On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 01:44:24PM -0400, Thomas Yan <tyan at twcny.rr.com> wrote: > Matthew Hunter <matthew at infodancer.org> wrote on Fri, 14 Jun 2002 02:57:02 > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2002, Thomas Yan <tyan at twcny.rr.com> wrote: > > If you can't, then lets put a warning *prominently* in the list > > rules that spoilers are rampant and if you have not read > > everything available, beware... > Well, how do other people feel about this approach, especially if > you're one of the ones who haven't read all the books you intend to? I think we're both interested in the answer to this. > This seems to me like a great way to scare people off. How is this different than putting spoiler warnings into every message? > > because we'll be > > spoiler-protecting every message anyway and we might as well be > > efficient about it. > Please explain why a simple "Rampant spoilers for everything Brustian" > warning is significantly inefficient? Look at the amount of traffic we can generate when discussions are running. Are you seriously arguing that typing a spoiler warning into every message -- of which there are already nearly 300, in a week or so -- is NOT significantly less efficient than a single warning? -- Matthew Hunter (matthew at infodancer.org)