NEW SPOILER POLICY POLL

What spoiler rules would you prefer?

  • Ditch all spoiler rules

    Votes: 17 32.7%

  • Keep the same rules as this year

    Votes: 31 59.6%

  • Have a spoiler thread, a spoiler-free thread and a spoiler-only-with-spoiler-tags thread

    Votes: 3 5.8%

  • Other, specified in post

    Votes: 1 1.9%
  • Total voters
    52
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Forostar said:
Keep the same rules as this year but make the distinguishment between the topic titles somewhat bigger. I opened the wrong thread a couple of times.
My own mistake but a clearer difference between topic titles would help.

edit:
Hmm, I just looked at the titles and it is clear enough.
Click to expand...
Maidenfans.com does not take responsibility for users who fail at reading.
 
The 2016 world tour is over so how can what's now in the past be spoiled? Everything should be fair game until the 2017 tour begins and then set up a new 2017 tour spoiler thread and no spoiler thread.

Anyone who wants to avoid the 2016 set list should really migrate back to the 1950s before IBM invented Big Blue...



image.jpeg
 
I voted ditch all the spoiler rules but what @MrKnickerbocker said in 2nd post is fine with me. Before I rant a little about spoiler I just want to clear something up: Commenting the BOS 2016 tour without spoilers is a fair game on all forum topics now, right? I mean, the tour has ended and there are no announced dates for next leg, so it seems silly to still include spoiler tags for possible tour leg that could maybe have the same setlist. Or am I wrong?

Concerning current/past spoilers: I respect that someone doesn't want to know details of a concert that it's going to see in some near future. And I'm definitely not the a-hole who is going to spoil something for somebody just for the fun of it (on the contrary - I despise those people). But I understand that occasional slips could happen (and probably did) in various topics and I don't think people should be banned immediately because of that. It just seems harsh and unfair. I mean, somebody probably did mention somewhere in a heat of discussion something like "but it works really well live on current tour" for certain song which is a spoiler, but also probably a honest mistake. Considering rules - that person should be banned from commenting on a forum from a (probably) favourite band because somebody who doesn't want to know that is also commenting/reading on the same forum? I'm not saying - "Well, if you don't want spoilers don't go to forum!" because that also seems a-hole-ish and also because official IM media made it hard to avoid spoilers this tour. But if you come to Maiden forum during a tour you can expect that somebody will eventually blab something about tour and I don't think they should get banished because they're commenting on their (probably) favourite band. Yes, if you want write a short review about a gig that you've just seen you will probably remember to add those spoiler tags, but I don't think he/she should proofread their every post twice just because some detail about current tour have slipped and then get punished if it did. Rant over.

On the other hand, I would like to keep some kind of spoiler tags but in formating only - I like to write lenghty posts and in that way (via spoiler tags) people can easily skip/scroll them.
 
I for one wholeheartedly agree with the opinion on banning, as expressed above by Spambot. I understand the need for serious banhammering in case of leaks and copyrighted material (as that is something that affects the very existence of this forum) and I agree with the harsh policy there – „for the good of the forum“.

However banning someone for (voluntarily or involuntarily) breaching the policy on spoilers which is mostly a mere preference by some of the members is excessive and a wee bit crazy, IMHO.

Also, complaining about the fact that you've been "spoilt" by the official Maiden web/FB is strange, tbh, but to each his own, I guess.
 
Nobody was ever banned for this, as far as I know. And people (unintentionally) broke the rules.
However if you're a persistent idiot you're bound to get a banhammer, because these rules are made for a bunch of our forum people and you can't play nicely.

IMHO the current situation is ok. Isn't option 2 and 3 basically the same? We didn't have a spoiler-only thread for TBOS but there's a spoiler thread.
I don't think that segmentation in form of no-spoiler, spoiled, only-spoilers is good. It will create three inconsistent threads. First of all, non-spoiled thread usually receives no news because 99% of the news contain a spoiler. So that thread would be mainly talk 'around the bush'. Spoiled thread would have stuff that contains some spoilers, heavily formatted and thus harder to read to an extent, but would host some of the talk, because that's where the news would end up. Only-spoiler thread would be used for videos/interviews and comments on those, and would end up with 90% of posts/material of the topic.
 
Again, because of the points Zare makes above, I think we should have a separate section for tours. Maiden could easily have another 10 years in them which means a good amount of tours is left.

Something like this:
AC3OeT8.jpg
 
Dream Theater forum has that and it's pointless. Spoilers happen on the main forum anyway and the tour section is so cluttered with threads that could all fit in one tour topic.

There isn't really a spoiler problem on this forum in the first place, two tour threads is the perfect solution.
 
There were bans this year, yes. The couple I remember were temporary 24 hour bans, at a very busy time when dozens of new people were signing up, not reading the rules, and posting numerous spoilers haphazard - such as in thread titles - when other members had already tagged them about posting spoilers, or reported the posts.

We're not restricting discussions of the 2016 tour at all. I don't know of anyone expecting spoiler rules to be enforced re the 2016 tour.

Zare said:
Isn't option 2 and 3 basically the same?
Click to expand...
Almost but not quite. The current policy is two designated tour threads, one which allows completely open discussion, and the other which allows no spoilers at all. The third option on the list includes a third designated tour thread which allows spoiler discussions within spoiler tags.
 
Brigantium said:
The current policy is two designated tour threads, one which allows completely open discussion, and the other which allows no spoilers at all.
Click to expand...
That worked.
Brigantium said:
The third option on the list includes a third designated tour thread which allows spoiler discussions within spoiler tags.
Click to expand...
Do not do this.
LooseCannon said:
Then don't complain when you don't get what you want.
Click to expand...
I don't control the polls, so what difference does it make whether I read them or not? Plus, I'll complain if I want to... :innocent:
 
LooseCannon said:
So the feedback we're getting is that this year's rules worked well.
Click to expand...

I guess you should really ask people that didn't want to read spoilers. For us others, it wasn't a nuisance to use tags or appropriate thread. Mistakes did happen, but when system is set up those will be gone too.
You'll always have a problem before new tour or release, people who join in, do not bother with the rules and start posting immediately.
 
Keep the rules, though I rarely care for set list spoilers and at times I go out of my way to find out what I will be hearing.
 
MrKnickerbocker said:
I voted "Keep the same rules as last year", but I should clarify that I think we should keep those rules only in the event that the setlist for next year's tour is different. If the band goes out next year with the exact same show, a la Maiden England, then I think all talk is fair game. If someone is on a Maiden message board a year and a half after the release of an album, I fully expect that they have either been reading spoiler threads, looking at Maiden's official spoiler-heavy social media, or watching clips from shows on YouTube.
Click to expand...

Yep, this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top