With the upcoming release of Skyward Sword, that has been some worry about users reading spoilers. I've added a new bbcode that will be used for spoilers. This will hide the text inside the spoiler tags. With the new Skyward Sword release, these tags must be used to hide anything that can be remotely seen as as spoiler. There will be a new rule and infraction assigned to the failure to hide spoilers. You can read it at our udated Forum Rules/Infractions thread.
HTML:
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
This will output:
Spoiler Text
It would be a great help if you were to spread the word around. Thanks! Feel free to comment your opinion to this rule!
I tried using spoiler tags a week or two ago but it never worked. Now I understand why. Forum did not have them yet.
So are they only to be used on the SS section? And topics in World of Zelda that include SS parts? Or are other games included in the required spoiler tag rule as well?
And if so what is the cutoff date, as that rule has gotten me before. I never consider a game that has been out more than a year spoiler worthy but other people do.
That explains why it didn't work before. This is a good idea for blocking spoilers from people who don't want to see it.
@Djinn
My best guess it that they'll keep the Spoiler Tag so they won't have to put back the coding for any new Zelda games that might be released. I think that they'll also let us use it for other Zelda games if people haven't played those games before.
This is great! I think it is a much better way that just saying "SPOILER" and then posting. Thank's for adding this feature! I will be adding it to my sig just for the heck of it!
Thanks so much Justin. I was actually going to ask you if you could implement the feature. Well, no more <SPOILER> and white text for me! Thanks a ton!
Okay I have looked over the rule here and the set of rules listed in the link over again. And after taking some time to think about it I see some problems that might come from this. The rule itself I do not see any problem with. Obviously there are a lot of people who do not like spoilers and this rule is in effect for their benefit. However the amount of punishment given for breaking this rule I do not agree with. Giving an infraction for the mistake of producing a spoiler is an extreme case and would only turn anger people and possible create more problems than the original spoiler issue. It would not be worth it.
Yes the argument that the infraction is a very minor one and only counts for two infraction points. However even long after it has expired the message will still be there sitting in the control panel. Constantly reminding the individual that they did in fact receive an infraction for talking about Zelda on a dedicated Zelda forum among Zelda fans who are genuinely interested in hearing about new Zelda information. And what Zelda fan who has gone out of their way to join a dedicated Zelda community and has played the new Zelda game and converses with Zelda fans would actually not want to spread any new information, story, dispel rumors, or share stories of their games with others? Almost everyone who has the game and is a member of a Zelda fan site.
There are also those who actually do not know what they have posted might be included as a spoiler. The level of what constitutes a spoiler outside of story ending scenes, or plot twists can vary greatly between two people. I recently posted a thread that acquired a spoiler tag upon it when I did not believe that anything I placed within it was ever a spoiler of any type. Yet obviously someone perceived it as one and requested a spoiler tag. Does a mistake such as that now incur infractions?
And I do think some sort of clarification needs to be made for people who post in the World of Zelda and Theory section. Any story points shown in SS will attract the interests of the theorist crowd. And they will definitely wish to create threads comparing enemies from OoT to SS, and back. Is the spoiler prefix at the title no longer enough? Because it would become very tedious to try to create a theory article that must include spoiler tags every so often within the thread, sometimes including whole paragraphs and examples.
I believe further clarification needs to be added. And more of an explanation of exactly when and where a spoiler prefix at the title of a thread is enough or not. Since the red prefix still not being enough to stop someone who wishes to not be spoiled if entirely the fault of the viewer. As the addition of the spoiler tags seem to be for the most part an accommodation to a very select group of people it seems unfair to give semi permanent punishments to those who make the mistake.
However the amount of punishment given for breaking this rule I do not agree with. Giving an infraction for the mistake of producing a spoiler is an extreme case and would only turn anger people and possible create more problems than the original spoiler issue. It would not be worth it.
We will be lenient with infractions, especially before SS comes out. If our goal is to prevent too many unmarked spoilers, warnings or even PMs will often be sufficient. So the severity of the warning/punishment will depend on the severity of the spoiler as well as what types of warnings the user has already received.
There are also those who actually do not know what they have posted might be included as a spoiler. The level of what constitutes a spoiler outside of story ending scenes, or plot twists can vary greatly between two people. I recently posted a thread that acquired a spoiler tag upon it when I did not believe that anything I placed within it was ever a spoiler of any type. Yet obviously someone perceived it as one and requested a spoiler tag. Does a mistake such as that now incur infractions?
I'm afraid that it's extremely difficult to set any standard in this area, so the level of the spoiler is mostly up to the moderator. We're still discussing the specifics, so I think you can expect to see some clarification in the future.
I doubt anyone would receive an infraction for something they obviously, and for good reason, thought wasn't a spoiler. Speaking for myself, if it's that disputable, I'd just add the tag/prefix and maybe PM the user explaining why I thought it was a spoiler.
And just so it's clear, we will not be enforcing this ex-post-facto. Spoilers that have already been posted will not yield infractions. If the thread is active and becomes a problem, the post(s) in question may be edited and reason given.
And I do think some sort of clarification needs to be made for people who post in the World of Zelda and Theory section. Any story points shown in SS will attract the interests of the theorist crowd. And they will definitely wish to create threads comparing enemies from OoT to SS, and back. Is the spoiler prefix at the title no longer enough? Because it would become very tedious to try to create a theory article that must include spoiler tags every so often within the thread, sometimes including whole paragraphs and examples.
Spoilers in the theory section is a given. As stated, this rule will not be enforced there, nor in the game help section. As for World of Zelda, I think that's the place where the spoiler warnings are most imperative. There, threads about SS will be mixed in with other threads, and some may want to continue reading the other threads without having to worry about SS content.
The spoiler prefix will be enough. Again, the details are still being worked out, but I'm pretty certain if the thread itself is marked as a spoiler, there is no need to add additional tags within the thread.
I believe further clarification needs to be added. And more of an explanation of exactly when and where a spoiler prefix at the title of a thread is enough or not. Since the red prefix still not being enough to stop someone who wishes to not be spoiled if entirely the fault of the viewer. As the addition of the spoiler tags seem to be for the most part an accommodation to a very select group of people it seems unfair to give semi permanent punishments to those who make the mistake.
It happened to me once. Yes, the infraction was revoked, but a fair amount of discussion was involved. Back then, I suggested definitive and easy to understand forum rules when it comes to spoilers. That thread was removed along with my infraction points. Since it's been brought up again, here are a few suggestions I consider reasonable.
1. How do we define "spoiler"?
A clear definition is needed. Everything else (I thought it was obvious that...) just leads to frustration. I would define spoiler as "Any information about an upcoming game, gained directly or indirectly (as in, second-hand) from press releases, promotional images, interviews, trailers, advance copies of a game and even the game itself for an amount of time that we have to agree on". Since not everybody is able to get a game on the release date, since there are different release dates worldwide, and since not everybody is able to play through a whole game in one weekend, I suggest something from three to six months after the official release date of either the US or the PAL version of a game, depending on which came first. If there is a huge amount of time between those release dates (Super Smash Bros Brawl came out in Europe a whole three months after it came out in the US, for example, the PAL-Wind Waker came out two months after its US-counterpart), that time period should be extended accordingly, and a stickied announcement topic at the top of each forum should inform users of the actual amount of time.
An exception should be made for the title and the release date of an upcoming game. Since those titles tend to be fairly ambivalent (the title "Twilight Princess" didn't give away the identity of said princess or any details about the Twilight, "Skyward Sword" doesn't give away anything at all), knowing the title and release date is important for every Zelda fan, since you might want to put it on your Amazon wishlist or pre-order it at the next store. However, we should be careful not to mix that information with actual spoilers. "Skyward Sword, the new game featuring Link and Tingle teaming up to fight the forces of evil, will be released in March, 2011"* is a no-go.
Problems arise when we discuss plot developments from older games, especially games that are not available on the Virtual Console (yet). Is the plot of Link's Awakening fair game to be discussed? I would say so, since that game came out seventeen years ago and you can get a used copy on ebay for under ten dollars. And yet, I fully get the point when you argue that seventeen years ago, some of the Zeldadungeon members weren't even born, that not everybody has a GB, GBC or GBA that still plays the old cartridges and that the plot has enough twists that discussing particular details about
the dream of the Wind Fish, for example
would ruin the game for those still waiting for the 3DS' virtual console. So obviously, we need rules about that. I'm open to discussion.
2. How do we avoid threads that consist of nothing but spoiler tags?
Zelda fandom, like the fandom of pretty much every form of fiction (Harry Potter novels, Lost tv episodes, X-Men comics, Mass Effect video games, etc) are split into two major groups. Those that crave every spoiler as soon as possible, and those that try to dodge a spoiler like it's a radioactive bullet. The first group doesn't care about being surprised by a story twist, they just want to know what happens and discuss every detail of the story available to them. The other group wants to be surprised by the revelation that it was
Ganondorf
that influenced Zant in Twilight Princess. This group wants to get each bit of information only at the precise point where the developers of the game wanted them to get it, and they are legitimately offended when somebody spoils that surprise.
The easy solution is to create a new subforum just for spoiler threads. The latest press release, the latest trailer, the latest leaked gameplay footage video on youtube, all of that can be discussed here, without having to use spoiler tags. It stands to reason that only the fans who don't care about spoilers will even look inside this subforum, so spoiler tags shouldn't be mandatory there. However, since the topic headline can be seen from the overview, I suggest that those headlines should be as spoilerfree as possible. "Latest Post: Aounuma Interview IGN, Feb2010 by randomimaginaryuser; today, 11:25 AM" is better than "Latest Post: Aounuma reveals Tingle is in SWS!* by randomimaginaryuser; today, 11:25 AM". Also, avoid topic titles that say nothing at all, like "Guess what I just found out!" or "Have you ever noticed that...". It's impossible to guess what you want to say, or that you plan to include potential spoilers.
3. How do we deal with spoilers outside of a special spoiler subforum?
The new spoiler tags are a godsend. Rule of thumb: If you're in doubt if a detail about a game is a spoiler or not, use the spoiler tags. But please let it be obvious from the context what this spoiler is about. If you randomly sneak
Tingle is the final boss in SWS*
into a discussion about the music of Wind Waker, then you can use as many spoiler tags as you want, you'll still get an infraction for spoiling Skyward Sword.
Additionally, there's the spoiler prefix. Use that. But again, don't put spoilers in the topic header.
4. One other thing:
The first paragraph of every thread should always be spoilerfree. When you're in a subforum, letting your cursor rest over a topic headline (deliberately or not) reveals the first paragraph of that topic. I've been spoilt on other forums where people didn't think of that. What has been seen, cannot be unseen. What has been spoilt, cannot be unspoilt.
*That was a made up example. I have not the slightest idea if Tingle will be in SWS or not. I don't think it's likely, but I guess it's possible. Either way, I do not know if he'll be in SWS.
FINALLY! I use this all the time on other forums, i'm so glad they finally implemented it here
The spoiler tag will be so helpful now. The prefix was flawed as spoilers were not outlined. But now, it'll be way easier to avoid spoiling important details.
The infraction is pretty reasonable. But I think the points should be raised if someone makes an entire thread that's hidden under the spoiler tag. Especially if it's spam.
What we know about SS really isn't that much of a spoiler, and coming to the SS Board should already alert one of Spoilers in the first place. It's a brand new entry to the Zelda series, so people really shouldn't have the right to complain, unless the topic wasn't about the story or anything like that in the first place.
But, the spoiler tag will definitely be useful in other Zelda boards, mostly the Theory board.
But with the spoiler tag, they can choose what they want to know, instead of having it all thrown at them. But of course, that depends on how people use it.
I know that, and I completely agree with that. It's just that I'm against the fact that the spoiler tag was made primarily for SS spoilers, when in-fact the game hasn't come out yet. In other words, the SS board should be assumed to be spoiler heavy. Then again, people may post spoilers in other boards (the Theory board, for example), so that's a really good use for the tag in those cases. I'm definitely not trying to rant, just sort of posting my opinion on it. Apologies if it hurt anyone.
Sweet, spoiler tags! Now I can rest easier knowing that most people will have enough common sense to not spoil Skyward Sword by randomly blurting something out like
Kaepora Gaebora being the final boss in the game
.
Although I still wish we had scratch or strike or whatever-you-wanna-call-'em tags.
