Discussion of TV Tropes

Irene · 2012-02-08 22:09:13

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.

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.

Well, of course not everyone enters a debate to win, but why shouldn't they? Why bother with it if you don't think your opinion matters. If you're putting it out, you want people to understand why. BTW, people getting what you mean IS a win in itself. Winning is a lot more vague than people realize.

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.

Hard to take it as something since I have no idea what the Genzoman thing is.

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.

It feels good to win, sure. But that doesn't mean that the attitude is always a good thing.

That's not logic.

Yeah, it really is. If you piss people off, you'll get people harping on you. Keeping them happy means there will be less flames. Which is something that most want.(key term respectively being most)

Irene · 2012-02-08 22:10:05

I don't feel this way at all about myself, for one; I do not need to "win" things to have fun! :p

Who said winning was all about fun? I didn't... Winning is something that people can have fun doing, and it does often make them feel good about themselves. And people losing makes them feel bad. These are not exclusive to one another, but it does happen.

millercross · 2012-02-08 22:13:14

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.

Meh. I'm serious as I can be right now. I really did find that amusing.

Also, shut up, Vorpy, darling. Go back to bed and I'll go and join ya later. Somebody's wrong in the internet. >:|

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.

Tautological is a redundant argument. "The sky is blue because the sky is blue" for example. It doesn't have any support in and of itself because the conclusion is the argument. In this case, "The moderation is competent because the moderation is chosen for its compentency" is a redundancy and a tautology. It doesn't go nowhere as it doesn't explain why they moderation is competent beyond the fact that they're moderators, which is not an argument.

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.

That's not how private and public work at all. A public venue is a venue where the state has ultimate priority on the behaviour of its visitors and users. In an internet site, the administrator has the priority and he decides what behaviours are allowed or disallowed in his private site. The government is, of course, allowed to prosecute the administrator if they feel that he has allowed unlawful behaviour in his private venue, but it's not like the goverment is going to prosecute the users unless there's at least a federal offense going on

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.

Rules are not guidelines. Guidelines are vague concepts and advice from the staff that is presented to the users in order to get a desired result, but not a necessary result. Rules are the ones that point to a necessary action/result.

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.

just what is your obsession with "flaming"? Not only that, but that implies that bans such as Cygan's, Bon Sequitur's and so many others were fair, just because they decided to protest moderation choices or simply went somewhat out of line in discussion once.

Also, saying that Eddie doesn't ban people in a whim is a rather misguided statement.

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.

Again, personal bias is not inherently bad. After all, it is because of such biases that the rules were created in the first place as they were, and it's because of those biases why the place is the way it is. The problem, again, is not biases per se, but the biases prevailing where a clear understanding of what should or shouldn't be done should prevail

(Sorry for the late reply)

Misery · 2012-02-08 22:21:06

When I looked at the Appeal to the moderation thread and FE threw a bitchfit, I just thought to myself "It's not worth it. Why do I even bother coming back?" and gave up wanting to help the site and the mindset of the site getting back on its feet.

Viani · 2012-02-08 22:21:42

Well, of course not everyone enters a debate to win, but why shouldn't they?

To violate parameters of argumentative logic to see how the other person endures it and see how they react, and to derail the argument into discussing nerdshit. The freedom of writing and discussion allows debates to be so flexible that if one person isn't following the enforced template then it can atrophy into anything they want.

For one, putting effort into an argument as ambiguous as this one (What the fuck are we talking about again?) would actually make me lose hours of my fun-time and I'd rather not have that since I can use this time to play Minecraft and spam the forums with amusing pictures.

Unless you want to talk about like, Elfen Lied I would be fine in applying the universal debate template upon it instead of the Vorpy template.

Irene · 2012-02-08 22:25:55

Tautological is a redundant argument. "The sky is blue because the sky is blue" for example. It doesn't have any support in and of itself because the conclusion is the argument. In this case, "The moderation is competent because the moderation is chosen for its compentency" is a redundancy and a tautology. It doesn't go nowhere as it doesn't explain why they moderation is competent beyond the fact that they're moderators, which is not an argument.

Except that's the opposite of what I said. I said they were moderators BECAUSE they were competent. Specifically.

That's not how private and public work at all. A public venue is a venue where the state has ultimate priority on the behaviour of its visitors and users. In an internet site, the administrator has the priority and he decides what behaviours are allowed or disallowed in his private site. The government is, of course, allowed to prosecute the administrator if they feel that he has allowed unlawful behaviour in his private venue, but it's not like the goverment is going to prosecute the users unless there's at least a federal offense going on

There is no "federal" on the internet. It's all completely public. I get what you mean, though, but it's based upon being public as is. While it's technically a private server, it's used as a public one.

Rules are not guidelines. Guidelines are vague concepts and advice from the staff that is presented to the users in order to get a desired result, but not a necessary result. Rules are the ones that point to a necessary action/result.

Except they're still not presented as Guidelines, but Rules. And yeah, they're pretty necessary if you don't want to get in trouble. Simply put, The Rules are overall "Follow them or else", not "You should follow these rules." How the mods interpret the rules, fair enough, I won't argue that one.

just what is your obsession with "flaming"? Not only that, but that implies that bans such as Cygan's, Bon Sequitur's and so many others were fair, just because they decided to protest moderation choices or simply went somewhat out of line in discussion once.

Also, saying that Eddie doesn't ban people in a whim is a rather misguided statement.

They were all fair. If they cannot present their argument without actually showing disrespect, then it's no longer good. Respect is key. If you're flaming, you're being downright disrespectful. And frankly, he only bans those that break the rules he sets. Yes, it's a dictatorship on his end, definitely.

Viani · 2012-02-08 22:26:12

In short in order to argue properly you have to be sure that the other party is on the same rules and guidelines as you so that way anything said is actually worthwhile.

Misery · 2012-02-08 22:27:10

Really, TVT is a lost cause.

Irene · 2012-02-08 22:28:04

Again, personal bias is not inherently bad. After all, it is because of such biases that the rules were created in the first place as they were, and it's because of those biases why the place is the way it is. The problem, again, is not biases per se, but the biases prevailing where a clear understanding of what should or shouldn't be done should prevail

The only person that can really show personal bias is the creator of the rules. But the mods, who he appointed because they can be completely neutral, calm, and collected(all very key), should never show Bias. And yes, it's bad, because it hurts people that don't deserve to be. I myself am against all flaming, even where it's hard to tell. Thinly veiled insults? Thump 'em. If they cannot present stuff without personally insulting the person(being subtle does not mean you aren't insulting them, of course), then their opinions not only will usually be ignored, they won't ever stay up because they'll be thumped.

The entire point should be that if you cannot talk about something without being thumped, then you should avoid talking about it anyway. And yeah, going out of line once is more than enough. It doesn't matter if you were having a bad day. My day is beyond horrible right now, notably. It has no effect on what I'm saying though, nor should it. If you're having a bad day, reply once you've cooled down.

To violate parameters of argumentative logic to see how the other person endures it and see how they react, and to derail the argument into discussing nerdshit. The freedom of writing and discussion allows debates to be so flexible that if one person isn't following the enforced template then it can atrophy into anything they want.

Er...what? Sorry, idiot here. I still find logic to be the only worthwhile tool in a debate anyway.

For one, putting effort into an argument as ambiguous as this one (What the fuck are we talking about again?) would actually make me lose hours of my fun-time and I'd rather not have that since I can use this time to play Minecraft and spam the forums with amusing pictures.

Well, if you don't wish to discuss, why not say so? You're also choosing to personally debate with me, so...

In short in order to argue properly you have to be sure that the other party is on the same rules and guidelines as you so that way anything said is actually worthwhile.

When they go to the message board, they are automatically under those by default. It's not your fault if they don't operate by them, however.

Also, still hate the character limit. >_<

Obā-san · 2012-02-08 22:28:28

Except that's the opposite of what I said. I said they were moderators BECAUSE they were competent. Specifically.

And what if they weren't competent?

They wouldn't be moderators.

See, a tautological argument can start in a loop anywhere.

Irene · 2012-02-08 22:31:38

Except they're obviously competent in order to get there. They are currently moderators, and had to earn it.

Right now, the FACT is that they're moderators. Operating on the idea that they're not does not work. There is no way they would be if they were incompetent anyway. So thus, no matter what loop you use, they're still competent. In order for them to be Moderators, they have to be competent. Being competent does not make a Moderator, however. Which ends the loop right there.

Obā-san · 2012-02-08 22:34:05

no matter what loop you use, they're still competent.

...Which is why a tautological argument is fallacious.

The way you've set up your argument I can't prove you wrong.

Misery · 2012-02-08 22:36:22

The moderation... competent? Is this some kind of joke? I do not see any competence in the moderation.

Viani · 2012-02-08 22:39:34

Er...what? Sorry, idiot here. I still find logic to be the only worthwhile tool in a debate anyway.

EXAMPLE:
A topic is started, two sides go to explain their POV, and then reinforce it until an understanding concerning the topic is met.
This is how a normal debate is started.

EXAMPLE 2:
A topic is started, one side goes in to explain their POV, but the other person is not interested in the Topic. Side 1 attempts to reinforce their POV, and Side 2 attempts to derail the topic into something they are interested in. With no opposing POV to reinforce against, Side 1 can either force Side 2 to make a POV for the current topic, or derail into the next topic.

EXAMPLE 3:
No topic is started, and Side 1 attempts to reinforce their POV, while side 2 doesn't have a POV since there is no topic. With no topic, an understanding doesn't need to be met so this means Side 1 can reinforce their POV against Side 2 even if there is no POV to reflect against.

Well, if you don't wish to discuss, why not say so? You're also choosing to personally debate with me, so...

The cover art for FFXIII-2 is gorgeous. Lightning is so CUTE ^v^ and currently the score is 4/0 with me in the lead. If you are going to win I suggest you hurry up and do it.

Irene · 2012-02-08 22:40:15

I see ten times less competence in the users.

That's exactly the point, Naney. Because it can't be proven wrong. You cannot be a Mod if you're incompetent. It'll never happen. Whether or not they're perfect is another story. They are not infallible, but they're still pretty competent compared to most users. Nobody's the most competent ever. But they're the most competent we're going to get on there.

@Tno: Er, let me put it this way; You can proven logic to not work. Morals, you however, cannot. Logic in itself is not automatically an opinion.

Let's take murder: The morality reason is because it's evil or doing something wrong. The logical reason is that they no longer exist in the world. While they are both technically correct, evil and wrong are purely opinion. But if they're gone, they're gone. That logic is much harder to prove "wrong", so to speak. To me, Right and Wrong for the purpose of a debate is Win or Lose. Not Good or Bad. I refuse to outright use morals as they do not make for very good tools in a debate whatsoever. Due to, well, being impossible to truly be agreed upon. Whether or not we like a particular moral is not in question, and I find that off-topic almost all the time. If you cannot prove it wrong, your moral belief will not help the situation either. Logic can prove a moral to be wrong, but a moral cannot prove logic wrong.

Obā-san · 2012-02-08 22:43:06

...A tautology is a LOGICAL FALLACY. It mean you dun goofed up. It means your argument is bad.

It means you've lost the argument.

As long as you include the tautology in your argument, you can't win.

millercross · 2012-02-08 22:45:34

Except that's the opposite of what I said. I said they were moderators BECAUSE they were competent. Specifically.

I don't think I need to repeat Naney's post to explain why this doesn't work as a counterpoint, do I?

There is no "federal" on the internet. It's all completely public. I get what you mean, though, but it's based upon being public as is. While it's technically a private server, it's used as a public one.

Good one. What's next, the FBI can't arrest people because they have an history of seeing child porn? Not to mention that the Patriot Act is a thing.

Except they're still not presented as Guidelines, but Rules. And yeah, they're pretty necessary if you don't want to get in trouble. Simply put, The Rules are overall "Follow them or else", not "You should follow these rules." How the mods interpret the rules, fair enough, I won't argue that one.

That's the problem right there, ol' chum. "Don't be a dick" doesn't work as a rule simply because it's an statement that covers a lot of attitudes and subjective criterias that are defined differently by different people. It then follows that the moderation and administration uses this to mean, "Don't be something we'd call a dick" and then that turns into "We ban the things we dislike"

They were all fair.

Why were they fair? Can't make an statement like that without an argument.

If they cannot present their argument without actually showing disrespect, then it's no longer good. Respect is key. If you're flaming, you're being downright disrespectful. And frankly, he only bans those that break the rules he sets. Yes, it's a dictatorship on his end, definitely.

I understand why respect and civility are things that a discussion board should be looking for. However, I think that someone getting mad once and then being banned for making a somewhat angerous post is not a fair deal. Bans should be done taking into account the context of the situation. Banning someone because they did something wrong once is definetly not good and it can hurt the site's userbase as it loses contributive members because of it.

Viani · 2012-02-08 22:46:19

It's cheating basically, and if you want to cheat to win then people usually don't like playing with you, which also enforces the MUSTWIN attitude that pisses everyone off. and Logically pissing people off is bad.

Irene · 2012-02-08 22:54:17

I don't think I need to repeat Naney's post to explain why this doesn't work as a counterpoint, do I?

Then we'll drop it. Since I outright refuse to believe it's possible for a Moderator to even be chosen if they were incompetent. Nobody has proven they were incompetent either.

Good one. What's next, the FBI can't arrest people because they have an history of seeing child porn? Not to mention that the Patriot Act is a thing.

FBI is American. The Internet in universal. They actually have no real power. They cannot actually shut down a site under that. Unless it's a universal rule that applies to all parts of the world. If the UK allowed something and had the website up, America cannot legally shut it down, but they can prevent other Americans from looking at it. They have less power than you think. Especially since they're not doing anything to the internet, they're doing something to the USER themselves.

That's the problem right there, ol' chum. "Don't be a dick" doesn't work as a rule simply because it's an statement that covers a lot of attitudes and subjective criterias that are defined differently by different people. It then follows that the moderation and administration uses this to mean, "Don't be something we'd call a dick" and then that turns into "We ban the things we dislike"

The fact that it's vague is exactly why I like it. It's telling them to just actually not even push anything in the first place. There is no Rules Lawyering. And everybody bad things they dislike. That's how life works.

Why were they fair? Can't make an statement like that without an argument.

If they weren't fair, don't you think they would've gotten their ban lifted? Cygan Angel? He did nothing but flame the Moderators. Hint; Calling them incompetent counts as flaming. That one is very to tell.

I understand why respect and civility are things that a discussion board should be looking for. However, I think that someone getting mad once and then being banned for making a somewhat angerous post is not a fair deal. Bans should be done taking into account the context of the situation. Banning someone because they did something wrong once is definetly not good and it can hurt the site's userbase as it loses contributive members because of it.

No, it really doesn't. If they can't keep the lid on themselves once, do you really think they can do it again? Likewise, they are taken within context as well. Most aren't permabanned that quickly and get thumped quite often. It takes a lot to get banned, really. Although specifically pissing off the mods does not help your case.

And I can't see them much as contributive if they cannot do it constructively. Like I said, I agree with you on FE, just not the rest of the Staff. He is definitely trigger-happy. Not incompetent, though.(what you're asking for is him to basically delete the entire site if he really was incompetent)

Obā-san · 2012-02-08 22:57:30

Neh, not relevant.

Unknown · 2012-02-08 23:04:48

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Manly McMacho · 2012-02-08 23:07:11

This thread has been funny since it was created, this is just the whipped cream on the silly thread ice cream cake.

Unknown · 2012-02-08 23:11:08

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Obā-san · 2012-02-08 23:11:46

Then we'll drop it. Since I outright refuse to believe it's possible for a Moderator to even be chosen if they were incompetent. Nobody has proven they were incompetent either.

Hold it.

We're operating from a general con census that there is a problem with TVT. We were generally of the opinion that this was due to the moderation, until you came in and asserted otherwise, with your "Mods Are Competent Tautology Whatchamacallit" argument and then built out from there, hoping we wouldn't notice.

But we did. Your argument as a whole has the tautology as a keystone, you have to resolve it or your argument has no validity.

Also, you have the burden of proof. Not us.

Your move.

^(*Slathers with Whipped Cream*)

Unknown · 2012-02-08 23:13:50

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Obā-san · 2012-02-08 23:14:46

Whipped Cream is best on warm brownies.

....Yum. -w-

millercross · 2012-02-08 23:15:15

Then we'll drop it. Since I outright refuse to believe it's possible for a Moderator to even be chosen if they were incompetent. Nobody has proven they were incompetent either.

You seem to think that the moderators are somehow an infallible group of people who know exactly what it takes to be a mod and can't fail when they choose one or when they maintain one.

FBI is American. The Internet in universal. They actually have no real power. They cannot actually shut down a site under that. Unless it's a universal rule that applies to all parts of the world. If the UK allowed something and had the website up, America cannot legally shut it down, but they can prevent other Americans from looking at it. They have less power than you think. Especially since they're not doing anything to the internet, they're doing something to the USER themselves.

Actually, a site can be shot down by the American government as long as it's american. I'm not overrating their power as I'm aware that they don't have any jurisdiction outside of American territory, although they can push for extradictions and the like, but such things are started by the relevant foreign government.

My point is simply that in the internet and on sites, the person who decides what goes through and what doesn't is not the government. Appeal to law doesn't apply because the law allows the administrator to set the rules they find relevant as long as they don't break the law or hurt the citizens.

The fact that it's vague is exactly why I like it. It's telling them to just actually not even push anything in the first place. There is no Rules Lawyering. And everybody bad things they dislike. That's how life works.

That's a rather immature way of seeing life. First and foremost, the fear of rules lawyering is silly. If someone deserves to be banned, then they have to be banned, end of the story. No negotiation should stop moderation from doing that. With that said, negotiation should be allowed, as well as appealing. Not to mention that rules lawyering only happens if the rules are not air tight. the fact that people like Ramidel got off when the rules are supposed to avoid such things as the aforementioned rules lawyering speaks volumes.

If they weren't fair, don't you think they would've gotten their ban lifted? Cygan Angel? He did nothing but flame the Moderators. Hint; Calling them incompetent counts as flaming. That one is very to tell.

Not only is calling Cygan Angel a "he" incredibly disrepectful, but this implies that moderators are infallible. Which they aren't. They make mistakes. The difference is that they're too stubborn to actually go back on them most of the time, like with the aforementioned Ramidel thing.

I won't say that Cygan's ban wasn't coming at all. But the fact is that banning someone for positing an opinion and arguments is not a bad thing. And saying that the mods are incompetent is not "flaming" provided you have an argument to back it up. And Cygan had tons.

No, it really doesn't. If they can't keep the lid on themselves once, do you really think they can do it again?

Yes, they are. Turns out that people act differently in different situations.

Most aren't permabanned that quickly and get thumped quite often. It takes a lot to get banned, really. Although specifically pissing off the mods does not help your case.

From what I've seen, bans are random. They can take a whole of two years or can happen in ten seconds flat. If that doesn't hit to how erratic things are over there, nothing else does, really

And I can't see them much as contributive if they cannot do it constructively. Like I said, I agree with you on FE, just not the rest of the Staff. He is definitely trigger-happy. Not incompetent, though.(what you're asking for is him to basically delete the entire site if he really was incompetent)

No, what I ask of Fast Eddie is to apply better standards to his site and not forgive every asshole that claims that they were joking when they were advocating genocide in fucking Africa and and to not ban every person who points out a flaw on the system and how to fix it. That's not deleting the entire site. That's having common sense.

Unknown · 2012-02-08 23:15:39

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Irene · 2012-02-08 23:16:07

Except my problem is not with the moderation whatsoever, it's with the userbase being more of a problem. Which, let's be honest, they show it more often anyway.

The mods? Maybe sometimes, but most of the time, we'd be better off if we had them then if we didn't. In reality, the problem could be the rules, but the people who enforce them are not the issue either. If FE is in question, sure. I even agree with that. But the Mods aren't a problem, or barely one at all.

Obā-san · 2012-02-08 23:19:00

But the Mods aren't a problem, or barely one at all.

Your proof for this was invalid.

If you want to continue, resolve the tautology.

Haven · 2012-02-08 23:20:57

Instead of its original purpose of all-purpose cultural TVTropes discussion nuku nuku, this thread has become a argument between one person and everyone else, and more to the point an incredibly circular one that flips back on itself whenever it looks like it's getting anywhere.
I'm going to lock it down, we'll probably keep it that way for a day or two. Everyone relax, play with a cat or something, and please don't let it all spill back out onto other threads.

Anonus · 2012-02-10 00:49:54

I've reopened it.

The site's security issues bother me (e.g. account deletion not really doing anything but blanking the forum profile, avatar gallery, and freeing up the name, as well as some other stuff.).

Obā-san · 2012-02-10 00:52:37

I asked about that, actually just recently:

Here.

Viani · 2012-02-10 00:53:48

Has anyone been namejacked yet?

Never heard of a namejacker causing problems yet.

I was able to reclaim ALL of my old sockpuppets (yes, all 40 of the deleted ones that I got original google banned for creating and whatever with the old system)

No instance of re-banning was applied. The 10 Sock limit is now very lenient?

millercross · 2012-02-10 00:54:52

They don't know, prolly

I highjacked a couple of names once. Mostly to troll.

Obā-san · 2012-02-11 17:50:48

This thread.

Viani · 2012-02-11 18:55:58

?

what about it? I don't understand what they are talking about.

Misery · 2012-02-11 18:57:08

They're talking about art.

Salix Babylonika · 2012-02-11 19:02:14

I see people arguing.

What's your point?

also, a summary of the internet in its entirety:

PEOPLE WHO LIKE THINGS THAT I DON'T LIKE ARE WRONG

Discussions of art and what it is and is not always piss me off. Because to me it seems self-evident that it's all a matter of taste, but no one else seems to feel that way.

I don't even know how to approach the subject, to be honest.

Manly McMacho · 2012-02-11 21:20:18

^Same. That's the very reason I avoid art threads on most sites unless I'm feeling troll-ish but that doesn't count.

millercross · 2012-02-11 23:03:29

My problem with the idea of treating art as subjective (And not your appreciation of it) is that it simply implies that your enjoyment or lack thereof doesn't come out of nowhere.

Salix Babylonika · 2012-02-11 23:12:22

I would say that, for lack of a better term, it comes out of your brain.

That is, there are parts of your brain that determine what you enjoy. What those would be, you'd have to ask someone who knows a lot about brains to tell you.

Anyway, there is no point in arguing it. Because as I said before, it, to me, is self-apparent. And I'm not sure how some people can think otherwise. Even setting aside my general not being good at arguing, I wouldn't even know how to argue it.

millercross · 2012-02-11 23:47:27

Erm, sorry, that was supposed to read "it implies that your enjoyment or lack thereof comes out of nowhere"

Salix Babylonika · 2012-02-11 23:51:23

I know what you meant.

Anyway, I am tired. And I'm hungry for cheese flavored snacks. So I'mma come back to this thread some other time.

kaybai.

Viani · 2012-02-12 00:56:17

In the Art scene that I've visited, there is objective, intristic(?) and subjective art.

Objective art is based on, well, real life things like pots, plants, Baloths, and the human body etc. It can be objectively shitty, if the thing it wishes to represent is not accurate, proportions aren't right etc when it should be.

So if you draw the human body, and your arms are too short, head's too big etc. then yeah you get dissed on.

Intristic(?) art is like a blend between subjective and objective art, where style influences objects, so like, even if legs are short or super-deformed if it follows a general them then people are more understanding of it.

Subjective art is the things that go beyond normal detail and proportions, and choose to represent intangible things that are completely up to the viewer to enjoy or trash.

Then there's like anime character art which doesn't apply to much of anything of the above in the same manner that Garfield should not be judged as a correct objective perception of an obese orange cat and whatever. I think it's like Intristic or ExcuseObjective since "in that universe having really huge heads is normal." and because Marketing (if they like one extremely similar animu girl high chance they'll like em all).

Tachyon · 2012-02-12 03:05:19

I find myself in a bit of a weird position here where my apparent "ally", as in, the only person here who really seems to be defending TVT, is defending it on grounds that are at times erroneous and often antithetical to my own views and sometimes those of the administration.

Anyway... I wanted to address some of the stuff pertaining to TVT, particularly involving the moderation.

>For all I know, Madrugada, Eddie et al might be very chill people when they're not moderating the site, but as far as I'm concerned, they're utterly incompetent at the job they hold

I think this is a very unfair assessment, and I'll tell you why: because the vast majority of what they do they do well. Both take kind of a behind-the-scenes role most of the time, so you rarely notice them. You don't hear about the disputes settled over PMs without drama, or the spam posts thumped quickly and efficiently. It's only really when something goes wrong that your attention is drawn to those guys.

Which is not to say that your specific criticisms aren't valid, but I'd say they're more competant than they are incompetant.

>Sorry for saying the administration is a joke; I think I upset you? :/

It wasn't just you, you were just the most recent when I wrote that.

But no, it's just that when you call the administration or moderation "a joke", you are implicitly insulting all of us since we're volunteers, and so the suggestion that you didn't have a problem with any particular mod came off as insincere to me.

>I just think it'd be dishonest to talk about the moderation in that place as a collective because there's a disconnect and there're definetly differences between each moderator, their flaws and how they contribute to the site, in a good or in a bad way.

This is true, of course, in the sense that we're several people and we do have our disagreements. But we are on the same team, all the same.

>I really gotta delete my TVT account....

I don't understand why this is necessary. If you don't want it anymore, you could always stop using it.

>Troper Tales kind of fascinates me, on a certain level. How it basically consists of the day-to-day bullshit (with wishful self-aggrandizing) of people's lives. Is human existence really that sad?

Please don't think tropers are representative of anything so broad as "human existence".

>8est Troper Tale ever was the pencil 8reaker guy.

Huh.

>Hmmm, I see TVT dosen't even allow Wonder Threads anymore.

Wonderthreads have never been more than grudgingly tolerated.

Personally I'm suspicious of them because they can sometimes turn quite unpleasant, and I'm also uncomfortably aware that some of the smarter, more interesting tropers were also very much put off by them.

>I demand an explanation [for the locked wonderthread].

Because it got hollered for being a "wonderthread" and Katrika saw the holler and locked it. That's all.

Katrika, you'll remember, is fairly new to moderating and probably didn't know whether there was a standard procedure for dealing with wonderthreads, but threadlocking is a fairly cautious, relatively safe way to put a stop to something because it's not irreversible.

The closest thing we have to a formal policy on wonderthreads is that we sometimes close "stupid" threads. This is obviously a subjective assessment, and is left to mod judgement.

>But most of what was said above seems to be one of the attitudes that were not common to TVT before. I liked TVT because, among other things, it did not enforce normative "you have to have mate and posse or you're loooooser" attitude.

No, but TVT does - and to an extent, always has - enforce normative attitudes, just not always the same ones that are found in society external to the site. It can be downright exclusionary.

>One of the reasons I've joined the forums was that I was just so overwhelmingly surprised to find people as "strange" as I've used to think of myself. Now it seems that people like me (not longing for mate and having poor social skills) are becoming acceptable targets again, in order for the site to look "normal".

I can sympathise with being pleased to find a site that seemed accepting of difference and tolerant of social awkwardness, as I felt much the same about the site. However, I do feel that this is not entirely healthy, because it reinforces behaviour that can actually be quite harmful IRL. The less you socialise, the harder socialising becomes. Isolating yourself can lead to low spirits and bad habits.

And, though I'm sure you're tired of hearing this, insularity can lead to the formation of some rather bizarre customs and allow extremism to go unchallenged.

>It's a really good point though, TVT, is rather supportive of some of these traits when really, they shouldn't often be considered "good things" or "things you should just accept and do nothing about".

Yes, this exactly. To some extent I think it's actually not a bad thing; I have seen tropers call one another out for behaviour that's clearly creepy, selfish or bigoted, and manage to do so in a way that's sufficiently inoffensive that they've been listened to, which won't happen if your immediate response to these behaviours is "what the fuck, get out". Unfortunately, though, more often people simply don't call one another out, and furthermore, increasingly, if you're not very careful with how you word your remarks they're liable to be thumped anyway.

Additionally, I think we learned the hard way that these things only work if you have somebody who's actually willing to improve their behaviour. Matrix, for instance, made an actual effort to improve the more creepy aspects of his behaviour, and eventually got better. Ukonkivi, on the other hand, never did; looking back, I think it's clear now that all he wanted really was to be told his bigotry was OK and a valid belief. He didn't want to improve.

>By English you mean British?

I thought Guitar Bizarre actually was English. Am I misremembering?

More to follow.

Anonus · 2012-02-12 03:10:15

Ukonkivi was bigoted? All I remember about him was saying Konata Izumi was attractive and being obsessed with MLP:FIM before more people there started to care about it.

Viani · 2012-02-12 03:20:15

I find myself in a bit of a weird position here where my apparent
"ally", as in, the only person here who really seems to be defending
TVT, is defending it on grounds that are at times erroneous and often
antithetical to my own views and sometimes those of the administration.

Oh.

Umm...I guess...to be more short and straight-forward, I support TV Tropes because I have never run into a negative encounter with them or had any problems with them, and the only action they've done that I really didn't approve of was snowbull's ban, and the destruction of IJBM, but those were way beyond my level of control and I had no say in them, so I just went "oh well." and moved on with my life.

I don't root myself into the status of reinforcing what's bad with TVT or the administration until something is done about it since most of the "stupid decisions" that the other side has suggested are very open-ended and hard to twist or perceive in a negative fashion.

Like, Madrugada's opinions or editting/moderating until an agreement on her side is made, or Fast Eddie being critiphobic about other people's views on the site, when people say he's butthurt or scared of other sites...I don't really see that.

Most of the things people talk about that are wrong with the site are purely word-of-mouth most of the time, and only on the rare occasion that the Troper Tales/Fetish Fuel thing happened did I actually get to "look at the problem" than rely on others to tell me what's wrong with the site.

...Unless I'm not the person you are talking about so DISREGARD THIS I SUCK COCKS?

Tachyon · 2012-02-12 03:21:25

@Anonus Ukonkivi would frequently post about his insecurities regarding race, which, as it gradually became apparent, basically amounted to a hatred and contempt for African-American culture and a love for both European and Asian cultures, the latter of which he attempted to "justify" (because liking the culture of another race obviously needed justifying) by talking about "shared haplogroups" between Europeans and Asians, as though that has anything whatsoever to do with their respective cultures.

We tried to be nice to him at first because he was obviously upset and insecure, obviously had issues, and professed to be afraid of racism and to find Stormfront disturbing, but over time he just got worse and worse. He was banned when he got thumped for a particularly nasty post in a thread about racism, and responded by directing a bunch of racist slurs at Madrugada.

@Tnophelia Sorry. You actually struck me as being more ambivalent, but I may have missed the point in places, I dunno.

I was talking about Irene, anyway.

Anonus · 2012-02-12 03:27:38

...that doesn't sound good.

Discussion of TV Tropes

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories