[ SECRET POST #2861 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2861 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 052 secrets from Secret Submission Post #409.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[kallanda_lee]

Would you ever consider just deleting threads like that altogether?

Ones in GC that do not mention the show name and/or "spoilers" and do not collapse?

Here's my reasoning for it: it's different that secret spoilers, as between submitting and posting those there will be a "grace period" of a few days usually. Also you can just scroll past a secret from a certain fandom, you can't if the post is not even tagged by that name.

The person who did it yesterday was just gleeful, deliberate and entitled about it, and then posted more spoilers when people dared to complain.

Based on the time stamps, new people got spoiler hours after the original post.

I honestly just suggest not giving people like that a forum by simply deleting such threads altogether in the future.

(Freezing it won't help in this case, obviously).

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[(Anonymous)]

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

hth

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[(Anonymous)]

but those are secrets, this is about a GC thread

another go?

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[kallanda_lee]

Yes, some SECRETS - this was not a secret, that is the point.

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[(Anonymous)]

SECRETS, you asshole.

SECRETS.

Learn to fucking read the shit you're replying to and the shit you're copying and pasting, you malicious half-wit.

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[(Anonymous)]

And they were weblinking to an actual secret. Seriously, it was the first thing they put in the comment field. So, techincally, it was a secrets thread.

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[(Anonymous)]

Except the spoiler wasn't in the secret, and the warning specifically says secrets may contain spoilers. Not secret threads. Not threads in GC that reference secrets. The secrets themselves.

Stop trying to twist shit to mean something else.

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[the_missing_y]

I dunno, that seems a tad pedantic. I mean yes, the literal word is secret, but I always took the spirit of it is "Fandom Secrets is not a safe place to be if you care about spoilers."

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[(Anonymous)]

That's dumb. Case shouldn't have to police spoiler threads

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[case]

I'm leaning no.

Is there a consensus on how long the grace period should be? Is there a consensus on what counts as a spoiler or not? Is somebody going to watch for spoilers and report them, because I'm not familiar with every fandom? Are they going to be from all over the world, and if something airs in the US, is it considered "aired and fair game" in the UK? Or vice versa? What about stuff that originates from Japan and isn't published elsewhere at all? Do we go by when they aired in Japan? When torrents went up? When translations were put in? What if there's weeks or months between those dates? What if those people don't agree?

Yes, it sucks that people post spoilers, yes, it'd be much nicer of them to warn, and yes it sucks that people are trolling with them, but to delete those threads would cause more wank about what counts or not than stopping spoiler wank as far as I can tell. If someone is being a troll and posting spoilers in totally random threads, let me know that there's a troll doing so and I'll delete those for trolling, but not for spoilers.

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[kallanda_lee]

It's not so much about posting them, as about posting them without even mentioning the fandom (and then you can choose whether to click on it or not).

Most communities I'm in will have around a week grace period, some a bit less, some a bit more.

But the reason I mention it, is because it really did feel like deliberate and malicious - i.e. a form of trolling, basically. And with the amount of malicious trolls/stalkers we had lately - not that the know it works, it's bound to happen again.

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[(Anonymous)]

Not until next Saturday at least. It was done by an individual with a personal wonk about specific events in the latest Doctor Who episode. By its nature that cannot be a regular recurring thing. There is only ep of the current series and unless Moffat is going on a genderflipping spree in it, and I admit with Moff that isn't as ridiculous as it might be, then it can't even happen again for that ep. I really think you are being oversensitive here.

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[case]

That's what I mean, though. A week's grace period from what? Airing where? In what form? Who decides this?

With smaller communities centered around one fandom, you can probably do it, but here you'd have to know almost every fandom in existence and what aired when and where and was viewable by whom. It'd be easy if everyone on FS were from the US and watching everything at the same pace, but it isn't that simple and I don't think it'd be fair to act as though it is.

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[kallanda_lee]

It's obviously entirely up to you, but I feel like there's something we should be able to do against people like that.

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, I too think we should be able to do stuff to people who do stuff I don't like. People should totally stop doing stuff I don't like.

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[case]

Like I said, if they're trolling by posting spoilers in random places, then let me know and those threads will be deleted.

If you actively go post in a thread where spoilers are obviously being posted, though, I don't think it's reasonable to complain that the replies you get contain more spoilers.

(Or, if there's a troll that keeps starting spoiler threads in GC over and over, I'll delete those too. One thread by one person isn't enough to enforce a blanket spoiler ban, though.)

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[(Anonymous)]

I agree with your reasoning. There's no clear statute of limitations on spoilers and trying to regulate it on here would be chaos

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[(Anonymous)]

Although I don't agree with all your decisions, I agree completely with this so thank you.

And just for the record I hate spoilers, but any rule about spoilers would have to be done for the sake of an specifically located group of users.
But FS has users from many parts of the word, so it'll be unfair for everyone else.

It'll be better if everyone could show some courtesy and at least warn, sure, but since it isn't possible to control that, then we have to just accept there's always the chance of someone posting spoilers and move on.

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[the_missing_y]

Might I recommend changing the wording? I think the text at the top of the page implys that there will be spoilers and to take your own chances, but I can get why some people would use it as a loophole, cause it does literally mean the secrets alone will contain spoliers (even though the line has been used to defend spoilers in the comments to secrets.

TLDR: Grey area

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[kallanda_lee]

Yup: Also "may contain spoilers" never meant "go head and post spoilers" to me. It just means it's not being checked, but it's always been encouraged to add spoiler and/or trigger warning here. Hence fucked-up Friday.

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[(Anonymous)]

As much as I hate spoilers, in this day and age you just need to except them. If you don't want to be spoiled, avoid the internet. And if you do get spoiled, too bad.

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[(Anonymous)]

Pretty much this.

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[(Anonymous)]

That's pretty much how I feel as well. If there's something I feel I'm going to be spoiled on before I get to watch it, I stay the fuck away from social media, period.

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[(Anonymous)]

Yep, I agree, and I also think that FS is not the site to look at if you feel strongly about spoilers.

I really don't care about them. I mean I have really enjoyed watching films where I don't know what's going to happen, but at the same time I accept that the Internet will be full of spoilers so it's tough if I see them.

Re: Case, in relation to the spoiler thread in GC yesterday...

[(Anonymous)]

I think we should ban people annoying chardmonster.