Discussion of TV Tropes

Lunate · 2012-02-07 19:28:27

Blaze Bullet only whined about chicks in general, not any he had been stalking, didn't he? At least, I know he hadn't ever met the girl he wanted to FUCK the SHIT out of.

Irene · 2012-02-07 19:36:48

@Spain Sun: Huh. Well, that seemed pointless. Was he ever banned?

millercross · 2012-02-07 19:54:38

He was nuked until he became a corpse that lingers on the IRC, forever haunting new guys in #yackfest with his delightful little rants.

until he was banned from there and remained in #tropers, where BonSequitur doesn't give a shit. Cuz he's chill like that.

Obā-san · 2012-02-07 20:21:41

...That's kinda sad.

Viani · 2012-02-07 21:02:34

He was like...if tnu evolved into a person who could spell, and instead of hating the government, he hated people he dubbed "pussies of the internet". The behaviors, demeanor and posting habits are all the same otherwise.

millercross · 2012-02-07 21:04:05

ahahaha oh wow

i can actually see that

Obā-san · 2012-02-07 21:33:20

Oh gawd.

Misery · 2012-02-07 21:34:59

WAT

Yarrun XIX · 2012-02-07 21:36:54

My imagination has failed me

In the best possible way for it to fail me.

Obā-san · 2012-02-08 00:30:30

"Constructive criticism means saying what's good about a work." --Fast Eddie

Salix Babylonika · 2012-02-08 00:37:28

Well I suppose that's half right.

Honestly though, if the no-negativity thing was the only issue with TVTropes, I wouldn't have left.

Viani · 2012-02-08 00:43:02

I didn't leave TV Tropes.

Salix Babylonika · 2012-02-08 00:43:57

Technically speaking. Neither did I, I just switched to a non-posting sockpuppet.

I still would like to know why my editing permissions were revoked when I was banned. I did nothing to the wiki whatsoever.

Irene · 2012-02-08 00:50:47

Because after that fiasco, they were probably worried you might still be angry and edit-spam, etc. Legit reason I can think of.

Anyway, it's not no-negativity, it's constructive negativity we want. But we want to keep it more positive. Negativity breeds more negativity and vice versa.

Viani · 2012-02-08 00:53:11

Because people who get banned are also edit-banned, but if they still wish to edit, they can go to the edit-banned thread and appeal that.

Unknown · 2012-02-08 01:04:19

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Obā-san · 2012-02-08 01:04:25

Edit spam? Hell, that could end up making the wiki significantly more informative and useful.

Viani · 2012-02-08 01:11:16

TV Tropes would get worse with the no negativity rule.

Because you know all of those people who hate everything would explode everywhere.

Misery · 2012-02-08 01:18:06

The no negativity rule always bothered me.

Viani · 2012-02-08 01:18:28

I don't mind it.

Gets whiny people I don't like to shut up and not fill wiki pages with "Well here is 354 reasons why this show is horrible", or have people get on soapbox rants about how much their school sucks or how much they hate the government or anime or shakespeare etc.

Obā-san · 2012-02-08 01:20:58

^And then they'd get banned. Instead they just sloooowly release.

Viani · 2012-02-08 01:21:45

Which is better.

Obā-san · 2012-02-08 01:23:04

No it's not, I gotta put up with their fucking bullshit for ages, and it's not entertaining.

Irene · 2012-02-08 01:24:51

It's better to have a rule that helps stop it than to ban hundreds of people.

It does help a lot.

Obā-san · 2012-02-08 01:27:33

If you have hundreds of annoying fuckwits, you're doing it wrong.

Irene · 2012-02-08 01:31:50

Won't matter what they do. They always exist. You can't stop them from existing, but you can put up rules to help weed it out.

No matter how good of a piece of fiction you write, you'll get haters. Ocarina of Time? Still has a hatebase. All fanbases, all people, they're unpleasable. You can't win that way.

Viani · 2012-02-08 01:34:00

A wall keeps away orcs better than a line of warriors would.

nevermind neither worked in LOTR.

Giant caves kept the Balrog at bay better than an entire civilization of weaponized dwarves had.

Unknown · 2012-02-08 09:21:36

The user and all related content has been deleted.

millercross · 2012-02-08 10:01:33

But we want to keep it more positive. Negativity breeds more negativity and vice versa.

Except that's dumb. There's no reason why negativity is something that should be avoided in the first place. It's as equally unprooductive as mindless positivity, for starters. And it simply doesn't lead nowhere in discussion.

I agree that no negativity (and positivity) should be a thing in the wiki. But as it is, it being a rule of the forum is just ridiculous. It stifles discussion and it is the biggest cause for the passive aggressive environment in there.

It's better to have a rule that helps stop it than to ban hundreds of people.

In theory, yes. But in theory, that implies that the rule helps in the first place.

Irene · 2012-02-08 14:13:29

1) The forum is not that separate from the Wiki. Both have constant people, and the actual rules are not exclusive from eachother. You can be a dick on the Wiki just as often as you can be one on the forum. It does not stifle discussion. If a person refuses to discuss something maturely, then they have no business discussing it in the first place. You can't be taken seriously if you're flinging insults, and frankly, you should be dropped from the Discussion for that. We're not interested in your flaming, after all. Your points and attitude is what wins debates.

2) Oh, it severely helps. Without it, people can't complain they were ruining the Wiki or the Forum in the first place. They cannot use excuses anymore. We don't want negativity anywhere anyway. It does not have a single good thing for the Wiki OR the Forum. It does not help either. There's a difference between being a negative nancy(which is not what we're referring to, or atleast not the kind I mean) and having a negative attitude that people clearly don't like whatsoever. If nobody likes you on the Forum, why bother posting?

Also, being passive aggressive will get you thumped too if it becomes a case of dickery. Being allowed to flame others is just plain worse than the current system.

Obā-san · 2012-02-08 15:16:49

being passive aggressive will get you thumped too if it becomes a case of dickery

Nuh-uh.

Irene · 2012-02-08 15:26:07

Sorry, but you're wrong. Dickery gets thumped. No exceptions. Hint; If the mods don't consider it dickery, then you weren't being a dick according to the rules. Likewise, there's no excuse to be a dick either.

Like, ever. You can be polite and respective at all times. If you can't, don't post. The solution is very easy for everyone. If they choose to act like a dick, they face the consequences. It's also the reason it's not defined. That way tropers can't say "but I wasn't doing EXACTLY that" and so on. If you don't want to respect the person, then why bother with posting, right?

Misery · 2012-02-08 15:29:43

I remember posting in the Fetishes thread where I said pedophiles and child molesters were disgusting then I got thumped for that.

Haven · 2012-02-08 15:37:04

^^ Regrettably, this is very much untrue.

Irene · 2012-02-08 15:44:43

I think it was more the talk about that crap that got it thumped, draco. All talk about it is banned as is, even if the Mods completely agree with your view. But it does bring in bad discussions. So it was more of a countermeasure.

^ If you mean that people will still act like a dick, you're right. They refuse to be respective(and often get thumped or banned for it), and no rule will ever stop that. That's why thumps and bans exist.

Obā-san · 2012-02-08 15:49:54

If you mean that people will still act like a dick, you're right. They refuse to be respectful (and often get thumped or banned for it), and no rule will ever stop that. That's why thumps and bans exist.

Provided you define "Often" as "Rarely".

Obā-san · 2012-02-08 15:54:14

If they choose to act like a dick, they face the consequences.

I read that in the voice of Emperor Palpatine.

Irene · 2012-02-08 15:57:23

Nope, people get specifically thumped and banned constantly for being a dick. It's the forum's most often reason for banning.

And they won't stop unless a Mod makes them stop. Rules will not ever stop a person. They're more like influences. People don't care about rules as much as you think, but what it does is that they can no longer complain when they break them.

Obā-san · 2012-02-08 16:00:08

You're completely missing my point.

The moderation of TVT generally lacks competence, the reason the forum works is because people simply don't holler.

The moderation needs the forumites to holler so they can respond, the rules are moronic, people don't holler.

Obā-san · 2012-02-08 16:01:25

And it occurs to me I have no idea who you are on TVT.

Unknown · 2012-02-08 16:04:26

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Obā-san · 2012-02-08 16:06:39

Godwin neatly averted.

And Mussolini works better too. Fascist, yet laughable.

Irene · 2012-02-08 16:17:27

And the users lack just as much competence. If they had it, we would never have needed to holler it. They need to do their part so the mods can do theirs. They do not have the ability to visit every topic.

It's the users fault through and through. Do not blame the Mods for this. You think they can visit every single topic every single time? Hell no. The users both cause trouble and do nothing to fix it. They're the issue, and the staff is doing fine.

Beholder · 2012-02-08 16:21:25

It's also the reason it's not defined. That way tropers can't say "but I wasn't doing EXACTLY that" and so on.

Uh-huh. Not much else needs to be said (shrugs).

Also, this

If nobody likes you on the Forum, why bother posting?

That's official, then? Thought so

Obā-san · 2012-02-08 16:22:17

Compare TVT to here. Lots of the same people, if much smaller. Which one is nicer? Why?

TVT is a Terrible Place.

Salix Babylonika · 2012-02-08 16:25:07

It's the users fault through and through. Do not blame the Mods for this. You think they can visit every single topic every single time? Hell no. The users both cause trouble and do nothing to fix it. They're the issue, and the staff is doing fine.

You realize that you are a user, right?

Oh, but I'm sure that the problems on the site could never be your fault. Goodness no, that would imply that you were a horrible person like all those other horrible people who do horrible things. And you're not horrible, you're a good citizen.

Am I right, Holden?

Obā-san · 2012-02-08 16:26:00

It's That Other Troper, not me.

Beholder · 2012-02-08 16:27:47

Compare TVT to here. Lots of the same people, if much smaller. Which one is nicer? Why?

TVT, because it actually has discussions, while here I still do not quite understand what are we talking about.

But I understand that it is not the purpose of this site, so it is a matter of my personal preference instead of anything like objective criticism. I'm not being sarcastic, by the way.

Salix Babylonika · 2012-02-08 16:29:32

I would rather be a member of a site that admits to having no purpose than one that has none and pretends to.

Misery · 2012-02-08 16:31:37

TVT is a Terrible Place.

Discussion of TV Tropes

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories