Complaining NEW CROWNER: AltTitles 12-28-12: Gannon Banned

Gannon-Banned is about controversial topics, not necessarily misinformation (the disagreement over that, to be specific).

Also, Darth Wiki has been written long ago. It's not quite what it is for now.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Please stop your personal crusade.

The page needs something.

First, the description needs to be clearly defined, and then the examples need to be checked for which should stay and which should go.

It might be worth it to move the page to the trivia header depending on what happens in the end.

As it stands, the description doesn't clearly state if it's about which fandoms flip out over what, or if it's about misconceptions that are so prevalent they trigger hair tempers.

Because the original term certainly was about the latter, people profiling themselves as fans and getting the facts wrong, to the point that small scale elitism became a way to educate them.

Regardless, it's existance is much worth documenting on this wiki, since it relates very strongly to the relationship between older/hardcore and newcomer/casual fans of a work.

@abk 0100: Um...are we even reading the same comments? The things you've quoted don't come across as hate-filled or bashing, and certainly not filth. They seem to me to merely be statements regarding particular views within a specific fandom, and reactions to them. Perhaps the people within the fandom making those statements are being hate-filled bashers, but the posters aren't—they're merely transcribing or paraphrasing. Might want to cut back on the hyperbole.

@Indirect Active Transport: Darth Wiki is, among other things, a place to show the negative side of things, or negative views upon them. While inappropriate for TV Tropes and its mission statement, that doesn't equal misinformation, merely a different (and in this case, negatively slanted) interpretation. On a related note, Your Mileage May Vary is not being removed and should not be, for one very good reason: while TV Tropes is about reporting tropes, not reviewing or commenting upon them (though there are subpages for such things), the fact a trope's presence or interpretation is subjective and not objective does not justify its cutting. The reason YMMV has a separate tab is because the main page of an article is meant to display the factual, unequivocal examples of tropes in the work. But just because the YMMV tropes can be debated as to their presence, legitimacy, or meaning does not mean they aren't worth noting—in most cases the tropes on the list are in fact legitimately noted phenomena and even appear in literary or critical circles. The reason they are relegated to YMMV here is due to their controversial, disputed, or Flame Bait nature, not because they aren't legitimate. (In other words, it can be debated whether a particular work contains it, why, or what it means, but the concept itself definitely exists.)

edited 3rd Sep '12 7:58:00 PM by Ingonyama

That's a... grossly generous way of interpreting this phenomenon. Which is another reason I'd prefer this not have examples, frankly.

Considering that abk 0100 is opposed to cutting the examples (and in general seems opposed to that whole line of thinking), s/he was probably being sarcastic.

If all - or even most - examples on the page were like those quoted there, I wouldn't being arguing for an Example Sectionectomy. But they aren't.

Ah, thanks for the clarification (I had missed that s/he was the same person who'd made statements against cutting examples). Now I am snickering at that example! However if that is the case, wouldn't rewriting the examples to be more like the ones s/he quoted be better than cutting them altogether? Yes, I know that's a lot of work, but if these are legitimate phenomena...

edited 3rd Sep '12 8:38:31 PM by Ingonyama

If this was a trope, yes. It's not. It's not even close.

Honestly, I think this mindset that we're supposed to document internet/fandom drama as well as actual tropes has done more to make problems for this wiki then just about anything else, up to and including the overly-tolerant attitude towards creeps that existed until relatively recently.

I think the idea that some issues are very touchy for fandom warrants a mention. Audience reactions are often explanatory principles to works, proper. The examples here seem to include everything anyoen wrote in caps about once, though.

I'm not sure this should have examples in the first place.

I also think we could merge and redirect this to Internet Backdraft, as it's basically the same thing (people on the internet react strongly to certain topics, omg!)

Rhetorical, eh? ... Eight!

They seem pretty different. Internet Backdraft is complaining about works (the opposite of And The Fandom Rejoiced) and Gannon-Banned is complaining about people who aren't knowledgeable about works.

Gannon-Banned definitely needs reworking to clarify that meaning then. It's laconic is now "Purist fans' Berserk Buttons," it links to Internet Backdraft and Fandom Heresy.

This is very closely related to an Internet Backdraft, but probably distinct.

Gannon-Banned: In many fandoms, there are certain mistakes (or perceived mistakes) so common and irritating to the diehard fans that even innocently making that mistake are treated as a troll and may be banned for making that mistake.

Internet Backdraft: There are some hot-button topics so controversial in a particular fandom that bringing it up even innocently can start a huge argument... again.

In the former it's not starting a flamewar or argument; everyone is just sick of hearing people make that mistake. In the second you're accidentally stepping on a landmine of a topic, probably a previous Holy War.

I do think the description of Gannon-Banned could use a little work, if only because we get to the second paragraph before explaining what the trope is, which always drives me nuts. Explain first, give examples of when it happens afterward. I'd suggest replacing the first three paragraphs with something like this (insert blue where appropriate):

---

In the fan community for any franchise, there are certain common mistakes that people outside (or just entering) the fandom will make. People who have been in the fandom for some time have usually heard these mistakes so often that they are sick of it — they don't even want to bother correcting anyone anymore. If the fandom is being nice about it, they'll have an FAQ up and just drop a link to it instead of discussing the issue. Worse case, the noob will just be treated as a troll for even bringing it up and may get banned, with no idea why he got such an overreaction.

Some common offenses that can get a person Gannon-Banned include using the wrong romanization of a character's name, thinking that the title of a piece is the name of the main character, or spreading a rumor about the plot that is well-known to be false. In some communities, it can be as simple as using disliked (but not technically incorrect) terminology — for example, calling anime characters by the names they were given in the dub while in a group that loathes the dub.

edited 4th Sep '12 7:51:57 AM by Escher

Gannon Banned is not a trope, not as the website defines them, or as most people would. A trope is a tool, and in the website's case, a tool a story teller can reliably fall back on.

Gannon Banned is about fans whining. It is not a story telling trope, at most it is a trope for trolls, but since the administrators are kind of anti trolling Gannon Banned isn't really something they would consider a trope and doesn't really have a place here.

So I'm guessing the idea that it belongs on Darth Wiki comes from this little gem

But as the page is it would need to make it truly Darth Wiki worthy, its not satirical enough. I'd rather cut it and bring back old Darth Wiki pages, like Ultimate Troll Entry(which was could easily have all of Gannon Banned's material and more) or steal better pages off the main tab like Shock Site. Darth Wiki could justify putting the examples back on it and then claiming that shock sites are things you want to look at. Those would be some "entertaining lies".

Modified Ura-nage, Torture Rack

Ultimate Troll Entry became an actual troll page. It's not coming back.

Also, cutting decisions aren't based upon a literal reading of the site's name. We have expanded from trope-only cataloguing to recording other facets of storytelling as is explained in Not A Trope.

And I still don't see why we need to cut the page when only the examples are bad.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Because the page isn't a worthy for the main space and isn't even helpful to understanding tropes in fiction or how the website works, such as a useful notes, trivia page or index. What little humor can be gotten from the examples is all the worth it has, without those you might as well cut the whole thing. If people want to know about the original meme there will still be a page for memes.

Modified Ura-nage, Torture Rack

It's not about the meme. It's not about the examples either. The concept of "naming disagreements being a major source of arguments" is definitively page-worthy, but the examples aren't.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

@35: As I understand it, Internet Backdraft is complaining about people with controversial opinions.

^^ Are you saying these examples are bad or that the page in general should omit examples?

All examples here are bad, methinks. But the concept is page-worthy.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

There are a lot of examples that are really minor things that don't rise to the level of getting you excoriated for bringing it up. An annoyingly common mistake or shibboleth*

isn't the same thing as getting banned or /ignored for bringing the subject up.

edited 5th Sep '12 8:39:11 AM by Escher

To be honest, I'm definitely coming around to Septimus Heap's position on this. There's no need to cut the page itself when the examples are the problem. Plus, it has 452 inbounds we'd want to save somehow.

(Also, bump).

(wrong thread)

edited 7th Sep '12 3:17:50 PM by Routerie

Bump. Is it time for a crowner here? Is one needed in the first place?

The problem is that the examples have a lot of Fan Myopia and hyperbole about them, but we can't cut them because the page would become meaningless.

My suggestion would be to firstly rewrite the examples to take out the fans' perspective and simply list common, easy-to-make mistakes with franchises, and leave it to the main description to note that fans get upset about them, or use them as markers of their in-group against other fans.

And secondly, the page badly needs a rename. It's an obscure, narrow meme of a title.

edited 3rd Oct '12 4:06:10 AM by RJSavoy

A blog that gets updated on a geological timescale.

I agree, the name is bad.