Discussion of TV Tropes

Salix Babylonika · 2012-02-13 02:10:22

Not that this is important to your post, really, but Madrugada is a woman.

Irene · 2012-02-13 02:13:48

Depends how Beholder is using "guy". Some of us use it the same as "person".

Beholder · 2012-02-13 02:22:57

Yes, that's the way I used it. Sorry for misunderstanding

Justice4243 · 2012-02-13 13:13:15

I think discussing their ability to work on the site is appropriate, we just need to keep the discussion scoped to being relevant to TVTropes and try to keep out talking about the mods outside that context.

Morven · 2012-02-13 20:10:07

Remember that I do tend to check into this thread too from time to time. Busy in RL, so it tends to be infrequent.

Madrugada also has a deep distaste for the tendency to try and find Acceptable Targets. The online world seems to be very keen on doing that, and someone who believes in Acceptable Targets is likely to find her position to be reprehensible. She also strongly believes in freedom of thought.

That's the sum and total of the SA thread's problem with her, in a nutshell. She doesn't approve of the online willingness to label anything even tangentially associable with pedophilia to be an Acceptable Target, for whom the rules of polite behavior do not apply. She does not like bullying behavior no matter who's the target, and especially not for people accused of fundamentally a thought-crime rather than an actual wrong act.

Justice4243 · 2012-02-13 20:15:32

That was my take away from what Fourier posted...though I wasn't aware SA had devoted enough time to TVTropes to form opinions on the individual mods.

I'm just going to hope that has something to do with some (ex)tropers being on their site and quietly sip my alcohol until I'm comatose.

Salix Babylonika · 2012-02-13 20:18:06

It has plenty to do with that, and plenty to do with a handful of goons with entirely too much time on their hands, as I understand it.

Anonus · 2012-02-13 22:42:49

I don't understand the mindset behind following a site one doesn't like, for some reason. I get the motivation, but I don't think it's something I could do.

Justice4243 · 2012-02-13 22:44:58

It seems to me there are far better ways to entertain oneself.

Obā-san · 2012-02-13 22:56:46

Bile Fascination.

At least a third of them are former tropers or had some previous experience with the site.

Viani · 2012-02-13 23:00:12

And I don't see how devoting 5 minutes to reading very complicated and unsuitable comments mentioned in many threads linked to them is "devoting a ton of free time" and all other relevant arguments.

The fact that anyone that even can read that at all is proof that they are on the internet, which is a valid use of "free time".

Beholder · 2012-02-14 01:06:33

Madrugada also has a deep distaste for the tendency to try and find
Acceptable Targets. The online world seems to be very keen on doing
that, and someone who believes in Acceptable Targets is likely to find
her position to be reprehensible. She also strongly believes in freedom
of thought.

That is exactly why Madrugada is among the mods I respect the most.

Also, yes, Acceptable Targets is something I find very disturbing.

Viani · 2012-02-14 01:08:37

Acceptable Targets?

Obā-san · 2012-02-14 01:10:52

People that it's okay to mock / attack by default.

Irene · 2012-02-14 01:12:14

It means that people who aren't the favorites are fine to attack.

Let's say someone isn't a fan of heterosexuality. So people think its okay to flame them for that. Even if the the heterosexual-non-liker isn't trying to hurt somebody(and even if they were, why not report it)?

Basically, it's people finding others they can easily flame or make fun of. That's the basic definition.

Viani · 2012-02-14 01:15:27

...like pedophiles or deranged sexual predators?

Obā-san · 2012-02-14 01:16:38

Exactly!!!!

Making fun of them would be mean. You aren't a meanie, are you? :<

Irene · 2012-02-14 01:21:45

That's why you report them.

I don't like them either, NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT, but attacking them doesn't help either.

One example I've heard was someone saying "Yeah, those murderers should die in a fire." I mean, with all due respect, isn't that a big hypocritical? That's why I'm against flaming people in general and would rather people use the report button.

millercross · 2012-02-14 01:25:28

I feel that part of the problem with that is that it involves telling people there's something wrong with them without giving them the opportunity to speak up.

Irene · 2012-02-14 01:36:21

I think they can tell what's wrong to the person, but not in a condenscending(sp?) way.

That often gets worse responses.

I have no problem trying to talk sense into people. Although a facepalm can work too depending the situation, if it's about a fictional related thing. Like someone's opinion of a Yugioh card. :p

Viani · 2012-02-14 01:46:18

Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Beginning is a balanced card and should be run at 3, and Jace should be reprinted in the next set.

and it also depends on the context of the discussion.

I don't care if there is a deranged sexual predator on the forum or in a thread I am participating in, if it's like something that interests me. He could be in the Team Fortress 2 thread talking about his favorite maps and which loadout to use when playing Pyro.

When it's like that, then yeah, I don't care if he's a deranged sexual predator.

Unless it's like...

"Hey dude don't use the enforcer as spy it's op"

"I'll use what I want when playing, it's not banned."

"Fuck you, you god damn deranged sexual predator"

CockgobblyMcRapefucker has left the game. (Disconnect by user)

Irene · 2012-02-14 01:48:23

You have no idea how much we facepalmed at the Soldier to 3.

Although my favorite one was "Soldier to 3, or both Soldier and Emperor Dragon to 1?"

...Almost everybody picked either "Both to 0" or Soldier to 3.

Also, I know little of the Jace -In the hole-.

Viani · 2012-02-14 01:52:50

He's like, if you could use Pot of Greed, Mind Crush and Trap Dust-Shoot every turn basically.

Irene · 2012-02-14 01:57:28

You mean Jace, right?

And I agree with the context completely. If he's fine outside of that, you shouldn't report him for existing. If the person clearly makes that obvious... yeah, report.

You visit Fetishes? We've had a guy with the excuse "But I didn't read the rules so I'm safe." :|

Viani · 2012-02-14 02:29:42

Yeah, being unaware of the rules when you have to read them when you first join is very stupid indeed.

Irene · 2012-02-14 02:33:53

He did that all to say... "Ignorance is Bliss". But eh.

Not going to demonize the guy.

There's others I would rather do that to. :P

Tachyon · 2012-02-14 05:22:26

Good to see you here, Morven.

The issue of free speech and free thought on TVT does seem somewhat fuzzy. I remember at one point I actually used to pride myself on the fact that we had people like Tongpu posting civilly without issues arising from that, which in hindsight I think was misguided because the things he was saying were often pretty vicious.

In all honesty, I do find it difficult trying to explain to tropers why it's not OK to insult particular political groups that they disagree with when in all honesty I feel that even some politically mainstream views have rather horrible consequences and reinforce privilege. I like to think I'm fairly good at being non-partisan, but I'm not honestly entirely sure that I should be, and relatedly, obviously not the best at judging when I shouldn't be, either.

(Bella ciao, bella ciao, bella ciao, ciao, ciao.)

Problem is, there's a lot of black-and-white thinking on TVT, which I know several mods have remarked upon. It's unfortunate, because it tends to lead people down very odd routes when a discussion goes a particular way; for example, a position of absolute American exceptionalism becomes untenable when presented with Americans who oppose it, forcing people to adopt more extreme views (like condemning perfectly ordinary Americans as disloyal). I think you see the same from those attacking the site, sometimes.

I also think this failure to think critically is, unfortunately, very easily exploited by people who want to provoke tropers.

Beholder · 2012-02-14 06:58:50

The issue of free speech and free thought on TVT does seem somewhat
fuzzy. I remember at one point I actually used to pride myself on the
fact that we had people like Tongpu posting civilly without issues
arising from that, which in hindsight I think was misguided because the
things he was saying were often pretty vicious.

Your decisions are your own, and I respect that. However, personally I an quite sad to hear that you consider your previous attitude misguided.

Obā-san · 2012-02-14 08:08:52

Well, anything you do on the internet is simply thought.

Justice4243 · 2012-02-14 10:53:22

"And I don't see how devoting 5 minutes to reading very complicated and unsuitable comments mentioned in many threads linked to them is "devoting a ton of free time" and all other relevant arguments.
The fact that anyone that even can read that at all is proof that they are on the internet, which is a valid use of "free time"."

This isn't some ED article we're discussing, this is actively tracking a web-forum you have no interest in other than to be entertained by the drama caused within it.

If that is one's idea of "time well spent" I have no qualms with labeling that person a pretty lousy human being.

millercross · 2012-02-14 10:58:32

I think you're overrating how much effort a few clicks and copy pasting involve, Justice.

Obā-san · 2012-02-14 10:58:40

I tend to just find loathsome people loathsome.

S'why I rarely post on TVT anymore.

Justice4243 · 2012-02-14 11:00:32

We're not talking about a few clicks and copy/pasting, we're talking about tracking a site you have no interest in, other than what I mentioned, for months.

millercross · 2012-02-14 11:04:11

"Tracking a site"?

Anyway, let's say I wanted to do this for a long time. And let's say I had work to do. However shall I surmount this insurmountable task?

Maybe I just do a few screencaps and leave them in the forum from the latest OTC thread? It's what some of them do.

Or I should just pick the names I know, take their posts as well and then just put them in quoteblocks

What does it all take? 20 minutes per day interpersed between actually productive activities? It's not really that involved as you think, you know. It's just like how many people read IJBM expecting to see the latest dramaz these days.

Obā-san · 2012-02-14 11:05:31

It's not hard, just Google the discussion number and a user who says appalling things on a regular basis, click the first link you get, et voila!

Ninjad, 5 minutes tops.

Justice4243 · 2012-02-14 11:07:35

20 minutes per day over a course of months devoted to tracking other people activities online so you can laugh at them is pretty deplorable. "It doesn't take that much effort" isn't really a counter argument.

Obā-san · 2012-02-14 11:10:26

"Deplorable" is a rather strong word.

And some people need to be laughed at.

Misery · 2012-02-14 11:11:04

^ This.

millercross · 2012-02-14 11:13:11

So, how is it different from watching videos on youtube about people failing at things?

Obā-san · 2012-02-14 11:13:30

To be fair, I've only been mentioned twice on the current SA thread.

Justice4243 · 2012-02-14 11:14:46

I'm not going to accept "some people just need to be mocked" as a hand wave to what I'm discussing here.

And believe me, I could have come up with worse than deplorable.

Honestly, the idea that people are defending this type of behavior is pretty surprising to me.

"So, how is it different from watching videos on youtube about people failing at things?"

Maybe it's not.

millercross · 2012-02-14 11:19:24

Mkay, then.

I'm not defending this. I just think you're making mountains out of molehills, to be quite honest. You're treating something that is, at best, just picking dumb quotes and having a laugh out of them and calling it a morally deplorable act. It's way too much for what it is.

Honestly, this whole "Let's demonize the other side" thing I see on both sides kind of irks me. I can understand SA's reason for doing it, and it's because they want to rile up their readers, but I see no reason for you to do it.

Obā-san · 2012-02-14 11:20:03

I don't like youtube videos of people failing, then reading mocking comments.

But when someone says we should preemptively nuke Iran,or that art is worthless, copypastas Stormfront, ect.

Someone has to document this.

And for claiming they don't care, the Mods seem to follow what the SA thread says rather closely...

Justice4243 · 2012-02-14 11:26:30

^^These are people who think a "good time" is continuously finding things complete strangers have said and taking those things and putting them somewhere else so they can mock them with other people. I'm not sure I can "demonize" them anymore than their actions already do.

^ Copypasta is one thing, but keeping tabs on an individual or group so you can be the first to snatch up their "juicy" quote is quite another.

Obā-san · 2012-02-14 11:31:01

Why?

Justice4243 · 2012-02-14 11:41:20

Nany, if you're under the impression there's nothing wrong with online stalking and cataloging stranger's "lulz worthy" activities, then I'm going to assume our moral compasses point rather different directions.

Obā-san · 2012-02-14 11:44:53

It appears so.

millercross · 2012-02-14 11:45:01

>online stalking

There's that phrase again.

I'm just gonna say, that when you're posting in a public internet forum, not expectiing anyone at all from outside of it to comment on what you say, especially in the internet, is quite naive

Obā-san · 2012-02-14 11:45:50

^Also this.

Justice4243 · 2012-02-14 11:48:18

Yes, but that doesn't change what the people who are engaged in tracking down what you say are doing.

Discussion of TV Tropes

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories