bluish_wolf]

How does this rule stifle discussion? You just have to mark the title of your thread so it's clear there's speculation taking place - typically by including the tag [SPOILER] in the title.

Well, unless you are the author of the thread, you can't do that, so every time you want to speculate in a thread that doesn't have the tag, you have to use the thing and it's annoying having to click on those all the time. I'm sure many people who don't know about it simply don't say what they were about to.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Spoilers win, since there's no proof that a speculation's lightsaber can cut a spoiler's adamantium skeleton.

Okay seriously, I've done some fuming about the rules before (usually quietly rather than taking up space on the board), but I have to say this is some of the most pointless whining I've ever heard. You have to click a box. OH NOES.

[bluish_wolf]

A series of boxes, since any responses would also be spoilers.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I repeat: OH NOES.

[bluish_wolf]

Besides, there is no such thing as pointless whining, since whining is a purpose in and of itself.

[Admiral_Kelly]

*slaps own face* Why doesn't anyone comment on my proposal instead of stating the "evils of spoilers"?

[Azrael]

Why doesn't anyone comment on my proposal instead of stating the "evils of spoilers"?

I would assume that no one has commented because your proposal fills them with ambivalence.

------------------

Sure, it could work, operating under the assumption that people used it properly. But in reality it would require vast amounts of moderation -- removing speculation from the reaction threads and moving lost threads between the two.

Plus, having to completely break a discussion's continuity by moving to another thread to post a bit of relevant and insightful speculation instead of just opening a spoiler would be tedious. Although I don't care enough to check (see initial statement), but I'd be willing to bet that the Board Issues type area at Sluggy is rife with such thoughts.

[Charity]

Good sir kelly, when trying to change the posting habits of a ten thousand stong forum, one first needs to check to see if there is support for such a change. That you have done, you have made your enquiry and have received a resounding meh. Next one needs to garner the opinion of the site owner/administrator, again his wishes have been spelled out.
Next you must ask yourself why must the will of a 10,000 strong forum bend to your whim... that I cannot answer.
Oh Noes!

[Jorkens]

Out of interest, is there a reason we refer to speculation as [spoilers] and not, say, [speculation]?
:smalltongue:

[Zherog]

Less typing?

[Azrael]

Less typing?

The inability of the internet community as a whole to correctly distinguish between the two? :smallamused:

-or, less pessimistic-

The inability of the internet community as a whole to stay within the bounds of a topic or topical delineation on a message board? :smallbiggrin:

[EmeraldRose]

The inability of the internet community as a whole to correctly distinguish between the two? :smallamused:

-or, less pessimistic-

The inability of the internet community as a whole to stay within the bounds of a topic or topical delineation on a message board? :smallbiggrin:

Yes. :smallwink:

[Demented]

Topics evolve as they are discussed, naturally.

If they didn't, there'd be a collection of variously distinct posts on differing subjects, without any correlation to eachother.

Much like college.