Just had box set ruined by a thread title- can we have a bit more curtesy please

[Carmenandgetit]

So I have been watching a programme on box set and when it started on TV I stopped going on any websites that may give it away before I watch it. Only for me to see a spoiler in active thread as a title.

Have some consideration for other people please - there are plenty of threads on the programme that do not have spoilers in then title.

So cheers to whoever started the thread - I don't know who as am not opening it.

don't know how this can be stopped from happening again. Just wanted to vent really

"I stopped going on any websites that may give it away before I watch it".

This led me to think that OP is new to MN. If she'd been here for a while, she'd have known that spoilers do appear in thread titles by mistake from time to time, and that MNHQ remove them but it can sometimes take a while for them to do it.

And of course it's pretty obvious that there will be one or more threads about new season of a programme which has already been much posted about.

So although OP might want perfect posting standards, it's not really reasonable to expect them. And, if my assumption that she's fairly new is correct, she'll have learned that MN is one of the sites she should have put on her 'to swerve in immediate aftermath' list.

talking about the ending of a programme which has already aired is not a spoiler. If someone doesn't want to know what happens because they haven't watched it then the onus is on them to stay away from sources of discussion.

And you know what? it's not real it's only a story anyone who needs to swear and get angry at someone for posting quite legitimately about a story which has already aired needs to grow up, step away from the internet and stick to watching not real things on television instead.

It's these sorts of reactions which make me want to post about the endings of every television programme as soon as they're aired just because I can

Ah bloody hell, I missed TWD last night and have to wait till the cd go to bed to watch it.

It's a calculated risk to go on the internet during or after something has aired. There is always the chance that you will accidentally see something - someone could have liked something on Facebook, it could have made the news, it could be being discussed on here, it could be anything.

It was perhaps a bad idea to put it in the thread title and not the Walking Dead thread, but the OP did apologise.

Let's not forget that it has now aired 3 times in the UK, 5 times in the US, and twice in Europe. It is widely available online, it can be paid for on Sky, it is available, if you want to watch it.

So if it was ruined for you, it's a shame, and the OP didn't mean too. It's worse when someone does purposefully post a big spoiler, and that happens ALL THE TIME on the internet. Some people are arses. But you took the risk of not watching it live, for whatever reason, and going on the internet before you'd watched it.

I have a lot of American friends, I work online, I have to be exceedingly careful on Mondays to ensure that I don't see anything that would ruin it before it airs for us. If I end up having to deal with something overnight, and it's live, I have to avoid hashtags and conversations because people talk about things as it happens.

The internet is a bit like a giant party when programs like that are on, and people talk and theorise and comfort each other. You can leave the party, or you can accept that you'll stand at the side and maybe hear something that you'd rather not have done. You can't stand in the middle and bellow that nobody can talk about it because you haven't watched it yet. It's the internet, it doesn't care. There will always be someone who is talking about it.

Have been taking a MN break for the last few months, popped back on today - clicked on this thread due to the spelling mistake in the title, then remembered why I took a break.
The usual people talking sense and the inevitable frothers.

It's TV.
Get over it.

Grips need handing out surely?

thing is, it's not a spoiler if the programme has already aired. If it's aired in the US and isn't on until tonight then fair enough, but it had aired last night. If people don't want to know what happened then it's down to them to stay away from discussion.

The very idea that people should have consideration and not discuss a tv programme which has already been shown is ludicrous.

wannabe, people can stay away from the discussion AND use MN if people do what MNHQ themselves advocate (and uphold by deleting spoilers in titles), by just putting it behind a spoiler warning.

That way everybody can post happily and nobody has to be upset. Or you can maintain that your way of posting is the best regardless of the fact that you know you're having a negative impact. That's a personal choice. It does not make you right. Posting spoilers just because you know it upsets other people again, just says more about the person doing it. It still doesn't make it definitively right or wrong.

usual, a spoiler, as I quoted above isn't necessarily a temporal thing. It doesn't work like that.

There is a way that both parties can be satisfied. You can talk about The Walking Dead and not spoil other people by just doing it on the relevant threads. Then we can co-exist. Or you can believe your way is the only way and knowingly, spoil things for others.

It's not just about spoilers. It's about sharing a forum. People should take care with thread titles. Isn't that the point? People don't have a choice about reading the titles but can choose to click on them. Either people have respect for other MN users or they don't. We're talking about taking 3 seconds to consider how you phrase a thread title. If you can't afford people that common decency then fair enough. Doesn't mean they need to grow up or get a life or that they're pathetic or ridiculous. They just aren't you.

shit happens

wannabe, AGAIN, nobody said don't discuss it. People are talking about thread titles only. And I've already explained that a spoiler isn't a spoiler just because it is posted after the airing of a show. It's a spoiler if it spoils.

MN is self moderating and this is a good example of it. People work together to find ways of everybody enjoying the site. Or deliberately pissing over other people's chips just because you don't agree with them.

You can talk about as many spoilers as you like. Just phrase your title accordingly. It's such a tiny courtesy. It doesn't stop you talking about anything at all. It's just asking you to phrase your thread titles in a neutral way or to write the word 'spoiler' in it. 12 hours after a shock event in a massively popular tv series, I think lots of people can see the rationality of the request.

Can you put a spoiler in the thread title and talk about the programme in the thread please?

No fuck off, get a grip, you're pathetic and ridiculous. I don't want to do things that way, even if it doesn't affect me in the slightest to do so in a self-moderated community. I don't give a shit that the owners of the site prefer things that way and a large group of users have politely asked me to do one tiny thing which has no impact on my day, I am right and you need to grow the fuck up.

I mean, really?

yes, swaring at a poster for posting a "spoiler" does mean they need to grow up, get a life and are ridiculous.

The point at which a thread has to be deleted because it turned into a personal attack on the op is the point at which any right to consideration is lost.

It's a television programme for heave'ns sake. It's not real nor is it worthy of that level of vitriol.

So while I might not go out of my way to post the ending in a thread title, I certainly wouldn't give any consideration to people who act quite so pathetically over a story.

wannabe, I've already addressed that point. No people shouldn't swear at or personally attack any op (note the personal attacks on the op of this thread for example). We all agree on that. MNHQ didn't just delete the thread due to personal attacks. The thread deletion message says that it is deleted because of massive spoilers (complete with an face and threats to get the op of the thread) and the op herself asked for it to be deleted because she had realised her mistake. Of course the personal attacks were awful and unwarranted. Nobody but nobody has said that isn't true. It's a total straw man.

MNHQ ask that you put spoilers in the thread not in the title. It's that simple. Either you do that or don't. I don't care about spoilers or The Walking Dead, but I'm happy to share the forum with other people and it's no bother to limit spoilery discussion to inside a thread 12 hours after something has aired. It's just a kindness. I'd like to think most people are capable of that.

Mistakes happen of course but when you know and have the choice, why the heck wouldn't you accept that you have it in your power not to deliberately spoil something for somebody?

Right I'm off out to tell a load of children that Father Christmas doesn't exist. It's not a spoiler. He never existed. I don't see the problem with talking about him as fictitious. We do in our house. If you don't want to be spoiled, then you should educate yourself about Father Christmas at birth. Screw you if you do otherwise.

Ohh so 12 hours after isn't ok!? Really, so when is ok?

15 hours after? 20 hours after? 48 hours? 48 1/2? Who makes up these rules?

ShowOfBloodyStumps but there is a vast difference between a thread title being posted, people saying "ah, contains spoilers can we get mn hq to amend?" which would be perfectly reasonable, it's a thread title after all, and a thread being posted which essentially turns into pages of personal attacks on the op because she has posted a title containing details of a programme which had already aired. and that thread having to be removed not because of the spoilers but because of the personal attacks on the op. There is absolutely no need for the reaction that thread title caused last night. none what so ever.

The fact is, that programme had already aired. While people may choose not to talk about it publically, the reality is that once it's aired it is fair game for discussion. The reaction on that thread says a lot more about the people getting upset than it does about the op who simply posted about a programme which had already aired on British television.

There's a vast difference also between Father Christmas for little kids and a to programme for grown adults!

Dear god

well, the irony is that there have been threads in the past week from posters whose children have been told that Father Christmas doesn't exist who have been told that their children will find out the truth anyway so to get a grip.

And another thread currently ongoing where a grieving widow and the sister of a terminally ill brother are being ripped to shreds for daring to believe in God. But apparently that is ok, but posting a spoiler over the ending of a fictitious programme which is already known is not? riiight.

Lol usual

and yes, deleting a thread because it contains spoilers is ridiculous. The programme had already aired.

yes, am off to the real world as well. Please can no-one talk about events in the news because I won't get to see it until 6:00.

Once a programme has aired then all bets are off. Yes some people chose to watch on catch up but that's a chance they take. Spoilers only apply before a programme has been broadcast, you can't control the Internet so best avoid it all together if you're watching later.

Just don't put OMG!!!! xxx died!!!! in the title less than 24 hours after airing.

I think you can probably get away with 'nearly everyone dies' in Hamlet

limitedperiodonly

Thanks a lot. I haven't read that one yet!