Ok I do see that most of that stuff is in the GoT wiki. I still can't find the source of this though:

dude is def a bookreader, theres nothing in the show about elia not being able to have a 3rd kid

the lineage stuff is all just copied from the wikia but looks like weve got solid evidence of a BOOKREADER.

time to put him on TRIAL

Shame

Lattimer = Sansa
RepLol = Arya

Also, lol @ elRazor once more for good measure. Be a donk and apologize more for it.

I DEMAND A TRIAL OF COMBAT! oh, thats only for the accused to say i guess. STILL!

Permanent ban please.

Or he could just be a huge nerd for it. I haven't read the books and know basically all the crap the dude was talking about. Between youtube stuff and other forums being more liberal, all the stuff I seen posted was common knowledge if you're on the right forum/youtube channel. You can probably just look back at the History of Westoros and get all that info there too.

the proper way to conduct oneself, then, would be to not talk about things that aren't discussed in the show in the the thread that says "no bookreaders". failing to do so should earn a ban, period.

like, who cares if he actually read the books or if he just read a summary of events in the books? it's functionally no ****ing different

I mean, sometimes i spoil myself by entering bookreader thread and catch glimps or read on other sites that unwarningly spoils book stuff. That doesnt make me a bookreader but I do know more stuff than the TV-show tells me. Hence, talk abut it -> get skullcrushed by the mountain imo.

My understanding which is limited was that Cersei was sending a good portion of her army to the North with Jamie. Then she was going to secretly hire another army from the Gold people to support her it and try to keep the throne. Now that someone was able to recite the all names and entire line of Targaryens and Starks I feel I'm a novice. I'm just going to focus on visuals of a beautiful blond princess riding on a flying dragon spitting fire. (Though I'm little unclear how the revenant dragon could generate fire.)

I'm all for banning book spoilerers but I don't give a **** about any of this.

Agreed, this bookreader stuff is getting ridiculous. Spoiling future plot items is obviously ban-worthy, but discussing deep back-story items that have no impact on the future plot should be OK and the nits who complain should be the ones banned.

I've never read the books and for me, the bookreader thread has made the show much more enjoyable for me.

It's really simple.

Want to include book discussion? -> go to bookreader thread

What does this thread say, in caps? It says "NO BOOKREADERS"

What about these statements is so hard to understand?

I doubt the mods want to get into discussions about what information that hasn't been on the show is ok to post and what crosses the line, we've had the thread derail into that time and time again.

Its really simple, it's not that binary, as information about lore exists in places other than books.

The thread says NO BOOKREADERS.

It does not say NO YOUTUBZ WATCHERS OR WIKI READERS.

What about that statement is hard to understand?

I have zero problem with non spoiler lore discussion from other sources and if its impossible to tell whether someone got it from a book or youtubz, who gives a flying **** as long as its non spoiler.

I can definitely see the need for separate GoT threads back when there were still potential spoilers from the books lurking about, but now that the show is well beyond them I don't really see what the fuss is about. Just my two cents.

this

and this! All this lore / history stuff is difficult enough to follow without the pesky Targaeryns re-using the same bloody name over and over again

The problem is that the thread title says " ***NO BOOKREADERS*** " when what it should say is something like ***NO NON-SHOW SOURCED INFO*** or ***ONLY SHOW-SOURCED INFO***

In theory, the latter is what is effectively meant by the former, but because so many bookreaders are insufferable asshats who thrive on spoiling stuff, being iamverysmart, and being technically correct, they want to try to loophole their way out of what is meant by the rules by going with the letter rather than the spirit.

The rules are obviously in place to prevent non-show information from being in the thread. The usage of " ***NO BOOKREADERS*** " started because that was the primary source of non-show information. Now there are a lot more sources of non-show info out there. The problem is that many of those sources are getting info from the books, which effectively makes them bookreader sources. The asshat bookreaders know this and try to use it as a loophole, despite it being a clear violation of what the rule is in place for.

I say no mercy for these people. They have their own thread yet still insist on invading this thread solely for the purpose of ruining the enjoyment of the show for other people. They know what they are doing is wrong and they are doing it anyway. Just ban them and be done with it.

Meh. Rules for rules sake is stupid. Last thing I say on the subject.

This is clearly a violation of the spirit of the rule, but in this particular case (Elia can't have more children), it's de minimis. I'd argue that gets a temp ban, while any further violations turn that permanent.

There is nothing bookreaders can spoil for non-bookreaders at this point. This discussion is so aids I feel sick for having participated in it.

That is not remotely obvious and is a total reach and needy extrapolation to try and justify rules for rules sake.

What seems obvious is that it is to prevent spoilers. If someone reads/watches/wiki's something that is a spoiler, then posts = ban.

If its not a spoiler someone has to come up with a lot more convincing argument than rules is rules as to why I have to give a **** about someone posting non spoiler info.

Just lock the thread already

Seems like posting evidence that comes from the books used to speculate about future events should be bannable as well. Like a big part of the next season is going to be the motivation behind the night king's actions, and if there were explanations for that in the books, I'd be pretty upset if someone posted them here.