Unnecessary Spoilers!

[risque]

Maybe because the rule is so pointless and irrelevant?

[Slowpoke]

Maybe because the rule is so pointless and irrelevant?

My point is, he didn't make the rules to it's unfair to give him the third degree.

[Plank]

Who would make the decision to improve/update the rule changed?

[Mrs.McCall]

Professor-Alex and Elkaa and the General Management.

I think the rule should be updated where if the thread poster explicitly mentions that the thread includes spoilers, spoiler tags are not needed.

[today]

I hate the force spoiler, i mean c'mon just add it to the title, infact use a bloody prefix you love them so much lately.

Bold it, make it red, make it stand out then its PEOPLES fault if they moan, you warned them. So what.

[Plank]

I hate the force spoiler, i mean c'mon just add it to the title, infact use a bloody prefix you love them so much lately.

Bold it, make it red, make it stand out then its PEOPLES fault if they moan, you warned them. So what.

I think prefixes would be a good idea.

[BlueTango]

God, it's not the end of the world.... It doesn't really effect the running or useage of the forum.

[GommeInc]

Spoilers technically are pointless... If you don't want to know what's happening in a film, show or book, then don't read the threads... Duh...

[Coldplay]

The rule has been updated, and is quite clear, I'm just doing my job, so I'd appreciate you not flaming me for it?

[e5]

Spoilers technically are pointless... If you don't want to know what's happening in a film, show or book, then don't read the threads... Duh...

Spoiler's aren't pointless themselves because they can come in very handy, but in threads that say SPOILER in the title, and then they are being forced to use - they are then pointless