Note: The thread currently has a limit of one post every two hours for non-mod users. Currently, this is hard-coded by the admins, but there are plans to give mods the ability to toggle it without admin intervention. After mods are given the ability to do that, the time limit may be further reduced or removed entirely.
This thread is for discussing the following topics:
- Questions and clarifications about the site's rules and policies pertaining to wiki editing, forum posting, trope launching, and so on.
- If you have an idea for a thread on another part of the forums but aren't sure if creating it would be allowed, feel free to ask here.
This thread is not for any of the following:
- Reporting complaints or concerns about specific moderation decisions (e.g. suspensions and thumps). Report these directly to the admins via the contact form
. Selecting "The Staff" sends your message to the admins only, without making it visible to moderators.
- Queries about thumps applied to your own forum posts (reply to the relevant moderator via PM).
- Ban appeals (use the "Edit Banned" thread in this forum).
- Reporting problems or requesting moderator action in the wiki or forums (use Ask The Tropers or Hollersnote or specialized threads such as "Locked Pages").
- Queries about locked On-Topic Conversations (OTC) threads or banned discussion topics. OTC has its own moderation discussion thread here, and the latest statement on the locked US Politics thread and other banned OTC topics is here. Bluntly, when certain OTC threads and topics have repeatedly caused problems, we're not going to provide forum space to discuss them again until the moderation toolkit is equipped to handle those conversations.
- Cut List challenges and queries (they have their own thread here).
- Requests for changes to the site's code or discussion about such changes', as mods cannot change the code; only the admins can do that. Please direct tech requests to Query Bugs or Query Wishlist, and take other tech-related discussion to the Changelog thread.
- Crowner actions. Please use the holler function instead.
- Discussion about changing or implementing policies. Please use Wiki Talk for that. (Asking whether it's OK to make a specific thread is acceptable; using this thread in place of such a thread is not.)
- Asking about the whereabouts of inactive mods (or other inactive users) before they return, if they return at all. Use the Absent people thread for discussing inactive users.
Posts that use this thread in place of the sections listed in the bulleted list above are off-topic.
We're aware that the Edit Banned thread has a Non-Indicative Name, due to it also covering non-editing suspensions. We're not sure whether the name for that thread can even be edited without breaking the special coding that keeps posting restricted to mods and suspended users, so we're leaving it alone for now, because better safe than sorry.
(Edited Mar 28 2024, adding bullet about OTC and amending layout a little)
Edited by Mrph1 on Mar 29th 2024 at 10:55:20 AM
Redmess
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
At that point, we were still trying to keep the discussion limited to the economic side of things. I would argue that we did not go off topic again after the thump train.
As for Fighteer, I think we've said this before, but it's not a good idea to moderate discussions in which you are involved, because it gives the impression of partiality, even when the mod action was taken as a team. By thumping him yourself, you have escalated the situation somewhat.
Optimism is a duty.
Your friendly neighbourhood Regent
Point of order:
We got into that whole mess because DeMarquis tried to pontificate (note: not discuss, pontificate.) on a line of reasoning based on assertions for which the was no evidence provided and then went 'since this is true, you must concede the following' with the 'since this is true' being the assertion that anarchism is impossible to achieve in practice. Which lead to a whole discussion of whether or not anarchism is possible to achieve in practice.
And the first thing DeMarquis did after the mass thump, while the rest of us were trying to get back on topic, was repost that entire thing again 'in case anyone forgot'.
And by the way, Fighteer is still in that thread defending DeMarquis' conduct and disrupting the thread by shutting down lines of discussion and the other participants are noticeably getting fed up with it.
Angry gets shit done.
If I may divert the discussion a bit...
Hey mods, the Trope Report team has produced Trope Report Dummy Edition for y'all to look through. Let me or the thread know if it's good to go, or if there's anything that needs to be fixed or trimmed down.
Also, I wanted to know how this would be launched. Do we make the page in Newsletter/, and post about it here so it can be bulletin'd? Will the page be locked afterwards?
I would probably put the forumwatch and changelog at the bottom as they are more of a back-office interest matter.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Very Spooky
Please deny the cut requests for Tom & Jerry (2021) and all its subpages, as for I managed to raise the amount of unhidden example on the main work page.
back lol
Done.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Redmess
Could the mods make a decision about how much complaining/venting is allowed on OTC? There was a discussion on the COVID thread about the amount of venting going on about covidiots, in particular veiled or not-so-veiled wishes of death on idiots.
I find these sort of comments not contributing to any sort of discussion, and it is bad for the general mood of the thread. This applies to other threads as well, but I think that one and political threads in general are especially susceptible to it.
Optimism is a duty.
Susjection!
Septimus deleted the note about using the Complete Monster cleanup thread to propose candidates because according to him, there's a policy about instructions for editors not going on trope pages. Despite this, Fighteer added instructions for editors to Darkness-Induced Audience Apathy. Is there an explanation for these contradictory edits? And if this policy exists, where is it written?
Edited by Kevjro7 on Dec 30th 2020 at 10:31:45 AM
Lost in Space
There is no official policy.
My opinion on the matter is that every reader is a potential editor, and embedding comments into the page source is a crappy way to reach editors with important information. Given the tech we have to work with, a notice in the description is our best option.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Susjection!
Should the Complete Monster note be added back then? Also, Septimus is planning to remove the note about Magnificent Bastard's cleanup thread for the exact same reason.
No, it shouldn't be added back. This is one of the Eddie-day policies that was/is up for debate but wasn't overturned. These notes are ugly, not within the scope of the trope description and they don't do anything. Every time I checked the proportion of readers who are editors is only about 1% and as TRS found out way too many times most tropers who make problem edits don't read trope descriptions.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I added my two cents on the MB thread, but I think it's important for new tropers and it can't hurt, especially because most people can't add to the page. Yes there will always be problem tropers, but I think without the notes we might see an uptick in people just adding Magnificent Bastards and Complete Monsters to YMMV pages without knowing about the threads.
You can only write so much in your forum signature. It's not fair that I want to write a piece of writing yet it will cut me off in the mid
For whatever my opinion is worth, I honestly don't know if those warnings ever made a difference. We still have a metric fuckton of unapproved entries that have to be excised and, while I'm seeing a fair number of new people on the clean up threads, there's no way to know if those notes specifically brought them there.
My two cents is that we should have a formal query on both forums to see if the notes actually served to bring the new people in or not. If there isn't a clear correlation, then I see no problem with cutting the notes because I will agree with Septimus on them being ugly.
Think you're tough because you made it through Lord of the Rings? Real men survive The Silmarillion.
NaNo 4328 / 50,000
We could make it an official policy: Sandbox.Writing For An Audience
Link to TRS threads in project mode here.
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
I see both sides of this, I agree that articles should be written primarily for readers over editors but we also need more ways to fix common writing errors. I could go either way.
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
If I may just add a bit to my position: Other tropes on the site that are not Magnificent Bastard or Complete Monster have cleanup threads. None of those threads have that you must you go through the cleanup thread in order to approve examples. They are for general cleanup and if you are unsure. Complete Monster and Magnificent Bastard are unique in that regard in that the cleanup threads are required for trope approval. Thus I see the benefit in a note.
You can only write so much in your forum signature. It's not fair that I want to write a piece of writing yet it will cut me off in the mid
I don't see the harm in there being a note. Even if people don't read it, at least we have something we can point to when telling them why they shouldn't be adding unapproved entries.
Angry babby
The note also makes sense because otherwise people are going to be confused as to why the pages are edit-locked, especially in the case of Magnificent Bastard which lacks an Administrivia page explaining itself like Complete Monster has.
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
Berserk Button: misusing Nightmare Fuel
I think that Complete Monster and Magnificent Bastard are special cases. If there isn't a note in the tropes' descriptions, then it's unlikely that a new editor would be able to figure out that they're not allowed to add examples to a work's YMMV page.
Edited by Zuxtron on Dec 15th 2020 at 9:46:36 AM
Problem, is we don't have evidence that it has that effect. Or any of the other positive effects that folks are attributing to notes. I've been following the CM and MB threads from before they received 'em and it seems like people unilaterally adding examples, coming to threads still happens with or without the notes. Which only leaves the "ugly" and "it was a policy back then" factors.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Redmess
Do you mean the big banners at the top? I actually do read them, and they are useful for pointing out when tropes are/are not YMMV, for instance.
If they're ugly, then redesign them. God knows they redesign this site every three years anyway.
Edited by Redmess on Dec 16th 2020 at 12:21:05 PM
Optimism is a duty.
NaNo 4328 / 50,000
No, description notes, not the Not a Trope banners.
to propose characters before writing their entries. Complete Monster entries not approved by the thread will be deleted.
I mean I feel like this is a prime example of Survivorship Bias. We don't know how many people haven't put examples on pages as a result of the note. They aren't visible. The thing that is visible is the people who either don't read the note or just ignore it. But if there's no note, then I feel a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't have added examples will start adding them.
Edited by jjjj2 on Dec 16th 2020 at 10:31:59 AM
You can only write so much in your forum signature. It's not fair that I want to write a piece of writing yet it will cut me off in the mid
Goku Black
I also found the thread thanks to that note as well. Removing it will cause issues as it means it Will be difficult to show people where they need to go for the trope that requires them to run it by the thread first .
"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."
Then why was it that after De Marquis instantly tried to take the conversation back there, by reposting the exact post that pulled everyone off-topic, it’s Robrecht who gets a ban?
Yes Robrecht’s post was rude and deserving of a thump, it should have been a hollar on De Marquis’ post instead of a forum statement. But considering that the moderator action in the thread was done by the mod participating in the discussion (something said mod has promised not to do) and ignored the actions of the bad-faith actor that said mod was arguing alongside, it’s not absurd that he might presume Fighteer would just ignore any hollar.
Bottom line, two people acted out of line in the thread and caused this mess, only the one who disagreed with Fighteer has been the target of mod action, the fuck?
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran