[Malaclypse]

I just don't understand the thing about spoilers - spoilers do not affect my enjoyment of a written work in any way whatsoever - I trolled through Steve's notebooks, packed in boxes in his garage, now some of *that* was disturbing in terms of how differently he imagined the story playing out at one point vs. the finished product but spoilers? doesn't even register with me, though I have seen a lot of early versions of books which were then changed, mostly for the better

Get over it! It's not the job of other people to serve your need for a spoiler-free existence!

I hate onions, right? So I don't trust people when they say there's no onions in something, I check for myself. If you're that bloody concerned about it, you take on the responsibility for it - it's nobody else's job to serve your predilection!

[D'rek]

Malaclypse, on 19 September 2014 - 05:50 AM, said:

I just don't understand the thing about spoilers - spoilers do not affect my enjoyment of a written work in any way whatsoever - I trolled through Steve's notebooks, packed in boxes in his garage, now some of *that* was disturbing in terms of how differently he imagined the story playing out at one point vs. the finished product but spoilers? doesn't even register with me, though I have seen a lot of early versions of books which were then changed, mostly for the better

Get over it! It's not the job of other people to serve your need for a spoiler-free existence!

I hate onions, right? So I don't trust people when they say there's no onions in something, I check for myself. If you're that bloody concerned about it, you take on the responsibility for it - it's nobody else's job to serve your predilection!

Did you necro this thread just so you could brag more about knowing SE personally?

[Malaclypse]

No, I'm genuinely frustrated that you have effectively tied your own hands by being concerned with spoilers on an encyclopedia effort!

This post has been edited by Malaclypse: 23 September 2014 - 03:23 PM

[D'rek]

Malaclypse, on 23 September 2014 - 03:23 PM, said:

No, I'm genuinely frustrated that you have effectively tied your own hands by being concerned with spoilers on an encyclopedia effort!

Ok, well then to answer your posts, some people are very different from you and get quite upset when they inadvertently spoil themselves for major emotional events in a book/TV show/powerpoint presentation/whatever. They feel that it lessens the intensity of the moment itself when they eventually do read/watch/eat/snort that event. You can certainly find millions of examples of people feeling this way about spoilers all over the internet, including many in these very forums.

You, Mal, it seems do not care if you inadvertently run into a spoiler. That's fine. But many people are upset by it.

So since we love these books and want people to enjoy them as much as possible, it is not unreasonable to have a discussion about spoilers and how we might prevent a reader from souring their reading experience by stumbling upon one.

[Malaclypse]

OK then you and everyone who feels that the world owes them a spoiler free existence shouldn't be involved with an encyclopedia. If you don't want answers then what the hell are you doing reading an encyclopedia?! It boggles the mind.

Look, there have been many worthy additions - I just think it would be better to incorporate what you've added into my wiki rather than the other way around.

It would be a relatively straightforward task, but labour-intensive either way. So, I may actually have to book holiday time to do this but I'm wiling to do it.

I've been insensitive, it's true, but the encyclopedia is a subject that I have worked long and hard at and now, when the prospect of making money from it has fled so completely, I want to do it for myself, to strive against the hugeness of it, to obsess on it but what I will not do is lose information. Because then you're just digging a hole in sand with a teaspoon.

I will have my way here.

This post has been edited by Malaclypse: 23 September 2014 - 07:24 PM

[D'rek]

Malaclypse, on 23 September 2014 - 07:20 PM, said:

OK then you and everyone who feels that the world owes them a spoiler free existence shouldn't be involved with an encyclopedia. If you don't want answers then what the hell are you doing reading an encyclopedia?! It boggles the mind.

Look, there have been many worthy additions - I just think it would be better to incorporate what you've added into my wiki rather than the other way around.

It would be a relatively straightforward task, but labour-intensive either way. So, I may actually have to book holiday time to do this but I'm wiling to do it.

I've been insensitive, it's true, but the encyclopedia is a subject that I have worked long and hard at and now, when the prospect of making money from it has fled so completely, I want to do it for myself, to strive against the hugeness of it, to obsess on it but what I will not do is lose information. Because then you're just digging a hole in sand with a teaspoon.

I will have my way here.

What the hell are you talking about? Where in this thread is deleting content been raised? You are deliriously hallucinating things that don't even exist now. :~ Did you even click on the sample spoiler encoding posted up-thread and see how it does the exact same thing as on this forum - simply hiding and showing text? Of course you didn't.

Anyways, feel free to continue working on your own private spoiler-full encyclopedia. Just because you think a less spoilery encyclopedia is too much of a challenge for yourself doesn't mean the others discussing it can't accomplish it. More Malazan encyclopedias can't be anything but a good thing!

[Malaclypse]

Bah, you prevaricate.

The fact is that we have added almost nothing to the private wiki in years and the current, linked wiki therefore must have lost information from the base that I shared. I copied everything over - I remember doing it.

All I'm saying is that I'm interested in a reconciliation, but on my terms and if you don't want to play ball then I'll go directly to the decision-makers because the encyclopedia link needs to lead you to somewhere better than it currently does, imo

[D'rek]

Malaclypse, on 23 September 2014 - 09:40 PM, said:

Bah, you prevaricate.

The fact is that we have added almost nothing to the private wiki in years and the current, linked wiki therefore must have lost information from the base that I shared. I copied everything over - I remember doing it.

All I'm saying is that I'm interested in a reconciliation, but on my terms and if you don't want to play ball then I'll go directly to the decision-makers because the encyclopedia link needs to lead you to somewhere better than it currently does, imo

That's not what this thread is about. This thread is about spoiler policy and implementation discussion.

[Malaclypse]

Well you know how I feel about that so I'll exit stage right