McBTC

For example... everyone who has followed the 2018 TdF already knows ******* will be the winner of the yellow jersey even though the final 21st Stage doesn't even start until 9:30A EST tomorrow. It's not even a 'fact' until tomorrow so, how could it be a spoiler if it hasn't actually happened yet? And, is it a spoiler to talk about the cyclist who, for example, won Stage 10, which was more than a week ago?

LAJ

It's a respect thing.

Yeah, I know.... Stay of the computer/smart phone and lock yourself in the bathroom if you don't want to know. There are dedicated threads, and it's just best to use them.

kbarch

I have a hard time with the notion of "spoilers" for sporting events. A bike race is not a feature film or a novel, which have the same meaning whenever they happen to be watched or read. A sporting event, on the other hand, is a one-time, historic event. If you don't see it live, you missed it. If some people want to pretend they didn't miss it, and watch a recording later, it's up to them to ignore or avoid the facts beforehand. That said, within certain contexts, I'd say that giving people a few hours to catch the first rebroadcast or watch their own recording is a nice, friendly thing to do, in which case I'd say 8-12 hours is plenty, and expecting people to wait more than 18 hours before openly discussing the results is definitely pushing it. But the TdF, when live broadcasts of the stage finishes are at a reasonable hour for most of it's global audience? I don't see it. If you don't want the finish of a sporting event to be "spoiled," get up and watch it while it's fresh.

CliffordK

With work schedules, time delays, etc... Maybe 24 hours wait?

But, I can't believe anybody would actually read a topic on the TDF if they didn't want to know what happened

Perhaps one issue is that the first few lines of a topic are often displayed without opening it.

kbarch

I don't know that it's the case this time around, but when someone has an essentially insurmountable lead before the last couple of stages, it's easy to say they've already won. Question is, when does that become clear? If it wasn't clear until the end of the the 20th stage, then revealing the fact that rider X had won the whole thing would have revealed that he held onto his lead (a fact, which is actually a bigger deal than learning who happened to win the stage), and some might call that a spoiler.

CliffordK

A prediction is just a prediction. It isn't a spoiler.

One can discuss time or points if one wishes.

The leader often rides a bit conservatively that last day, but that doesn't mean a crash is impossible.

Killer Squirrels?

Overly exuberant photographers?

znomit

I keep a strict news blackout for 3 months until the drug testing fog has cleared.

But yeah, dropping race results in random threads is a dick move.

Bah Humbug

Let me flip the question around: what's so onerous about marking your thread as *spoiler* and not posting results in other threads? Race results aren't relevant in most threads, so you shouldn't need to discuss them there. And frankly, the discussions should just go in "Professional Cycling - For the Fans" instead of the 41 anyway.

McBTC

Concerns seem a bit contrived when talking about something that has actually happened that is not the fictional plot in a book or the surprise ending of a movie-- otherwise, how much time must pass, for example, before you feel free to disclose who won the last presidential election or what the verdict was in the OJ trial? When it comes to the TdF, only someone who knows something about the competitors and details of the sport involved would have the slightest appreciation for names -- pretty much like in any sporting event -- and, among such persons, I think it is silly to think that you should not, for example, disclose the winner of the Superbowl until a few months have passed.

Bah Humbug

You're not allowed to discuss the last election here either, so that's not a great analogy for your argument. Why do you feel the need to discuss it in a random thread on the wrong subforum? Why do you need to put the spoiler in the title, or unmarked spoilers in a post? No really, tell me why you're not able to keep it where it belongs. I'm genuinely curious what's so oppressive about that. Don't go on about sports vs stories, tell me what's hard about being considerate.

McBTC

The latest demonstration of the latest social order taken to an absurd extreme... spoiler correctness... all in the name of considerate discourse?

WhyFi

Dude - you posted a spoiler of a stage the day of. Stop whining.

McBTC

The best part was the very end when a Frenchman stepped out of the crowd and mooned the... ooops, sorry, spoiler alert. All news is a spoiler...

CliffordK

I'm fine with simply never discussing the Superbowl.

Bah Humbug

It's very telling that you're unable or unwilling to answer my question.

British

I'd agree with this. This isn't a movie. You either watched it live or you missed and should prepare to be spoiled.

Although specifically within the context of pro bike races and the discussion thereof, I would point out there is a dedicated sub-forum for this here on bikeforums.net.

kbarch

By the way, I've found that if the results are really interesting, they're interesting even if you "know how it ends." Even with sporting events. I've watched the 9th inning of game 1 of the 1988 world series a couple of times after the fact, and it still gets me. Knowing the ending doesn't spoil it at all

Homebrew01

Is "No Spoilers in Title" such a hard concept to understand and follow ??