Spoiler Infraction Policy - Keep It or Loose It?

[Nicole]

This rule will only be enforced for the following games: Spirit Tracks, and Skyward Sword.

I agree completely except for that line. That bascially defeats the purpose of having spoilers for any game. Yeah, you can spoil ST, and yeah, you can spoil the heck out of SS, but I can't go out and spoil the ending of LA, which is considered to have a very controversial ending and is one of the rarer Zelda games out there? The rule needs to apply to every game, just more strictly enforced with newer games, as I said, 12-18 subsequent to their releases.

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....

As I said, these are my ideas. I do believe the rule and infraction should apply to all games. The rest of the rule, other than what I quoted, sounds perfectly reasonable.

 

[Djinn]

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.

I agree with it for the most part. I will never agree to giving an infraction for spoiling a game, but I think the cutoff time for spoilers should be somewhere around 24 months. After that everything is old news and the public at large has seen and heard everything valuable. Only a small group is left having not played or read anything on the game for whatever reasons of their own.

Now does a spoiler prefix cover all posts in a thread? Can someone make a thread with a spoiler prefix and everyone posting within can make replies with spoilers without a tag since spoiler is in the title?

 

[Meego]

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.

Like others have said, this seems absolutely perfect and well thought out. Except the last part. I don't mean to offend but I am still working through the Zelda series, and would be a lot happier not to have the ending of some of the games spoiled by someone ruining the ending like it's going out of fashion. I just think the rule should be enforced for all games, especially for those like me who haven't played all the games and want to play the ending without it being completely spoiled.

That is all. Thanks.

 

[DeletedUser9]

I agree with Justin's rule perfectly. And I think within a reasonable amount of time Spirit Tracks should be removed from that list as well. As for right now, the spoiler policy on Skyward Sword is basically not applicable, as the game isn't even out and all discussion is kept to the Skyward Sword section. If you don't want spoilers for the unreleased game, don't go to the discussion section about it. Also, obviously it shouldn't apply to terribly obvious threads that clearly state they are talking about spoiler moments from a game.

I agree completely except for that line. That bascially defeats the purpose of having spoilers for any game. Yeah, you can spoil ST, and yeah, you can spoil the heck out of SS, but I can't go out and spoil the ending of LA, which is considered to have a very controversial ending and is one of the rarer Zelda games out there? The rule needs to apply to every game, just more strictly enforced with newer games, as I said, 12-18 subsequent to their releases.

Like others have said, this seems absolutely perfect and well thought out. Except the last part. I don't mean to offend but I am still working through the Zelda series, and would be a lot happier not to have the ending of some of the games spoiled by someone ruining the ending like it's going out of fashion. I just think the rule should be enforced for all games, especially for those like me who haven't played all the games and want to play the ending without it being completely spoiled.

I understand not wanting to receive spoilers, but I really don't agree blocking spoilers for old games. There comes a point where something becomes old news. For example people openly talk about Star Wars' biggest surprise of Darth Vader being Luke's father. That's just common knowledge.

There comes a point where something is old enough that it is the responsibility of the person who doesn't want spoilers to avoid them, at least within reason. A good example would be not going into a thread or even an entire board about a game you have yet to play. And I'm not speaking as someone who doesn't care about spoilers. I joined Zelda dungeon when we had no spoiler policy whatsoever and with the desire to avoid spoilers for certain games. I frankly just had to stay out of obvious spoiler zones. I think this should apply to older games.

It's unreasonable to place restrictions on something that's been around a long time, I think, and given ZD's nature as a website that encourages theorizing (we have a whole section for it!), we shouldn't make that painful by enforcing a spoiler policy on common-knowledge games.

 

[Baysiderulez]

Tentative Rule 1.a[/b]
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.

I agree with this 100%. And I agree that one day ST should be removed from the listing (when it becomes old news).

 

[Nicole]

I agree with Justin's rule perfectly. And I think within a reasonable amount of time Spirit Tracks should be removed from that list as well. As for right now, the spoiler policy on Skyward Sword is basically not applicable, as the game isn't even out and all discussion is kept to the Skyward Sword section. If you don't want spoilers for the unreleased game, don't go to the discussion section about it. Also, obviously it shouldn't apply to terribly obvious threads that clearly state they are talking about spoiler moments from a game.





I understand not wanting to receive spoilers, but I really don't agree blocking spoilers for old games. There comes a point where something becomes old news. For example people openly talk about Star Wars' biggest surprise of Darth Vader being Luke's father. That's just common knowledge.

There comes a point where something is old enough that it is the responsibility of the person who doesn't want spoilers to avoid them, at least within reason. A good example would be not going into a thread or even an entire board about a game you have yet to play. And I'm not speaking as someone who doesn't care about spoilers. I joined Zelda dungeon when we had no spoiler policy whatsoever and with the desire to avoid spoilers for certain games. I frankly just had to stay out of obvious spoiler zones. I think this should apply to older games.

It's unreasonable to place restrictions on something that's been around a long time, I think, and given ZD's nature as a website that encourages theorizing (we have a whole section for it!), we shouldn't make that painful by enforcing a spoiler policy on common-knowledge games.

I guess that's true. It's basically read-at-your-own-risk. If you're in Zelda Theory, well, there will be heavy theories and spoilers galore. If you're in Classic Zelda, there's going to be discussion on older, rarer games. Yes, I would like spoilers to apply to all games, but I would learn to deal with it otherwise. I think we just have to get used to whatever rule gets put in place.

 

[Locke]

I would make the following modifications, in bold (omissions in red):

Tentative Rule 1.b
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 that are meant to be revealed at a certain point during the game (excludes box, manual, and exposition). Failure to warn happens when a user doesn't use one of the following: spoiler tags to hide said content in a thread without a spoiler prefix, or use a spoiler prefix in the thread title, or when a user includes a spoiler in a thread title [this sentence should proably be revised/re-ordered for clarity]. This rule affects the following boards: Skyward Sword, World of Zelda, Pocket Zelda, Classic Zelda, and Modern Zelda. All other boards will not be affected. This rule will only be enforced for the following games: Spirit Tracks, and Skyward Sword.

I think the "no spoilers in the title" part should apply to all games, as this problem would counteract the "read at your own risk" philosophy, but I wasn't sure how to effectively add it to this description without adding too much confusion.

Now does a spoiler prefix cover all posts in a thread? Can someone make a thread with a spoiler prefix and everyone posting within can make replies with spoilers without a tag since spoiler is in the title?

Yes. I think these sorts of things should also be made clear to prevent things like this. (<-for those without access, that is a report of a post which contained several separate spoiler tags that were annoying to open one at a time, and the worst part is that the thread was already marked with the prefix.)

Also, obviously it shouldn't apply to terribly obvious threads that clearly state they are talking about spoiler moments from a game.

Obvious is a relative term and would need definition (same reason I changed the word "certain" in 1.a). I agree that no one should receive an infraction in such a case, or even a warning, but adding the prefix wouldn't hurt and would make things more consistent. (basically I agree with you but want to make sure this doesn't make it into the infraction description.)

@"old news" and "read-at-your-own-risk": I'm not too confident with the "old news" argument. Many new members coming in as a result of SS may not have played any other Zelda games and so it wouldn't be old news to them, and I think this group is large enough to be considered. Granted older games are generally old news and I agree that it's unreasonable to place the same restrictions on those as on newer games, and that they should be dealt with on a read-at-your-own-risk basis. But as I stated earlier, read-at-your-own-risk breaks down when spoilers are placed in thread titles visible from outside the thread. When this happens, viewers do not have the choice of avoiding the thread (unless they leave ZD entirely, which is what we're trying to stop from happening). So I think spoilers in titles should be enforced for all games so that people like Meego have the opportunity to participate in 'safe' threads and avoid ones that could contain spoilers inside.

There comes a point where something is old enough that it is the responsibility of the person who doesn't want spoilers to avoid them

It's unreasonable to place restrictions on something that's been around a long time

To reiterate, I agree with these statements, and I think measures should be taken to allow members to carry out that responsibility efficiently, without placing restrictions on the games themselves.

Of course one should consider how many times the word "Ganondorf" shows up in threads about TP. According to what I proposed, this wouldn't be allowed. But it is extremely difficult to hide that name from the title while keeping the title relevant to the thread ("the real villain" is also a spoiler; "that one guy" is vague and cumbersome). Certain exceptions would have to be made, or enforcing the title-spoiler rule would have to be very lenient.

 

[Meego]

I understand not wanting to receive spoilers, but I really don't agree blocking spoilers for old games. There comes a point where something becomes old news. For example people openly talk about Star Wars' biggest surprise of Darth Vader being Luke's father. That's just common knowledge.

There comes a point where something is old enough that it is the responsibility of the person who doesn't want spoilers to avoid them, at least within reason. A good example would be not going into a thread or even an entire board about a game you have yet to play. And I'm not speaking as someone who doesn't care about spoilers. I joined Zelda dungeon when we had no spoiler policy whatsoever and with the desire to avoid spoilers for certain games. I frankly just had to stay out of obvious spoiler zones. I think this should apply to older games.

It's unreasonable to place restrictions on something that's been around a long time, I think, and given ZD's nature as a website that encourages theorizing (we have a whole section for it!), we shouldn't make that painful by enforcing a spoiler policy on common-knowledge games.

Well when you put it that way...okay then.

 

[DuckNoises]

I agree completely except for that line. That bascially defeats the purpose of having spoilers for any game. Yeah, you can spoil ST, and yeah, you can spoil the heck out of SS, but I can't go out and spoil the ending of LA, which is considered to have a very controversial ending and is one of the rarer Zelda games out there?

I agree with this gent here. I'm fine with the definition of spoilers, but I find it exceedingly arbitrary for the rule only to be enforced for certain games. I sound like a broken record, but it is frankly disrespectful to the members who have not played all the games to only be protected from spoilers of newer games. Although I do agree that SS should be enforced the most strictly, it is absurd to exclude games from the spoiler rule just because the game has been out for any given number of years. Just because a game has been out for a long time has absolutely no correlation to the amount of people that have played the game and no correlation to the importance of the spoilers in question. We can't just go on with the notion that only "certain" spoilers are bad; no matter how well-known a spoiler is, the fact of the matter is that it's still a spoiler.

This doesn't necessarily mean that I want any kind of inhibitory mechanism implemented, I just want all games to go under the umbrella of spoiler policy, as it just makes things clearer and more balanced.

 

[Locke]

Can't let this die again. So far we have 3 or 4 variations. Keeping true to Justin's wishes, let's try voting on these and offering modifications more than debating. I do think the debating is important, but it does seem to not be getting anywhere. Maybe we can do more of that if we have an obvious split in the votes.

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, [Ocarina of Time,] 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.

Tentative Rule 1.b
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 that are meant to be revealed at a certain point during the game (excludes box, manual, and exposition). Failure to warn happens when a user doesn't use a spoiler prefix in the thread title, doesn't use spoiler tags to hide said content in a thread without a spoiler prefix, or includes a spoiler (for any Zelda game) in a thread title. This rule affects the following boards: Skyward Sword, Ocarina of Time, World of Zelda, Pocket Zelda, Classic Zelda, and Modern Zelda. All other boards will not be affected. This rule will only be enforced for the following games: Spirit Tracks, and Skyward Sword.

Tentative Rule 2.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, Ocarina of Time, World of Zelda, Pocket Zelda, Classic Zelda, and Modern Zelda. All other boards will not be effected. This rule will only be enforced for all Zelda games.

Tentative Rule 2.b
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 that are meant to be revealed at a certain point during the game (excludes box, manual, and exposition). Failure to warn happens when a user doesn't use a spoiler prefix in the thread title, doesn't use spoiler tags to hide said content in a thread without a spoiler prefix, or includes a spoiler in a thread title. This rule affects the following boards: Skyward Sword, Ocarina of Time, World of Zelda, Pocket Zelda, Classic Zelda, and Modern Zelda. All other boards will not be affected. This rule will only be enforced for all Zelda games.


My vote's for 1.b, since I think it adds some more clarity over 1.a and makes a small compromise with those who don't want older games spoiled, but I think 2.a/2.b is a little too extreme and more users would be annoyed than grateful.

 

[DuckNoises]

Some of these rules sound rather contradictory. I've highlighted the contradictory portion in red.

Tentative Rule 1.b
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 that are meant to be revealed at a certain point during the game (excludes box, manual, and exposition). Failure to warn happens when a user doesn't use a spoiler prefix in the thread title, doesn't use spoiler tags to hide said content in a thread without a spoiler prefix, or includes a spoiler (for any Zelda game) in a thread title. This rule affects the following boards: Skyward Sword, Ocarina of Time, World of Zelda, Pocket Zelda, Classic Zelda, and Modern Zelda. All other boards will not be affected. This rule will only be enforced for the following games: Spirit Tracks, and Skyward Sword.

How can the rule be applicable to all Zelda games, yet is only enforced for two of them? I thought you mentioned that you thought the "old news" argument wasn't very strong.

I would vote for something in between 1b and 2b, because I think it's best that it be applicable to all games. The "old news" argument doesn't really hold in my opinion, because it's a bit of a generalization to assume that just because something has been out for a long time that everyone has played it. If the rule isn't applicable for all games, then we will likely see threads with spoilers from the unprotected games located in title threads, and then the "read at your own risk" policy is null, because those game details are no longer considered "spoilers," and it then becomes easy for information from "old news" games to be spoiled unintentionally.

In addition to the inclusion of all games in any spoiler policy, I would vote for 1b on the condition that something like the following be added:
If an "off-topic" (from a game that is not the game in the original post/thread title) spoiler is introduced without spoiler tags, an infraction could be warranted.

For now, I'm debating where to place my vote, unless further choices are added.

 

[Baysiderulez]

My vote is on 1b I think it is best suited for ZD at this current time.

 

[Nicole]

This rule affects the following boards: Skyward Sword, Ocarina of Time, World of Zelda, Pocket Zelda, Classic Zelda, and Modern Zelda. All other boards will not be affected. This rule will only be enforced for the following games: Spirit Tracks, and Skyward Sword.

So, it affects the Classic Zelda board, but only the games Spirit Tracks and Skyward Sword? That sounds a bit iffy. If you're talking about Skyward Sword or Spirit Tracks on the Classic Zelda forum in the first place, isn't it off-topic?

Let's not forget: Aren't there spoilers for other games as well? Will there be a spoiler rule for General Gaming or no?

 

[Locke]

Some of these rules sound rather contradictory. I've highlighted the contradictory portion in red.


How can the rule be applicable to all Zelda games, yet is only enforced for two of them? I thought you mentioned that you thought the "old news" argument wasn't very strong.

I meant the "no spoilers in the title" part would apply to all games, because in order to support a "read at your own risk" policy, members would have to read a thread title in order to determine if there may be spoilers they want to avoid or not; but the prefix and tags would only be required on ST and SS.

In addition to the inclusion of all games in any spoiler policy, I would vote for 1b on the condition that something like the following be added:
If an "off-topic" (from a game that is not the game in the original post/thread title) spoiler is introduced without spoiler tags, an infraction could be warranted.

For now, I'm debating where to place my vote, unless further choices are added.

That's actually exactly what I was thinking of earlier. Basically we'd enforce protection from SS and ST spoilers, and facilitate an effective "read at your own risk" policy for the rest by eliminating spoilers from titles and spoilers from other games that do not belong in a given thread. You can add a choice of your own if you want, probably modifying 1b (make it 1c) to add your condition and perhaps clarify the thread title part.

So, it affects the Classic Zelda board, but only the games Spirit Tracks and Skyward Sword? That sounds a bit iffy. If you're talking about Skyward Sword or Spirit Tracks on the Classic Zelda forum in the first place, isn't it off-topic?

There are certain times when it is acceptable to mention other games, like if they share a certain characteristic that is being discussed. Mods would have to determine if the post is bad because of the off-topic-ness or because of the spoiler, unless we want to discuss that sort of thing after a rule has been finalized.

Let's not forget: Aren't there spoilers for other games as well? Will there be a spoiler rule for General Gaming or no?

As Djinn pointed out earlier, spoiler rules are a courtesy, and as a Zelda site I don't think this courtesy should extend beyond Zelda games. Spoilers for general games would be dealt with by the community, as Jo would say. (de-repping, etc)

 

[(◕‿◕✿)]

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 that are meant to be revealed at a certain point during the game (excludes box, manual, and exposition). Failure to warn happens when a user doesn't use a spoiler prefix in the thread title, doesn't use spoiler tags to hide said content in a thread without a spoiler prefix, or includes a spoiler (for any Zelda game) in a thread title. This rule affects the following boards: Skyward Sword, Ocarina of Time, World of Zelda, Pocket Zelda, Classic Zelda, and Modern Zelda. All other boards will not be affected. This rule will only be enforced for the following games: Spirit Tracks, and Skyward Sword.

The bold part seems to be rather pointless to me. Mentioning those boards doesn't make sense if you're only going to enforce it on two - both of which makes sense, seeing as it deals with recently released games.

Regarding Skyward Sword, I think the forum index should just have a sort of "Read at your own risk" warning on it. Pretty much everything will be a spoiler when it's first released. If a thread has an exceptionally large spoiler (e.g., character X kills main character Y, causing A to happen), then the thread should just be prefixed with "Spoilers". If the bulk of the thread is spoilers, I don't see the point of using the spoiler BBCode.
For a game like Spirit Tracks that's been out for a while, I think the tag is more appropriate.

I think the final rule should be as short, simple, and clear as possible. There shouldn't be any questions about what constitutes a spoiler. I'd vote for a slightly modified 1.b. (e.g., clause about sections other then SS and ST removed, explicit statement of what is considered "spoiling" the game. For this, I pretty much agree with what is said in 1.b).