Discussion of TV Tropes

Viani · 2012-02-08 19:09:35

^ ^ see above.

Irene · 2012-02-08 19:18:24

There's nothing special to imagine. You simply know you cannot post there at the time, even if you wanted to. You're banned, and you don't exist there. Simple!

Salix Babylonika · 2012-02-08 19:19:24

Given that bans are paper-thin on TVT, it's not quite that simple. Just ideally that simple.

Manly McMacho · 2012-02-08 19:20:23

^

Irene · 2012-02-08 19:37:23

Nah, they're pretty hardened depending who. It's possible to appeal for a ban. But it won't always work. Bounces are the true last straw, and are only for literal Trolls and those who just won't stop.(which is not ironically trolling)

Obā-san · 2012-02-08 19:39:44

literal Trolls

Viani · 2012-02-08 19:41:07

Silly comic

Gay people can't operate heavy machinery...

Obā-san · 2012-02-08 19:42:00

(*Hits Tno With A Backhoe*)

Manly McMacho · 2012-02-08 19:42:16

Duh, Naney. She's saying that, should a troll ever join TVT, they should be banned, and I personally find that very racist and I disapprove.

Viani · 2012-02-08 19:42:27

ow

:<

Vriska · 2012-02-08 19:44:50

As an Alternian, I find that very offensive.

::::(

millercross · 2012-02-08 20:02:39

I find the staff far more competent than half the users, though. Not every decision is perfect, but people thinking flaming others is the best way doesn't do them any favors. Not counting FE, since he's debatable, if they weren't competent, they wouldn't be on the staff. It speaks for itself. I far trust them more than any random user.

that's a low standard. What you're saying is, basically "They're an authority and they're competent because they're an authority" rather than because of how they approach the problems and solve them.

Still disagree, Tno. I hate the idea of silencing a person because you don't like their views. Just silence the topic. If they PERSIST with these views, there's a problem. I myself am Lawful Neutral, and Freedom of Speech still counts to me.

Freedom of Speech is a right that only should apply in public venues. Regardless of TvTropes low standards for joining (Or the internet, for that matter) it's still a private venue where the administrator's criteria should be held above the users, who visit the site and enjoy the priviledges that the administrator provides as long as they follow the rules the administrator sets.

That's how it normally (And how it should) work. The problem here is that Eddie's criteria and rules are pretty fucking dumb.

Honestly, Irene, the problem I'm seeing here is that you're presenting this as a matter of black and white. As if it was a matter of either being a "dick" or being "nice" or of not "flaming" people. Not just that, but you present everything as if it was automatically right or wrong because the mods like or dislike it. Those aren't arguments.

Irene · 2012-02-08 20:54:29

that's a low standard. What you're saying is, basically "They're an authority and they're competent because they're an authority" rather than because of how they approach the problems and solve them.

No, they become authority because they were competent, and if they're not, they would lose it. Don't mince my words.

Freedom of Speech is a right that only should apply in public venues. Regardless of TvTropes low standards for joining (Or the internet, for that matter) it's still a private venue where the administrator's criteria should be held above the users, who visit the site and enjoy the priviledges that the administrator provides as long as they follow the rules the administrator sets.

It's a public venue, however. It's a public place to discuss things. It's open for all, not for some very specific people that are CHOSEN to be allowed in. It's a public venue. However, if you mean it doesn't apply to the internet, sure.

That's how it normally (And how it should) work. The problem here is that Eddie's criteria and rules are pretty fucking dumb.

Except they're not. And they work exactly like that. And I don't know, not flaming others or acting like a dick to them seems pretty good to me. I'd say his attitude of not killing all those you don't agree with with fire is a lot better than what you're proposing.

Honestly, Irene, the problem I'm seeing here is that you're presenting this as a matter of black and white. As if it was a matter of either being a "dick" or being "nice" or of not "flaming" people. Not just that, but you present everything as if it was automatically right or wrong because the mods like or dislike it. Those aren't arguments.

Too bad only the Mods can decide what is right or wrong, not the users. And that's all that matters. That's why they base their decisions more off of the rules and not personal bias. You know, like a Moderator should.

And guess what, rules are black and white at every messageboard. You're either following them or you're not. The thing that is NOT black and white is how severe the punishment will be.

Obā-san · 2012-02-08 20:58:21

Too bad only the Mods can decide what is right or wrong, not the users

I believe you are confusing "Right & Wrong" with "The Rules"

Manly McMacho · 2012-02-08 21:00:39

^This. Hell, I'm a member where being a complete dick is pretty much encouraged and acting obsequious or apologetic warrants a ban, but does that make those either right or wrong? Yes No.

Misery · 2012-02-08 21:01:56

^^This.

Viani · 2012-02-08 21:06:44

In my opinion, the world would be a better place without opinions (that I do not like or share). I've seen people with morbid views on the Death Penalty post in OTC, and cause a shitload of problems for absolutely no reason. Did they want different views, or want to discuss their own opinion and the pros/cons concerned with it? No, they wanted to be Light Yagami for a few posts and then leave as the people who were trying to formulate a basis of agreement on what is reasonable concerning the death penalty had to deal with the issues left behind.

^This. Hell, I'm a member where being a complete dick is pretty much
encouraged and acting afraid, concessiatory or apologetic warrants a
ban, but does that make those either right or wrong?

The reason animals don't use the internet is because they don't have opinions. They don't give a fuck about the Death Penalty or Pedophilia overtones in Anime, all they want to do is eat corn. Well, except for Sharks, but do you wonder why sharks never bitch about eating seals vs. eating sea turtles? Because they don't have opinions. How many people do you know got into an argument with a shark?

Manly McMacho · 2012-02-08 21:08:51

I got into a pretty heated argument with a dog once, your argument is invalid.

Viani · 2012-02-08 21:13:38

I got into a pretty heated argument with a dog once, your argument is invalid.

Disregarding more genetically dedicated furries, animals don't come to TV Tropes or post in OTC, so I don't see how this applies. What I am saying is that, if TV Tropes was edited by sharks and dogs, I really doubt we would be having problems with Fast Eddie and the moderation. If Madrugada was an actual Fox, the site would be so much better.

Vriska · 2012-02-08 21:14:23

You mean Jinxed 8lackcat isn't really my parents' cat?

Manly McMacho · 2012-02-08 21:15:12

Let's just replace the mods with kittens. That way the(ir owners)y could assault the photo thread with cute pictures of them and they wouldn't be really trigger happy or emotionally-unstable and TVT would be a better, happier, cuter place.

Irene · 2012-02-08 21:17:32

I believe you are confusing "Right & Wrong" with "The Rules"

Which is the only thing that can be right. Just like everything else in the world. You cannot be "right" if the rules state otherwise. Morality does not exist in the internet as a rule. Atleast not there. Your morals mean nothing in an argument. All that matters is the points you bring up. All the rules do is to keep the peace. If you can't do that, then the rules won't help you.

Obā-san · 2012-02-08 21:19:53

To be blunt: That is a load of crap. Morality is a prerequisite for meaningful discourse.

Irene · 2012-02-08 21:24:49

Not at all. Many use that as an excuse to have meaningful discussion. Except it's not logical and makes it harder to take you seriously. Logic wins debates, not morality.

Obā-san · 2012-02-08 21:25:59

"Winning" is not what matters, especially in a debate on the internet. Being right is what matters.

Manly McMacho · 2012-02-08 21:27:44

You're both wrong. All that matters is avoiding getting into internet debates in the first place.

Unknown · 2012-02-08 21:27:45

The user and all related content has been deleted.

millercross · 2012-02-08 21:29:03

No, they become authority because they were competent, and if they're not, they would lose it. Don't mince my words.

that's not less tautological how?

It's a public venue, however. It's a public place to discuss things. It's open for all, not for some very specific people that are CHOSEN to be allowed in. It's a public venue. However, if you mean it doesn't apply to the internet, sure.

Except it isn't public at all? It's Fast Eddie domain and investment. He decides what goes through and what doesn't go through. Just because he doesn't mind who gets in, it doesn't stop this from being true.

Except they're not. And they work exactly like that. And I don't know, not flaming others or acting like a dick to them seems pretty good to me. I'd say his attitude of not killing all those you don't agree with with fire is a lot better than what you're proposing.

ahahaha oh wow, now that's hilarious.

Are you really suggesting that just because Eddie doesn't persecute the people I dislike and instead persecutes the people he dislikes, he's a good admin? Really?

As for the rules themselves: They're good in the sense that they are good guidelines, but a guideline ain't no rule.

Too bad only the Mods can decide what is right or wrong, not the users. And that's all that matters. That's why they base their decisions more off of the rules and not personal bias. You know, like a Moderator should.

A moderator should not just use the rules to base their decisions, but the spirit of the same as well as a rational criteria. And personal biases are not bad in and of themselves. It's when the moderator in question is not aware of how much it informs their decision and the consequences of the action itself when it becomes dangerous.

And guess what, rules are black and white at every messageboard. You're either following them or you're not. The thing that is NOT black and white is how severe the punishment will be.

Not that simple. Any other moderator and administrator can tell you how often they have stumbled upon an undesired situation that isn't addressed by the rulebook. That doesn't mean that it should be forgiven.

Irene · 2012-02-08 21:30:53

Sorry, Naney, but that's not true whatsoever. You can't be right if you don't win. All that matters is that you win in the end.

Right is subjective, a win is not. What's right to you is still going to be wrong to others. But you can't say you didn't win when they concede. Morality still never has beaten out logic, and it never will either. You'll notice that morals are argued within arguments since they're not objective whatsoever. Logic can be objective, because it can make sense. Morals? Pfft. Those are all depending on the person. It's easier to make people see your logic than your morals. One's hardwired, the other is easily teachable.

Viani · 2012-02-08 21:33:31

ahahaha oh wow, now that's hilarious.

Well fuck, he's in that kind of mood again. From now on, everything Juan spots should not be taken too seriously or by heart.

Unknown · 2012-02-08 21:33:53

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Viani · 2012-02-08 21:34:25

I'm sure if Stalin was a shark that wouldn't have happened. He would have eaten them out of hunger, not out of control.

Sorry, Naney, but that's not true whatsoever. You can't be right if you don't win. All that matters is that you win in the end.

Sorry, Irene, but opinions can't be right, wrong, encourage winning or losing. You either agree or don't agree.

Obā-san · 2012-02-08 21:35:01

Sorry, Naney, but that's not true whatsoever. You can't be right if you don't win. All that matters is that you win in the end.

Cute, but no. There are no prizes for winning a debate on the internet, so any "Victory" is meaningless. Therefore he who is in the right, wins.

Hell, online, offline, doesn't matter, I'd take the losing side I know is right over the winners who are wrong any day of the week.

Because I have self respect. Because I feel my decency as a person is truly important to who and what I am.

Plain and simple.

Manly McMacho · 2012-02-08 21:37:31

Well this argument is getting heated. Y'all need to cool down.

That's better.

Irene · 2012-02-08 21:38:20

that's not less tautological how?

What does that word even mean? And it changes everything. If you're not competent, you're not getting a mod position. Or you'll lose it if a mistake was made.

Except it isn't public at all? It's Fast Eddie domain and investment. He decides what goes through and what doesn't go through. Just because he doesn't mind who gets in, it doesn't stop this from being true.

It's open to absolutely everyone as long as you follow his rules. That's public. In order for it to be private, he would have to approve of every user being let in. OTC is closer to a private area, but the messageboard is a public one.

ahahaha oh wow, now that's hilarious.

Are you really suggesting that just because Eddie doesn't persecute the people I dislike and instead persecutes the people he dislikes, he's a good admin? Really?

As for the rules themselves: They're good in the sense that they are good guidelines, but a guideline ain't no rule.

All rules ARE guidelines. But guidelines can still punish you if you not follow them. There is no difference either way, and plus, they're labeled RULES not GUIDELINES, for a reason. And yeah, maybe because he doesn't ban people on a whim. He barely bans those except for those who don't follow clearly obvious rules that don't even NEED mentioning. You know, like flaming.

A moderator should not just use the rules to base their decisions, but the spirit of the same as well as a rational criteria. And personal biases are not bad in and of themselves. It's when the moderator in question is not aware of how much it informs their decision and the consequences of the action itself when it becomes dangerous.

They cannot mod based upon their own personal bias. The rules are both in spirit and are exact when needed. It doesn't take a genius to know when someone's flaming, or even advocating stuff that isn't considered acceptable on the forums. So far, their decisions overall are far better than if the regular userbase had their say.

Obā-san · 2012-02-08 21:42:09

Dear god, I love walls of text.

Viani · 2012-02-08 21:42:44

Irene the Indent button is the quote button, you are using the Align Center button.

^ Stop that shit. This is a talk thread, and that's really fucking annoying.

Irene · 2012-02-08 21:43:17

I don't do teal;deer versions. No need to reply if you refuse to read it all.

Likewise, morals are not allowed in debates half the time since they're 100% subjective and always will be. Logic and proof are what's required, and what always wins.

@Tno: Oh.

Obā-san · 2012-02-08 21:45:43

Dump the caps and punctuation and you could be tnu ee cummings.

In summary, I believe I must express my deep level of concern, and my investment in the outcome of this debate, with a video:

Seriously, I don't care. At all.

Viani · 2012-02-08 21:47:41

Logic and proof are what's required, and what always wins.

This doesn't apply to arguments concerning well, opinions and views people have. there can be pros and cons concerning how they view something, but the MUSTWIN attitude enforced by people who argue comes off as extremely problematic and causes asshole torrents to pop up in the aftermath if it gets out of hand. Trying to prove somebody wrong is not the point of an argument, but reinforcing what is already true and seeing if the other party can do the same is how a normal human argument is issued. If they cannot then, (if your sad view of the world allows it) you win the argument...I guess.

And this is the thing that occurs on OTC that people really don't like, the whole MUSTWIN thing that goes on where people push beyond the civility of debating in order to win a debate that they will never remember in the next 24 hours and pays no significance to the progress of their own lives.

Obā-san · 2012-02-08 21:50:35

BUT ITS ON THE INTERNET. I MUST WIN. THE FUTURE OF HUMANITY DEPENDS ON ME CONVERTING THIS SHELTERED WHITE SUBURBANITE TO MY WAY OF THINKING.

Anonus · 2012-02-08 21:50:51

(Admin Hat On)

Guys, can you calm down?

Naney and Squid in particular, tone down the snarkiness, please.

(Admin Hat Off)

Irene · 2012-02-08 21:52:28

This doesn't apply to arguments concerning well, opinions and views people have. there can be pros and cons concerning how they view something, but the MUSTWIN attitude enforced by people who argue comes off as extremely problematic and causes asshole torrents to pop up in the aftermath if it gets out of hand. Trying to prove somebody wrong is not the point of an argument, but reinforcing what is already true and seeing if the other party can do the same is how a normal human argument is issued. If they cannot then, (if your sad view of the world allows it) you win the argument...I guess.

So does the "I win because my morals are better than yours". And all arguments are based upon someone trying to win regardless. Right away, the current thing is what's "correct" at the time, and proving it wrong is key. Thus, morality makes no difference in the long run. It does not proven something wrong. What you need it to use logic to convince people, since that's what they'll see.

And this is the thing that occurs on OTC that people really don't like, the whole MUSTWIN thing that goes on where people push beyond the civility of debating in order to win a debate that they will never remember in the next 24 hours and pays no significance to the progress of their own lives.

The problem is the civility only. And I disagree. Winning something is key to every person. It's an accomplishment. Without it, people feel worthless by that alone. If you never win, you feel like a loser. Being a winner honestly helps. I am not saying that the MUSTWIN attitude is good. But if you don't go in to win, you'll only lose. Trying to win is fine, even thinking that you must is fine. It's how you go about it that can be the problem, mainly.

Obā-san · 2012-02-08 21:53:18

But snark is the only thing I have that can compensates for my inability to argue with someone. :<

Viani · 2012-02-08 21:53:24

BUT ITS ON THE INTERNET. I MUST WIN. THE FUTURE OF HUMANITY DEPENDS ON
ME CONVERTING THIS SHELTERED WHITE SUBURBANITE TO MY WAY OF THINKING.

Or it's because they feel embarrassed that they may be wrong because people will belittle them. Being right (anywhere) is not as important as it may seem when it's a discussion and not a court case or a public appeal. While yes, morals shouldn't get involved with making the best decisions, you cannot simply disregard morals outright in order to make a decision since, well, humans have this emotion called anger and tend to get angry.

Anonus · 2012-02-08 21:53:50

^^Then don't argue with them.

Irene · 2012-02-08 21:57:44

@Tno: Actually, we can. Because logically, it's bad to piss people off. It's not the morals, it's what causes the less ire. Once again, it's logic in itself.

Viani · 2012-02-08 22:01:55

The
problem is the civility only. And I disagree. Winning something is key
to every person. It's an accomplishment. Without it, people feel
worthless by that alone. If you never win, you feel like a loser. Being a
winner honestly helps. I am not saying that the MUSTWIN attitude is
good. But if you don't go in to win, you'll only lose. Trying to win is
fine, even thinking that you must is fine. It's how you go about it that
can be the problem, mainly.

Then how come I am not trying to "win" this discussion I am having with you?

What do I even "win" by trying to prove you wrong, or get you to agree with me? What do I lose by not being victorious in this discussion? There's a different thing you are not accounting for...that the goals behind winning/losing are completely personal value and are decided by the person, not their opponent or other-side.

I just like talking about myself, and anything I like. Therefore I am already "winning" by being allowed a soapbox to mindlessly moan my views and statements on, regardless of they are wrong or flawed. I come here to HH solely to talk about things I am interested in and myself, and care little if people disagree with them.

And I am very bored and wish to play a nice logic game, since there is a lack of Sharks in this thread.

To give you something to argue about, "No, I don't need to win this argument to be right." Feel free to disprove this claim in any manner you can. If you cannot, then you lose.

But if you don't go in to win, you'll only lose.

As adamant and enthralling this belief is, metathoughts concerning argumentative logic is nothing compared to GENZOMAN's artistic representation of Morrigan. Take that as you will.

I am not saying that the MUSTWIN attitude is
good.

You should, because then you would understand my point of view.
That way we can go on to discuss the theories behind why Dora The
Explorer is being followed around by a monkey and exactly why people
don't like Bloodbending in Avatar the Last Airbender.

Because logically, it's bad to piss people off.

That's not logic.

Unknown · 2012-02-08 22:03:41

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Obā-san · 2012-02-08 22:06:00

Same here. Life ain't a contest, reading a book doesn't get you a medal, Virtue it it's own reward, and the best things in life are free.

Discussion of TV Tropes

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories