Spoiler from the Web site

[Millionaire Fan]

Placed within Spoiler tags by Bob.

The preview video at millionairetv.com is showing a clip of three contestants going for $500,000. The episodes will air in 3 weeks. Hopefully one of these contestants makes it to the million dollar question and becomes the first million dollar winner in six years.

[Bob78164]

It's bad form to place spoilers in thread titles. I've edited the title and placed the text within a Spoiler. That way, those who wish their viewing experience unsullied by foreknowledge will retain that opportunity. --Bob

[TheConfessor]

The question that was revealed in the promo clip seems like one that might be answerable with an educated guess, but it would be nearly impossible to Google it during a PAF call.

Thanks for the post, Millionaire Fan. I rarely remember to check the official site for news about the show. In its current format, it's hard for them to promote the show without revealing some of the results, but just going from what they leaked, we still have no idea how these episodes turned out.

[Bob Juch]

The question that was revealed in the promo clip seems like one that might be answerable with an educated guess, but it would be nearly impossible to Google it during a PAF call.

Thanks for the post, Millionaire Fan. I rarely remember to check the official site for news about the show. In its current format, it's hard for them to promote the show without revealing some of the results, but just going from what they leaked, we still have no idea how these episodes turned out.

Spoiler

Sure we do. If someone went for the $1M question, they would have shown that.

[peacock2121]

I object to the original post being edited and changed by a moderator.

You are not the 'bad form' police.

[silverscreenselect]

The question that was revealed in the promo clip seems like one that might be answerable with an educated guess, but it would be nearly impossible to Google it during a PAF call.

Since you have a 1 in 4 chance at every question, any question from the entire history of the show could be answered with an educated guess. It also could be missed with an educated guess. Or you could just leave it to the fates.

[starfish1113]

I object to the original post being edited and changed by a moderator.

You are not the 'bad form' police.

I agree.

[takinover]

I object to the original post being edited and changed by a moderator.

You are not the 'bad form' police.

I agree.

#3

[Ritterskoop]

Bob, next time, please post asking the original poster to modify her or his post.

Your intention was to prevent people from seeing a spoiler, but that good intention is not outweighed by the importance of freedom of speech. No harm would have come from people being spoiled - it is not like you were preventing their houses from catching on fire.

Moderating is not the same thing as editing. Thanks.

[Bob78164]

Bob, next time, please post asking the original poster to modify her or his post.

Your intention was to prevent people from seeing a spoiler, but that good intention is not outweighed by the importance of freedom of speech. No harm would have come from people being spoiled - it is not like you were preventing their houses from catching on fire.

Moderating is not the same thing as editing. Thanks.

I would have but I saw it at about 1:30 a.m. Pacific Time, an hour when I thought it likely few, if any other people had been spoiled. If I had waited to get a reply, the harm would have been done and could not have been undone -- unwilling people who saw the thread title would not have been able to "unsee" it.

Moreover, a moderator's edits are like anyone else's -- there's nothing to stop Millionaire Fan from restoring the post and thread title to their original condition. I note that he (I think Millionaire Fan is a "he") has not yet done so.

(Finally, if I were going to ask that question, I'd do it via PM or the "Warning" function rather than a publicly available post. I went public to maintain my own accountability.) --Bob

[DevilKitty100]

I object to the original post being edited and changed by a moderator.

You are not the 'bad form' police.

In Bob's defense, I'm certain my life would have been irrevocably altered, perhaps downright ruined, had he not made this change.

[Millionaire Fan]

Spoiler

Which of these unlikely pairs never appeared in the same movie?

A. Halle Berry & Steven Seagal
B. Annette Bening & Chuck Norris
C. Meg Ryan & Billy Idol
D. Sharon Stone & Meatloaf

Anybody know the answer to this question?

[PlacentiaSoccerMom]

Spoiler

Which of these unlikely pairs never appeared in the same movie?

A. Halle Berry & Steven Seagal
B. Annette Bening & Chuck Norris
C. Meg Ryan & Billy Idol
D. Sharon Stone & Meatloaf

Anybody know the answer to this question?

Spoiler

B.

Halle Berry and Steven Seagal were in Executive Decision. Meg Ryan and Billy Idol were in The Doors. Meatloaf and Sharon Stone were in The Mighty, which was based on a children's book called Freak The Mighty.

[Millionaire Fan]

Spoiler

Which of these unlikely pairs never appeared in the same movie?

A. Halle Berry & Steven Seagal
B. Annette Bening & Chuck Norris
C. Meg Ryan & Billy Idol
D. Sharon Stone & Meatloaf

Anybody know the answer to this question?

Spoiler

B.

Halle Berry and Steven Seagal were in Executive Decision. Meg Ryan and Billy Idol were in The Doors. Meatloaf and Sharon Stone were in The Mighty, which was based on a children's book called Freak The Mighty.

Spoiler

Thanks

[littlebeast13]

Funny, when I saw this thread morning, and what Bob did, I didn't think anything of it. But then again, I've been listening to people beyotch on this Bored for years "Would you PLEASE not post spoilers of (fill in the blank with your favorite or least favorite TV show, movie, sporting event, awards show, etc., et. al, blah blah, blah....)" and chastising those who do post such things....

You can't have it both ways.... or maybe we just always need someone to chastise......

I'll bet had Bob not edited to add the spoiler, the line to thunk Millionaire Fan over the head for not spoilerizing an obvious spoiler would have been just as long, and maybe even had a nice cross-section with those who called out Bob....

lb13

[NellyLunatic1980]

Spoiler

Which of these unlikely pairs never appeared in the same movie?

A. Halle Berry & Steven Seagal
B. Annette Bening & Chuck Norris
C. Meg Ryan & Billy Idol
D. Sharon Stone & Meatloaf

Anybody know the answer to this question?

I took an educated guess on this question and got the right answer.

[littlebeast13]

It's pretty sad when I go back and edit a post twice, and there's still typos all over the place....

Sheesh!

lb13

[christie1111]

It's pretty sad when I go back and edit a post twice, and there's still typos all over the place....

Sheesh!

lb13

Somehow I am not surprised.

[littlebeast13]

It's pretty sad when I go back and edit a post twice, and there's still typos all over the place....

Sheesh!

lb13

Somehow I am not surprised.

I just woke up. It takes about 10 hours before my fingers catch up to my brain.....

lb13

[kayrharris]

It's pretty sad when I go back and edit a post twice, and there's still typos all over the place....

Sheesh!

lb13

Somehow I am not surprised.

I just woke up. It takes about 10 hours before my fingers catch up to my brain.....
lb13

I don't think 10 hours is long enough.

[Ritterskoop]

If I had waited to get a reply, the harm would have been done and could not have been undone -- unwilling people who saw the thread title would not have been able to "unsee" it.

I think we define harm in very different ways - that was my point about no houses being burned down. Stuff like this is a measure of benefits and harms. So here they are:

benefit: fewer people were spoiled as to the outcome of a TV show
benefit: maybe some people came to understand etiquette about spoilerage
harm: more people wonder if their posts will be edited

If the benefits are greater to you, the admin, than the harm, then you made the right call. To me it is more important that we not be looking over our shoulders and wondering about free speech.

It will make me censor what I post, which I guess for some folks might be a good idea.

Big smiley

[Bob78164]

If I had waited to get a reply, the harm would have been done and could not have been undone -- unwilling people who saw the thread title would not have been able to "unsee" it.

I think we define harm in very different ways - that was my point about no houses being burned down. Stuff like this is a measure of benefits and harms. So here they are:

benefit: fewer people were spoiled as to the outcome of a TV show
benefit: maybe some people came to understand etiquette about spoilerage
harm: more people wonder if their posts will be edited

If the benefits are greater to you, the admin, than the harm, then you made the right call. To me it is more important that we not be looking over our shoulders and wondering about free speech.

It will make me censor what I post, which I guess for some folks might be a good idea.

Big smiley

There won't be secret editing -- not from me by policy (I believe I've prominently and contemporaneously disclosed each time I edited someone else's post), and not from anyone else because it's not possible. All of the Moderators have access to a screen that tells us who has edited any post in the Forum. (I think that screen was part of the update, so we don't have this information for any posts prior to October 2008.) Any past or present member of the Transcript Team can see how this screen works by checking it out from the Transcript Forum, where BBTranscriptTeam has Moderator status.

As for whether to edit at all, I made the decision by taking my best guess as to the answer to the following question: Did MillionaireFan deliberately decide to post an unshielded spoiler or did he simply not realize it might be an issue? In other words, if I could call him on the phone right now and ask him to edit it, what would he say? I guessed that he would say yes, and his subsequent conduct leads me to believe I was right. Even then, I would not have edited if the matter were not time-sensitive. But there was no way to have it both ways. --Bob

[MarleysGh0st]

If I had waited to get a reply, the harm would have been done and could not have been undone -- unwilling people who saw the thread title would not have been able to "unsee" it.

I think we define harm in very different ways - that was my point about no houses being burned down. Stuff like this is a measure of benefits and harms. So here they are:

benefit: fewer people were spoiled as to the outcome of a TV show
benefit: maybe some people came to understand etiquette about spoilerage
harm: more people wonder if their posts will be edited

If the benefits are greater to you, the admin, than the harm, then you made the right call. To me it is more important that we not be looking over our shoulders and wondering about free speech.

It will make me censor what I post, which I guess for some folks might be a good idea.

Big smiley

I think it's worth noting that Bob did not delete or modify the contents of MillionaireFan's post. He added a spoiler tag, which required readers who wanted to read the spoiler to click on it and allowed those who didn't want to see the spoiler to be spared. Bob did change the subject line, since there's no way to add spoiler box to subject lines. And he did so on behalf of a long-standing Bored tradition against posting spoilers about the show.

In the spectrum of offenses against the right of free speech, this was very, very mild, Skoop. Just barely more serious that stopping someone from shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

[peacock2121]

I object to a post by a regular poster being changed by anyone but the original poster.

I know this is not my bored.

I also know it is not any of the moderators bored except tubadave.

No one is the 'bad form' police, or the 'truth' police or the 'good taste' police.

Having censorship be okay to save someone being spoiled about an upcoming show is weighing things in a way I don't weight them.

Saving people from yelling "Please don't spoil" by having someone censor a post is overkill and unnecessary use of power.

[littlebeast13]

I object to a post by a regular poster being changed by anyone but the original poster.

I know this is not my bored.

I also know it is not any of the moderators bored except tubadave.

No one is the 'bad form' police, or the 'truth' police or the 'good taste' police.

Having censorship be okay to save someone being spoiled about an upcoming show is weighing things in a way I don't weight them.

Saving people from yelling "Please don't spoil" by having someone censor a post is overkill and unnecessary use of power.

So just curious....

I have on numerous occasions spoilerized game posts for people who have forgotten to do so..... even in games that I am not running....

Other than the fact that Bob apparently had to take informtion that should have been spoilerized out of the subject header, what I have done is really no different....

So, have I been abusing my power as well?

lb13