I think this particular spoiler has crossed the Rosebud Line, and there’s no getting it back. If you read this forum, or for that matter if you’re like 2⁄3 of the English-speaking world and have read Philosopher’s Stone, you know perfectly well who Quirinus Quirrell actually is. Getting fussy about it being a spoiler is ridiculous.
My list of examples of people saying that (as violations of the rule) was specifically rejected, since none of them (just as Alsadius’s post) mentioned [rot13]gung Ryvrmre unq fnvq vg.[/rot13]. You can’t decide “rot13 has to be contagious to the information itself” here, and the opposite when denying that the rule is inconsistently enforced.
Everyone who has defended the policy on the grounds that it only means you can’t say [what I rot13′d above] should vote his post back up.
It may be difficult to take an apology like this at face value when you could just go back and edit the tone to something you wouldn’t have to apologize for. You either put it in before you clicked ‘Comment’ the first time or you hit Edit to put it in.
Also, he said, “you know perfectly well.” This communicates that the conclusion you would draw is the correct one. And that is spoilage.
The rule is that it’s only spoilage if you say both things in cleartext in the same post. Yes, I agree, it’s a stupid rule, but it is the rule, and I was angry because that argument was used specifically against my claim that it’s inconsistently enforced.
“edit the tone to something you wouldn’t have to apologize for.” I could only do so honestly if this did not make me angry. EDIT—done. I’m still a bit angry about it though...
Not quite the same as there isn’t potential for spoilage there.
If I said, “If you’re like 2⁄3 of the fans here and you’ve followed up on links to Methods conversations elsewhere, then you know perfectly well that gur nhgube gbyq n ohapu bs crbcyr ng n jrqqvat gung uvf zntvp flfgrz jnf qrgrezvarq ol cybg pbafgenvarq ol pbzcngvovyvgl jvgu jung ur nyernql rfgnoyvfurq.” sans cipher then that would be spoilage.
Clearly I was referring to the fan theory that QQ is Voldemort, or the fact that QQ is Voldemort in canon, not the fact that Eliezer said that DD vf Ibyqrzbeg(and if you need to rot13 to know what I’m saying there, kill yourself now).
For what it’s worth, I hadn’t read the Rowling books when I first read MoR, and finding out who Quirrell was was actually somewhat of a shock. I’m the target audience for this rule, so far as any such exists, and I think it’s pretty dumb. I wouldn’t just slap it on as a chapter title if I was the editor, but if you’re reading this forum thread, certain things are assumed of you.
Not so, good sir. Do you call me a liar? I would challenge you on the field of honor, had I any.
For what it’s worth, I hadn’t read the Rowling books when I first read MoR, and finding out who Quirrell was was actually somewhat of a shock. I’m the target audience for this rule, so far as any such exists, and I think it’s pretty dumb.
Is anyone logging anecdotes? We’ve got one here!
I wouldn’t just slap it on as a chapter title if I was the editor, but if you’re reading this forum thread, certain things are assumed of you.
Okay. That’s cool. So how do you feel about following politely asked and reasonable requests that cost you only quick trip to rot13.com and are enthusiastically enforced by at least a handful of trigger-happy registrants of karmic disapproval?
If said under-thumbers weren’t in play, would you obey the request of the author?
I think this particular spoiler has crossed the Rosebud Line, and there’s no getting it back. If you read this forum, or for that matter if you’re like 2⁄3 of the English-speaking world and have read Philosopher’s Stone, you know perfectly well who Quirinus Quirrell actually is. Getting fussy about it being a spoiler is ridiculous.
You should probably cipher a bit of that. This part, specifically:
I mean, unless you intend specifically to not follow a rule while criticizing the rule. You might notice that seems to attract disapproval.
My list of examples of people saying that (as violations of the rule) was specifically rejected, since none of them (just as Alsadius’s post) mentioned [rot13]gung Ryvrmre unq fnvq vg.[/rot13]. You can’t decide “rot13 has to be contagious to the information itself” here, and the opposite when denying that the rule is inconsistently enforced.
Everyone who has defended the policy on the grounds that it only means you can’t say [what I rot13′d above] should vote his post back up.
EDIT changed tone
It may be difficult to take an apology like this at face value when you could just go back and edit the tone to something you wouldn’t have to apologize for. You either put it in before you clicked ‘Comment’ the first time or you hit Edit to put it in.
Also, he said, “you know perfectly well.” This communicates that the conclusion you would draw is the correct one. And that is spoilage.
The rule is that it’s only spoilage if you say both things in cleartext in the same post. Yes, I agree, it’s a stupid rule, but it is the rule, and I was angry because that argument was used specifically against my claim that it’s inconsistently enforced.
“edit the tone to something you wouldn’t have to apologize for.” I could only do so honestly if this did not make me angry. EDIT—done. I’m still a bit angry about it though...
I wouldn’t normally see that as worse than doing something while apologizing for it. This isn’t Brockian Ultra Cricket.
No, it isn’t. I can say “You know perfectly well that the true source of magic is an advanced artificial intelligence” and that’s not a spoiler.
Nonetheless, in context it was rude.
Not quite the same as there isn’t potential for spoilage there.
If I said, “If you’re like 2⁄3 of the fans here and you’ve followed up on links to Methods conversations elsewhere, then you know perfectly well that gur nhgube gbyq n ohapu bs crbcyr ng n jrqqvat gung uvf zntvp flfgrz jnf qrgrezvarq ol cybg pbafgenvarq ol pbzcngvovyvgl jvgu jung ur nyernql rfgnoyvfurq.” sans cipher then that would be spoilage.
No, that’s a bad example. I’m retracting.
Clearly I was referring to the fan theory that QQ is Voldemort, or the fact that QQ is Voldemort in canon, not the fact that Eliezer said that DD vf Ibyqrzbeg(and if you need to rot13 to know what I’m saying there, kill yourself now).
For what it’s worth, I hadn’t read the Rowling books when I first read MoR, and finding out who Quirrell was was actually somewhat of a shock. I’m the target audience for this rule, so far as any such exists, and I think it’s pretty dumb. I wouldn’t just slap it on as a chapter title if I was the editor, but if you’re reading this forum thread, certain things are assumed of you.
Not so, good sir. Do you call me a liar? I would challenge you on the field of honor, had I any.
Is anyone logging anecdotes? We’ve got one here!
Okay. That’s cool. So how do you feel about following politely asked and reasonable requests that cost you only quick trip to rot13.com and are enthusiastically enforced by at least a handful of trigger-happy registrants of karmic disapproval?
If said under-thumbers weren’t in play, would you obey the request of the author?
What’s your price?
The spoiler is “Eliezer said X”, not “X”. This has been mentioned, repeatedly, by other users in this thread.