Timeline for To spoiler or not to spoiler, June 2014 edition
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
28 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:43 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://scifi.stackexchange.com/ with https://scifi.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jun 24, 2014 at 21:26 | comment | added | Meat Trademark | It's too easy to get a spoiler if it's in the title. If you can safely (spoiler-free) read question titles and tags, and it's something you have seen/read yet, you can choose to not click. I'd hate it if the ending of The Mist movie was spoiled in a title and I hadn't seen it yet. | |
| Jun 19, 2014 at 19:45 | vote | accept | alexwlchan | ||
| Jun 19, 2014 at 8:57 | answer | added | Aith | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jun 17, 2014 at 9:28 | comment | added | user3459110 | Spoiler: To verify if something is right or not, ask a mod. If he says it is wrong, then it is right! :P | |
| Jun 17, 2014 at 0:35 | answer | added | Andres F. | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jun 16, 2014 at 23:10 | comment | added | Pobrecita | Shouldn't you just use a tag that says spoilers, people can read right. I was going to ask a question about creating a spoilers tag because I didn't see one. | |
| Jun 16, 2014 at 20:42 | comment | added | Slytherincess | Sorry for the second comment, but I missed the edit window. I think it's important that I clarify I personally do not think that my enjoyment of spoilers supersedes the disappointment another user might feel at being spoiled. I think common courtesy is a big issue when it comes to spoilers. Yeah, I have the right to post spoilers (until a rule is finalized directing us otherwise), but am I harmed by not doing so? No, I am not harmed. If I do post spoilers, someone else may feel harmed. That is not worth it to me. The question will always remain, though, what constitutes a spoiler? | |
| Jun 16, 2014 at 20:01 | comment | added | Slytherincess | I don't mind spoilers in the least. I thought I'd put this out there because this conversation is being dominated by anti-spoiler POVs (which is totally fine -- I get why people don't want spoilers and I don't think they're wrong per se). Perhaps there are others at our site who don't mind spoilers. To me, considering the manner of burial (way less important than manner of death) of said character, in a seven-year-old book, to truly be a spoiler is absurd; YMMV. I was once reamed for putting info from Goblet of Fire in a question title -- at that time GoF was twelve years old. Srsly? | |
| Jun 16, 2014 at 16:32 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackSciFi/status/478575851739439104 | ||
| Jun 16, 2014 at 10:21 | comment | added | krillgar | Touche. Sorry about that. | |
| Jun 16, 2014 at 4:37 | comment | added | Izkata | @krillgar The title currently says "improper", not "important", so it's still correct | |
| Jun 15, 2014 at 20:58 | comment | added | user1027 | @DavidMulder I did come in and enforce Meta policy. We don't put spoilers in question titles. | |
| Jun 15, 2014 at 20:57 | answer | added | user1027 | timeline score: 25 | |
| Jun 15, 2014 at 12:58 | comment | added | krillgar | Regardless of the decision that is made, the current title of the question is wrong. It should be "Why is is important to NOT bury this character using magic?" | |
| Jun 15, 2014 at 7:24 | answer | added | alexwlchan | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jun 15, 2014 at 7:23 | comment | added | Izkata | I want to point out that how big the spoiler was to the series is also important: meta.scifi.stackexchange.com/a/2362/2242 | |
| Jun 15, 2014 at 6:13 | comment | added | alexwlchan | @DavidMulder: We’re a much smaller site than SO, and I think we can take things on a case-by-case basis when the need arises. A mod has stepped in and said “Take it to Meta”. Here we are. | |
| Jun 14, 2014 at 23:22 | comment | added | David Mulder | @alexwlchan: Over at StackOverflow there are often users disagreeing with official policy. Even things that Jeff Atwood himself has declared law. That does not mean that for each of these cases a new meta post is opened, instead a mod comes in, enforces the meta policy and end of story. | |
| Jun 14, 2014 at 23:20 | answer | added | David Mulder | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jun 14, 2014 at 23:01 | comment | added | alexwlchan | @DavidMulder: I’m not disputing that previous Meta posts aren’t useful here, but clearly it wasn’t convincing everybody on the original post. I thought this might be useful to unify the discussion on this particular question. | |
| Jun 14, 2014 at 22:59 | comment | added | alexwlchan | @DavidMulder: I tweaked the wording slightly; perhaps “consensus” was the wrong word. And perhaps your comment would be better as an answer, so that people can vote on it? | |
| Jun 14, 2014 at 22:58 | history | edited | alexwlchan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 19 characters in body
|
| Jun 14, 2014 at 22:53 | comment | added | David Mulder | Additionally I would like to point out that a consensus here on stackexchange is defined by what comes out of a discussion on meta. "the back-and-forth editing suggests that we don’t have a consensus" is simply not true, as this question is an exact duplicate of the other question on meta. (Although this one is slightly less specific, touching upon spoiler tags in the body as well) | |
| Jun 14, 2014 at 22:50 | comment | added | David Mulder | It seems quite a bad practise that the mod has currently edited and locked the answer in a state that is against the currently most reasonable consensus in the related meta post and against the original wording of the question. | |
| Jun 14, 2014 at 19:56 | answer | added | Brian Warshaw | timeline score: 12 | |
| Jun 14, 2014 at 19:23 | comment | added | user1027 | I locked said question for now. Once there's some consensus here, any mod can unlock it. | |
| Jun 14, 2014 at 19:20 | history | asked | alexwlchan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |