Spoiler Infraction Policy - Keep It or Loose It?

[Michael Heide]

I beg to differ. Basically because, if I say In OoT at the end of the game link goes back in time allowing for a split timeline theory to be possible. And then publish something that appears that way in my sig. Haven't I just released end game details?

No, you haven't. Because the split has absolutely no effect on the ending of Ocarina of Time, only on games that take place after that ending. And none of those little
.................._
................./.WW-PH-ST
SWS-OoT-<
.................\_MM-TP-LttP-LA-OoX-LoZ-AoL-MC-FS-FSA
graphics explain why there is a split after OoT, so they don't spoil the actual ending. You can't tell me that someone who looks at these little ASCII roadmaps that hasn't played OoT before can conclude from that little "<" that an adult Link defeats Ganondorf and gets sent back to the past which creates this alternate timeline.

According to mods with a very strict definition of Spoilers, I have.

So far, we don't have a clear definition of Spoilers yet. That's the point of this thread.

and therefore someone with a time line theory w/ a split in their signature would be in violation of spoiling just as much as someone who says "when peace returns to Hyrule it will be time to say goodbye"

I think we can all agree on neither of those two things being an actual spoiler.

Simple way to solve it is... Let's be a Forum that doesn't care about spoilers.

That's not a solution. That's a copout.

Mods don't need to moderate, and if the intent of spoiling is to troll another member then we have already an infraction set up for the violation.

But what of accidental spoilers?

That may be true, but WW coming after OoT and MC coming before FSA, you have to play those games some and actually discover some key story points before you can tell where those go. Major WW and MC spoiler.

Spoiler

You have to go to Hyrule castle under the ocean first before you know where WW takes place.

No, you don't. You have to do those things to know why people place WW after OoT. Big difference.

When a game is old enough that all the spoiler information is common in conversation among all members and is divulged in the first paragraph of the wikipedia article about it, then a spoiler rule should not be enforced.

I agree. But we need a clear rule saying how old is "old enough". And if there is such a thing as "too old" and if a certain piece of information can cease being common knowledge among a new generation of fans.

Saying that spoiler information covers any and all plot details of every title regardless of age is asking a lot. This would transform almost any casual conversation about ALTTP or WW into nothing but a series of spoiler tags in fear of violating some rule, or secondary rule such as changing the spoiler subject. Or worse yet, there simply will be no more casual conversation on ALTTP or WW any longer. Rules like this will only cause so much annoyance and anger that it will only drive people to move over to other forums where there are more lenient rules and can openly talk about games without fear of being punished for doing so.

But removing all spoiler rules tabula rasa cannot be the solution. There has to be a middle way.

 

[Nicole]

Well, I already began to express my thoughts on spoilers earlier in this thread, but I suppose I should elaborate on some other points.

I don't think there should be a spoiler rule for Zelda Game Help and Zelda Theory. First of all, if you're asking for help, you want the spoilers, i.e. how to beat Ganondorf, etc. If you're giving help, then you already know the spoilers anyway. Some of you might argue that plot endings can be "secretly" disclosed in the Help Section. I ask how to beat Ganondorf in WW. Somwone replies: Do X, and X happens when you beat him. You can consider "and X happens when you beat him" going off-topic, rather than being a spoiler, *just* for the Help section. Reason being that "and X happens when you beat him" doesn't relate to "How do I beat him?"

As far as Zelda Theory, it's in the title. Theory. Meaning speculation and spoilers. Zelda Theory is a read-at-your-own risk forum. That much is simple. Again, you might argue that you can slip spoilers into an unrelated discussion. Say you are in a thread comparing Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask. Someone slips in something about the plot of Wind Waker relating to the plot in OoT. That much is still theorizing, and shouldn't be considered a spoiler.

The definition of a spoiler is relatively easy: A spoiler is any detail that gives insight into the plot of a Zelda game that is not revealed in the game manual, the back of the game box, or within the first moments of gameplay (when NOT in Zelda Theory). A spoiler also describes how to defeat an enemy, solve a puzzle, or get past an obstacle (when NOT in Zelda Help).

Now that we would have an understanding of what a spoiler is, we must all know what the infraction will be, and how strictly it will be enforced. My opinion is this: SS spoilers must be enforced most strictly within the first 12-18 months subsequent to its release. That goes with any game, new or rerelease. Plot details in OoT 3DS that differ from plot details in the original should be enforced the same as SS spoilers within that 12-18 month period. Also, as said before, harder to find games like LA or ALttP should also be considered under a strict rule. My ideas:

1st level (most important, should be enforced the most stricly):
SS, any new Zelda title within the first 12-18 months, OoT 3DS, LA rerelease (with the rule I stated earlier about rereleases)

2nd level:
More obsolete games, harder to find; LoZ, AoL, ALttP, LA (original), OoX

3rd level:
More current games, after the 12-18 month period, or games that are easier to attain (through Virtual Console or Collector's Edition); OoT, MM, WW, TP, PH, ST

I'm not sure where to place MC; either 2nd or 3rd tier....

These are just my opinions on spoilers and the spoiler infraction, hope it helps clear things up!

 

[Michael Heide]

The three-tier approach sounds reasonable.

 

[Kybyrian]

Spoiler Infraction Policy - Keep It or Lose It?

This spoiler issue is just one big mess. My thoughts are right in line with Mases's. The spoiler rule should only be enforced in the Skyward Sword and Zelda Theory section. Just think about how tedious it is for everybody to think of using a spoiler for almost every post they make. Most topics are giant spoilers to any game it relates to. If a person doesn't want a game to be spoiled for them, they shouldn't be looking up stuff about it! The only reason somebody would want to look up a topic about the good and bad points about Oracle of Ages is if they have something to say because they have already played it, or they are looking for spoilers! You don't just go into a topic that's obviously going to have spoilers (which is just about any topic) for a game that you haven't played. It's a ridiculous idea to read about a game you don't want to be spoiled for you.

I will also guarantee you that 80% of the people who register these forums never look at the rules. I know I didn't even read the rules when I joined this forum. I never read forum rules because they usually consist of the same things. Spoilers are something out of the ordinary, and most users won't even know that spoilers exist. So we go around shouting, "Warning, warning, infraction!" to these poor little people who don't know what the heck is going on and we cause even more a mess. Enforcing spoilers for everything is going to cause more trouble than anything else. The big point here is, if you haven't played a game, don't go looking up threads on it! You won't have anything to say because you've never played it. Spoilers and enforcing them throughout the forums is more trouble than what it's worth.

 

[DuckNoises]

This is just going to cause people to argue back and forth that the post they made is related to the topic while others that are nitpicky enough will argue that it is not and violates the rules. Some people will consider it separate even if there is a connection to the original subject. Or if there is not enough of a connection. This will create trouble. In any event, all the mods should be prepared to have to deal with a huge influx of reported posts by those who believe that they have violated spoiler rules, and complaint filled pm's from those who believe that they have not and perfectly followed the rules accordingly at the same time.

The only ones to be making arguments about who is violating spoiler rules will be moderators; more importantly, it's essential to remember that hardly anyone will ever receive the infraction. If we implement the policy I've proposed, the only thing that will change is that the "infraction" definition will be more defined, and include older games; in terms of enforcement, nothing will really change. I have been using the policy I've proposed here for a long time, and enforcing it. The only things I really ever do to enforce the rule is add spoiler tags to someone's post, and I've been doing that for a while now. I don't see the forums presently riddled with spoiler tags. I don't foresee many complaints (or even questions, for that matter) in the future, because I've hardly seen any up to this point; the most I can recall is a single question, and that was that.

When a game is old enough that all the spoiler information is common in conversation among all members and is divulged in the first paragraph of the wikipedia article about it, then a spoiler rule should not be enforced. Saying that spoiler information covers any and all plot details of every title regardless of age is asking a lot. This would transform almost any casual conversation about ALTTP or WW into nothing but a series of spoiler tags in fear of violating some rule, or secondary rule such as changing the spoiler subject.

This is simply not the case. Take an ALttP discussion whose title has a "spoiler" warning next to it, and just about all the spoilers from that game are covered. If someone mentions TWW in that same thread and puts a spoiler tag in for good measure, most every other topic on TWW is covered and will not require a spoiler tag.

Or worse yet, there simply will be no more casual conversation on ALTTP or WW any longer. Rules like this will only cause so much annoyance and anger that it will only drive people to move over to other forums where there are more lenient rules and can openly talk about games without fear of being punished for doing so.

Again, a single spoiler tag will suffice for most topics, provided it is in the title. Typically, casual conversations don't contain as many spoilers, so I don't foresee this being a big problem; there is little enforcement required for the proposed policy (and the policy I've been using), and I think the policy is lenient enough to be comfortable.

 

[Locke]

The only reason somebody would want to look up a topic about the good and bad points about Oracle of Ages is if they have something to say because they have already played it, or they are looking for spoilers! You don't just go into a topic that's obviously going to have spoilers (which is just about any topic) for a game that you haven't played. It's a ridiculous idea to read about a game you don't want to be spoiled for you.

Agreed, but what about LttP spoilers that come up within an OoA thread? It might make sense for a person who has played OoA but not LttP to read OoA threads and avoid LttP threads, but there are times that LttP spoilers may come up within OoA threads when there's no warning except through spoiler tags.

This is simply not the case. Take an ALttP discussion whose title has a "spoiler" warning next to it, and just about all the spoilers from that game are covered. If someone mentions TWW in that same thread and puts a spoiler tag in for good measure, most every other topic on TWW is covered and will not require a spoiler tag.

You've said this several times I think and I don't understand. Does this mean that within a LttP thread I can say, within spoiler tags,

Spoiler

Link gets the ToC

, and then a few posts later, since WW had already been brought up within the tags I can go ahead and say that Ganondof dies without having to use tags?
I do agree that some people are overreacting with threads getting littered with spoiler tags. If the discussion is such that that many spoilers are being brought up, then the thread should have a spoiler prefix and the tags would be unnecessary.

 

[Kybyrian]

Agreed, but what about LttP spoilers that come up within an OoA thread? It might make sense for a person who has played OoA but not LttP to read OoA threads and avoid LttP threads, but there are times that LttP spoilers may come up within OoA threads when there's no warning except through spoiler tags.

Why are people discussing A Link to the Past in an Oracle of Ages thread?

 

[Nicole]

Why are people discussing A Link to the Past in an Oracle of Ages thread?

The only thing I can think of is like the example I gave. Maybe someone would try to connect the plots or elements of the two games. You'd more than likely be discussing in Zelda Theory anyway, and you know my belief that we should not have a spoiler rule on Zelda Theory in the first place.

 

[PhantomTriforce]

Why are people discussing A Link to the Past in an Oracle of Ages thread?

Connections, perhaps, like if some people want to discuss about how the OoX series come directly after ALttP, then they might be using examples from both games. After all, Zelda is well-known for its connections between the games.

 

[Kybyrian]

Connections, perhaps, like if some people want to discuss about how the OoX series come directly after ALttP, then they might be using examples from both games. After all, Zelda is well-known for its connections between the games.

Then this would be suited for Zelda Theory, and I completely agree with Soldier of Link's stance that the spoiler rule should not be enforced in that section.

 

[DuckNoises]

You've said this several times I think and I don't understand. Does this mean that within a LttP thread I can say, within spoiler tags, Spoiler
Link gets the ToC


, and then a few posts later, since WW had already been brought up within the tags I can go ahead and say that Ganondof dies without having to use tags?

Yes, provided that spoiler refers to TWW. If someone mentions one spoiler at a certain point in any game, we can assume that they have played that game up to and including the spoiler they have mentioned in that game, rendering further spoiler tags on that topic negligible. Your example is a little tricky, as I have to explain two of my rules simultaneously. This was the example I gave for the on-topic spoilers:

A few other things to note about spoilers; if a thread's topic is discussing something that happened late in the game, if all spoilers that belong to the main quest line in that game that occur before the event in the game that pertains to the initial topic being discussed, it is assumed that all preceding elements of the story's main quest line are already known, and therefore do not require a spoiler tag.


I'll give an example:

TP Main Quest Spoilers


If I were to mention that Yeta turns on you to defend her Mirror of Twilight fragment, it would not be necessary to provide spoiler warning for the fact that the attempted execution of Ganondorf is eluded to after completing Arbiter’s Grounds.

Spoilers End Here

For the "off-topic" spoilers, I'll give a different example. If it was an ALttP thread with a spoiler tag, and the discussion was about the game's opening cinematic -- this will probably bring up discussion on the Seal War. If the Seal War discussion is brought up and refrains from straying outside of ALttP, no further spoiler tags are needed. If someone relates the Seal War to OoT, that would contain OoT spoilers, and if they tag the OoT spoilers, all elements of OoT are now open to discussion without further spoiler tags. The reason I think implementing something like this is necessary is because of how easily one's discussions and thought processes meander into different territory, and it will come up very easily. If someone just wanted to discuss the Seal War in ALttP and hadn't played OoT, they could have gone into that ALttP thread and had OoT plot segments spoiled if they weren't tagged. It's a pretty common occurrence, and I think that's why it should be looked at more closely.

Then this would be suited for Zelda Theory, and I completely agree with Soldier of Link's stance that the spoiler rule should not be enforced in that section.

There are still people who want to partake in theory that haven't played all the games, and the discussions can get off track very quickly because people are pragmatically adopting different ideas to prove their point. This is where the "off-topic" spoiler rule comes in handy, because people are probably going to divulge spoilers from other games in an attempt to prove/disprove a notion.
That leaves us with a few options:
1. Make Zelda Theory recommended only to be accessed by users who have played every Zelda game if they don't want anything spoiled, which is a truly inhibiting notion, and will probably kill the Theory Section because only about 10-15% of users have played every single Zelda game. That will limit the theory section to a ridiculously low amount of discussion; I'd imagine people still want to understand the games they play and find connections between them, even if they haven't finished all of them. I'd also imagine that they wouldn't want to put themselves at risk while doing that, which isn't a terribly complex issue to solve. We can't let the Theory Section become the "wild west" section of the forums just because of an unwillingness to define and enforce spoiler policy.
2. Our second option is to define spoiler policy and find a suitable way to enforce it. Sure, it takes time and work, and it may not be pretty, but it keeps the forums in tact and accessible without fear of spoilers.

 

[Baysiderulez]

So Ducky if I understand you correctly you are OK with the current policy regarding the Zelda Theory Section, although you would like to see some form of spoiler control?

Also one potential problem to your proposed theory Ducky, not sure if you have considered it. It also comes to the point that if a spoiler is revealed (in spoiler tags) and then does not have to be "tagged" from then on. Someone who wants to read the thread but not the spoilers within it, would have the game "spoiled" at which point the original spoiler in tags was no longer "in tags" when being referred to in certain posts. At any level a person takes a risk when reading about a game. I'd like to think the risk is implied and it is a "reader beware" forum. Just because we, the members, can judge for ourselves much better then any mod could judge for us, what is appropriate to read and what isn't. Do you have a proposed solution for this? (sorry if it was mentioned earlier, i must have missed it)

-------------

I honestly think that people don't need as much protection as we are trying to give them. I've tried to play LA about 4 different times now. And I probably will never make it past the 4 dungeon. And although it would be nice to discover story details on my own. Its likely that won't ever happen. I'm not going to be too disappointed if someone mentioned something that I would have found out later. And there is a wide variety of people that feel the same way. And I think the theorists in particular wouldn't mind if evidence including spoilers was brought up against them or within a thread. That's a natural part of theorizing. And people naturally assume that risk when they enter a theory section.

(I do think that final note could also be applied to the Zelda forum in general) You are on a Zelda forum site, so it is likely that you may hear something about the series that you didn't want to hear yet, just by being here.

The hardest job you guys will have is defining a spoiler policy that is objective enough and still allows for people to communicate effectively. Dependent on the outcome, its almost safer just for people to put EVERYTHING in spoiler tags just to avoid an infraction. And that could deter people from posting, or for that matter reading posts.

I also think that in general the members of this forum have shown good judgment for what needs to be labeled *spoilers* in particular when comparing aspects of certain games to other games. Its more of a common courtesy then law.

 

[Djinn]

The only ones to be making arguments about who is violating spoiler rules will be moderators; more importantly, it's essential to remember that hardly anyone will ever receive the infraction. If we implement the policy I've proposed, the only thing that will change is that the "infraction" definition will be more defined, and include older games; in terms of enforcement, nothing will really change. I have been using the policy I've proposed here for a long time, and enforcing it. The only things I really ever do to enforce the rule is add spoiler tags to someone's post, and I've been doing that for a while now. I don't see the forums presently riddled with spoiler tags. I don't foresee many complaints (or even questions, for that matter) in the future, because I've hardly seen any up to this point; the most I can recall is a single question, and that was that.

I do not think you truly understand the scope of what you are suggesting, and the incredible mess it will create. And possibly underestimating the number of backseat mods we have around here that will take it upon themselves to attack/report all threads that they perceive to be violating the spoiler policy. They will do it, and those punished from it will argue back. In fact it is already happening right now.

We have to remember that this entire spoiler concept is a courtesy, given to a small group within a small group. To younger members who may or may not (we have no way of knowing who or how many) have played an old game. And within that group an even smaller group that does not like to see any inside information and will be insulted upon seeing it. They are a minority within a monority, obviously not everyone not in the know hates spoilers or else there would not be so many upcoming movie script sites or leaked information blogs. The theory forum and the current state of the Skyward Sword forum exists only to gleam as much information as humanly possible from the little bits and pieces we have available to us in an effort to gain some more information.

So I believe that creating wide sweeping changes to the forum with threat of punishment hanging over everyone's heads just to make a casual courtesy to a very small select group of people that can just as easily not look up threads on a game they have not played is taking things too far. People who truly do not want to be spoiled to the point where they will create a huge fuss over a spoiler lacking a tag should at least bear some (if not all) of the responsibility themselves. And stay away from a forum or thread on the game they do not want spoiled. They cannot leave it to the forum and the entire population of to bear that responsibility for them.

There are still people who want to partake in theory that haven't played all the games, and the discussions can get off track very quickly because people are pragmatically adopting different ideas to prove their point.

Even then I cannot see just how anyone can ever have a theory discussion while simultaneously having to withhold information because there might be an individual that wants to read a theory but does not want to be spoiled. It cannot be done. Then it become a reckless move on part of the person who does not want to be spoiled. They choose to enter a forum that by definition includes intricate information on various games all at once, and then they choose to enter a thread that absolutely will have spoiler information within it. So why is it everyone else posting in the theory section must live under threat of punishment when the reckless behavior is done by the lone anti-spoiler member who entered a thread that will obviously have spoilers in a forum that will obviously have spoilers?

I honestly think that people don't need as much protection as we are trying to give them. I've tried to play LA about 4 different times now. And I probably will never make it past the 4 dungeon. And although it would be nice to discover story details on my own. Its likely that won't ever happen. I'm not going to be too disappointed if someone mentioned something that I would have found out later. And there is a wide variety of people that feel the same way. And I think the theorists in particular wouldn't mind if evidence including spoilers was brought up against them or within a thread. That's a natural part of theorizing. And people naturally assume that risk when they enter a theory section.

Which is exactly my opinion, the people that come to this forum do not need incredible levels of protection from information like this. I see nothing wrong with others using information from games that I have not played to make a point or counterpoint in a theory article. In fact I usually find what they said interesting enough to make me want to know some more on that particular game. Either by playing it myself or at least reading some more on the subject that they brought up. This is why people go out of their way to create youtube videos on game cutscenes and textdumps. Very few theorists will actually shun information that makes a good point even if it is from games they have not played.

 

[Locke]

If it was an ALttP thread with a spoiler tag, and the discussion was about the game's opening cinematic -- this will probably bring up discussion on the Seal War. If the Seal War discussion is brought up and refrains from straying outside of ALttP, no further spoiler tags are needed. If someone relates the Seal War to OoT, that would contain OoT spoilers, and if they tag the OoT spoilers, all elements of OoT are now open to discussion without further spoiler tags. The reason I think implementing something like this is necessary is because of how easily one's discussions and thought processes meander into different territory, and it will come up very easily. If someone just wanted to discuss the Seal War in ALttP and hadn't played OoT, they could have gone into that ALttP thread and had OoT plot segments spoiled if they weren't tagged. It's a pretty common occurrence, and I think that's why it should be looked at more closely.

I fully agree with your reasoning here, but I don't know how you reached that conclusion. Conider the following hypothetical thread.

What do you think of Navi in OoT?
---------------------------------
I think she was really annoying.
---------------------------------
at least she wasn't as annoying as Ceila in PH, though she

Spoiler

got a bit better once she regained her memory as the Spirit of Courage.

---------------------------------
Oh, yeah, I hated how Ceila interacted with Linebeck
---------------------------------
But in the end, Ceila was much more useful than Navi because Ceila actually helped stop time during the final boss fight while Navi only gave you obvious tips about enemies and couldn't even help at all against Ganondorf.

This is obviously not a thread that would appear in the Theory section, so we can put that subject aside for now. But pretend I'm someone who has played OoT and is interested in hearing others' opinions on Navi, but I have not played PH and wish to avoid PH spoilers until I am able to play it in the future. The OoT spoilers would be okay since we can assume anyone in the thread can be expecting them. The first PH spoiler (Spirit of Courage) is okay because it's concealed within spoiler tags and properly labelled. The third (Ceila helps during the final boss fight), according to you (if I'm understanding you correctly), would be okay because there has already been a spoiler for PH so any further ones do not require tags. But what if I want to continue reading about Navi while avoiding the Ceila spoilers? Am I forced to just leave the thread once the first one comes up because after that they won't be hidden?

Now, if a situation like this came up in theory, I think none of the spoilers should be concealed, and Djinn explained this fairly well. Ignorance is not in the spirit of Zelda Theory discussion and should not be encouraged. If this repels new theorists, so be it - it's necessary. It's been working fine up to now. At best, we could encourage people to be considerate for particularly off-topic spoilers (off-topic enough to be completely unexpected, but not so much to mandate an off-topic infraction), and perhaps even edit the posts, but it certainly should not be enforced in that section.


Djinn also said something that's been on my mind a lot but never made it into any of my posts. It should be made clear that any spoiler policy is a courtesy. We shouldn't be expected or obligated to enforce one.

 

[Austin]

I just spend the last 30 minutes reading the posts, and almost all of them are debating stuff. As much as I love debating stuff, debating gets us no where. I'm going to try and move this thread's conversation away from debating. I'm going to suggest a tentative rule/guideline. Then you guys quote it and can either: agree with it 100%, disagree with it and state your changes (changes can range from minor ones to fully re-written). However, lets say you disagree with my suggestion, but you agree with someone else's, then you would quote theirs and say you 100% agree. You can also quote someone else's that you agree more with, but not 100% agree and make suggested changes. I hope this will make more progress over debating stuff.

Tentative Rule 1.a
Failure to warn about Spoilers - Infraction 2 points
Spoiler is any piece of information that gives: story line details, solutions to quests or dungeons, new characters or characters' secret identities, or secret items or items' locations. Failure to warn happens when a user doesn't use one of the following: spoiler tags to hide certain content, or use a spoiler prefix in the thread title. This rule is effected for the following boards: Skyward Sword, World of Zelda, Pocket Zelda, Classic Zelda, and Modern Zelda. All other boards will not be effected. This rule will only be enforced for the following games: Spirit Tracks, and Skyward Sword.