Discussion of TV Tropes
This discussion has been closed.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
And then there was one thing that bugged me that was said on a past thread, that stated that new editors are being chased away from TVT because of the anime fanservice trope pages and what not...
...how the fuck did they even know that? Is there an activity/editting checker to decide if somebody quit visiting the site after viewing a page or whatever? Do these people specialize in checking with the majority of the editors and asking why they edit or why they quit editting?
I mean, you can't just assume that...but since I didn't want to get into an argument with said person I just ignored it...although it bugged me that everyone was nodding along with it even though the most obvious point was burning a hole into my skull that...you can't actually check that.
@lee4hmz He was disturbed - and I think he was disturbed, since this seemed to be a real obsession for him - that people on Stormfront were saying racist things about Asians. He never complained about anything they said about black people.
To give you some idea, he wanted to revise the image of the world to suit his biases. Instead of talking about Western cultures, he wanted to talk about "Northern" ones, as opposed to those less interesting "Southern" ones.
I don't know where that left South Africa and Australia.
And of course, he would justify his biases by claiming they were just a matter of personal taste.
>being passive aggressive will get you thumped too if it becomes a case of dickery
>Nuh-uh.
Not exactly perhaps, at least not in practice, but Irene is more-or-less correct: that is indeed the rule.
>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.
We don't always agree on what constitutes dickery, though.
>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.
TV Tropes is a wiki and a community. This kind of stuff is everyone's problem.
>I would rather be a member of a site that admits to having no purpose than one that has none and pretends to.
No, TVT has a purpose. The telos of TVT is tropos.
Less flippantly, it serves several purposes. It exists to catalogue tropes, which is treated as an end in itself. It's also supposed to be entertaining. It's also hoped that it will serve as a useful resource for writers, although the extent to which it fulfils that purpose is obviously questionable.
>Being "bad" in your opinion does not make it bad to the Mods. If they didn't find it bad, that means they noticed something we didn't.
Or made an honest mistake, or don't share your perceptions of badness.
>Yep. Because that does happen. Maybe not often, but people get driven off because they're not liked.(which, let's be honest, they caused it themselves almost all the time.)
This doesn't always happen, though. It's possible to stick around on TVT in spite of being wildly unpopular, even hurtful to many, so long as you don't mind being popular and you don't get caught being overtly nasty to anyone.
>A person has a view you don't like? Live with it. Mods are not your Nannies.
I think this is certainly a valid point, probably one which many of the mods would share, but you don't have to stick around on a site where people are being intolerable (and yes, I'm aware of your dislike of "ragequitters", but I think it's unfair and misplaced).
>Rules are arbitrary and so is their enforcement, as determined by the worldview of whoever made them (Eddie, in this case) and whoever is carrying them out (the mods, in this case).
This is not true, and I must vehemently protest against it. All the rules are there for a reason, and we do our best to moderate reasonably and fairly. I don't know whether you're talking relativistically here or what, but the rules and the moderation are not arbitrary.
Incidentally, the forum rules are actually based on a draft largely put together by myself and Madrugada, with input from the other mods and Eddie. Later additions to the rules have mostly been Eddie's.
>Not only is that kind of topic now banned, but he was not breaking any rules at the time.
Very dubious; he was being very racist and blatantly a dick. I am not at all happy with how that situation was handled, myself.
>It took him months of picking fights, ranting half-coherently at people, and being a general tool to finally get banned. It should not have taken that long.
I think we've tended to be reluctant to ban people, perhaps less so lately. We've liked to think people can reform if allowed a second chance. To be honest, I've always been one of the worst in that regard, although as I didn't used to have the banhammer I don't suppose it made much difference.
>And for good reasons. Basically, if a person asks to be banned, they're just Trolling. This is a special note, since trolling isn't allowed, but it's easier to laugh and ignore them till they actually do something
truly wrong.
Actually the reason is that bans on request have usually resulted in drama or pathetic annoying behaviour (I changed my mind! Oh woe is me, for I cannot access TV Tropes!), which we decided simply wasn't worth the trouble.
>I lost interested in tv tropes when they said that sex=gender
"TV Tropes" didn't say this. Tropers did, and I believe I've seen more tropers saying the reverse.
>Getting out of TVT is a good option. Staying in TVT is a bad option.
You made your opinion on that matter known pages back. Repeatedly.
>The forums would be a much better place if they just went "Being a pedophile or supporting it is a bannable offense" would curb so much of
these problems.
It is.
>I hate the idea of silencing a person because you don't like their views. Just silence the topic.
I disagree. We should be able to discuss more serious issues without people acting like assholes. It's hardly difficult to make sure your opinion is informed and to refrain from bigotry.
>I honestly shrug at someone getting banned. Whatever they did, they must've deserved it.
I really disagree with this. If this were the case, for one thing, we wouldn't even permit people to appeal their bans.
We're not infallible, and sometimes we have made mistakes.
>I have never agreed with snowbull's ban (he merely asked for clarification on how he was "being a dick", IIRC), and fortunately I can't think of others like it, possibly excepting annebeeche's first ban (which was fortunately lifted the next day).
I think also in the "controversial bans" territory would be Cygan's (banned for suggesting that Eddie and some of the mods took a step back and maybe a break and reconsidered their behaviour, which Eddie took as disrespectful).
>Then there's Anne's first ban, which was just a gut reaction, which isn't so justifiable.
It wasn't a gut reaction, it was a mistake.
>It's a public venue, however. It's a public place to discuss things.
No it isn't. It's Eddie's private property, and we're there only because he permits us to be there.
Final part to follow.
Actually, the TV Tropes rules intentionally allow for grey areas, which do indeed exist.
>Morality does not exist in the internet as a rule.
"GTFO, moralfags!"
>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.
Yeah, well said.
>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.
Still the wrong attitude for debating on the Internet. Or anywhere, really. It's based on the arrogant assumption that your views are the ones which ought to triumph.
>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.
Bon's ban was actually something of a last straw. He had a history of blowing up at people.
>Except they're obviously competent in order to get there. They are currently moderators, and had to earn it.
We were appointed for a variety of reasons, none of which were specifically on the merits of prior moderating ability but rather based on other skills (and in several cases, popular vote).
>...Which is why a tautological argument is fallacious.
Strictly speaking it isn't, because A⇒A is not false, it's simply redundant.
But that's just a nitpick, and a tautology is still not a good argument.
>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.
The issue is more that the more controversial the ban, the more disruptive it becomes, and bans are more controversial when they happen without any warning and are based on contestable reasoning.
(I haven't been there in a while)
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
I suggest you resume normal trash heap behavior and bump the thread with whatever you want. It's a trash heap, and there's no need to let thread-exclusionariness or vague cliquiness or whatever invade on your ability to just dump wonderposts within it.
And yeah, what's wrong with deathpigeon?
By the by, white supremacists hating Asian culture but making an
exception out of Japan is not that uncommon (World War II and all that). To add to this, it's possible that these people aren't aware of how unpopular they are (Chagen comes to mind).
attitudes, just not always the same ones that are found in society
external to the site. It can be downright exclusionary.
Of course. Every "community" has thing like this, so I guess I can't really blame TVT for that. They happened to have norms that matched mine when I joined, they no longer do, tough luck. I've used to be bitter, but now I am just sad.
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.
Well, in my case, it was an opposite - I've used to think I am perfectly fine without socialising IRL, until first in MMO and then on TVT I've finally found people I can talk to without breaking myself. So if anything, support of my "bad habits" made me a bit more socially active than I would be otherwise.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
@Beholder Well, to an extent I guess TVT gives you a community to talk to, but it also reinforces and doesn't challenge certain attitudes.
It's better than totally isolating yourself, but it's not a substitute for the rest of the world, put it that way.
@Yarrun I find that kind of sad.
Regarding nicknames: I know Motor-Runner has annoyed That Human on at least one occasion by insisting on using a nickname that That Human didn't want. I know Crack and Cute complain about nicknames sometimes. I know Inhopelessguy gives out nicknames and most people seem cool with that; I also know deathpigeon insists on giving people nicknames but takes offence if you misspell or leave the capitals out of his own name.
The whole thing seems kind of absurd to me, and I don't understand why it's a big deal, either way. I'm just baffled by all of it.
As for the cuddling thing we -have- taken a lot of it to PM, mostly to avoid the "shipping" comments.
I don't like to feel like I'm "taking over" the thread. I really don't.
Though I'll admit that I do sometimes talk only to Loid if I've got a lot of things going on other than just posting in the Trash Heap and I look for his posts specifically since they're the ones I'm expecting to 8e addressed to me.
That aside I don't really have much else I want to say a8out TVTropes at the moment, I just wanted to clarify a bit and apologize for seeming too "elitist" or whatever, and that when I ignore someone it's either "I'm not interested in this particular discussion 8ut will talk to you a8out something else l8r" or "I didn't notice your post 8ecause I am 8usy and skimming for certain things" and the occasional "I wish to avoid arguments with you so I'm not going to say anything". Usually one of the first two.
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
(does Loid come to this site too? I don't see him anywhere)
And then aside from that: this thingie:
12th Feb: A new policy is being put in
place for TRS threads: If there is no evidence provided in the Opening
Post that the page is broken, the thread will be nuked immediately. See Everything You Wanted To Know About Changing Names for what constitutes evidence.
...what constitutes as broken? We can provide a ton of evidence for something that is broken, to what aims it can be called broken though, is important.
But it seems to just be the same group of people who get worked up about this, and it never used to be a thing there, it's something recent.
>...what constitutes as broken? We can provide a ton of evidence for something that is broken, to what aims it can be called broken though, is important.
Lack of use, lack of clarity, rampant misuse and needlessly inflammatory would be the most obvious ones.
Goal: Clear, concise and witty. Acceptable: Clear.
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
It's a running gag...but, where is it from? one of the games, or a TVTropes thing?
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢