On Nov 15, 2007 6:52 PM, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 15, 2007, at 8:53 PM, geni wrote:
On 16/11/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/11/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
We have no policy that says that we can't have spoiler warnings. We have a "last edit standing" consensus. Those are by definition unstable and unenforcable.
Indeed. If people really wanted spoiler warnings, they'd be back.
No. People may want them but they don't want that level of conflict. Victory through fear. Yes it's effective in the short term.
Nothing about the six month spoiler debate has led me to believe that the proponents of spoiler warnings have any particular desire to avoid conflict.
-Phil
Admitting here that I didn't slavishly follow the debate, but...
This argument seems to generally have been exceptionally "clean" and devoid of noticably policy-violation behavior on any side.
Phil, I understand that you're tired of it, but you've been painting a picture of an unethical opposition here which does not match my recollection of events or any evidence I've seen posted anywhere.
It's extremely dangerous for you to form a mental picture of a bunch of rogue opposers and attempt to act on that, under the circumstances. Your suggestion that started this all off is the sort of thing that's caused little circles of admins on IRC to go do amazingly stunningly bad things in the past.
If I just missed some unethical / policy-busting opposition then I am open to being properly informed, but this thread has been disturbing. Please take this as polite feedback that you need to re-assess where you're coming from on the issue.