Content Policy Discussion

The objective is not to endear. The objective is to bring the cards except the wildcard cards that were removed from this table to the table again.

I accept Discar's POV. Kx S is not a show that interests a wide range of people, same for horror. I understand that there are ppl that will deem that kind of shows as unacceptable but there are also ppl that deem horror as unacceptable. It's just a justifiable and understandable POV.

edited 3rd Nov '12 1:36:02 PM by brunoais

Ah, my bad then Best Of.

Colour me surprised. Makes one wonder how 4chan stays up. Not that TV Tropes should turn into 4chan.

I wouldn't say that a majority of this site's userbase supports the policy, because I doubt most people even know there's a "problem". People mostly come here for the big tropes and shows (like Nightmare Fuel and Doctor Who, respectively). I only figured out something fishy was going on when I saw that KnJ was gone. I've also not noticed any differences in how the site's linked to or mentioned during this particular period. I visit Cracked.com, TGWTG and other sites regularly; it doesn't look like they cared at all. Where are these people condemning TV Tropes for not having standards, outside of the administration?

Regardless, you shouldn't change things because "a majority" wants you to. If they don't want to read about controversial shows, they can read something else. That's what I do.

You don't say.

I got a bit sidetracked trying to explain the inherent problem of referring to Eddie as an end to all arguments, as you might have noticed.

Most of your arguments are subjective; the only ones that aren't revolve the fact that Eddie owns the site (and I'm not going through that one again) and the amount of money the site needs (which I'll get to once I'm done with the current discussion). I can't falsify subjective arguments (e.g. "These shows are disgusting! Away with them, I say!"), it's up to you whether you agree with me or not. I have questioned some of them, though, like the one above, and I plan on continuing to do so.

From your point of view. If someone else was running the website (like me), what's considered a problematic edit or page would be a lot different, and the necessary measures would be a lot less severe.

Which reminds me: how much would it take to buy the website? I'm not just asking for my sake, but for everyone who feels like they could do a better job than Eddie.

According to Eddie and others, yes. The point is not that they attract the wrong kind of editors, it's that Eddie doesn't like them to begin with. Why the fact that he's the owner makes any difference other than that he can is another story.

For the purposes of this issue, a "problematic edit" is a case where the text of the work page either became all-too sexual itself (something that was always against wiki rules, even prior to the content policy), or gave praise to a pornographic or paedo-pandering scene or event in the work (which, while frowned on, technically wasn't always against wiki rules, as gushing was allowed to a degree).

Okay, I don't have time to respond to all the specific posts in question, but here's my general understanding of the situation and my take on it:

• The policy itself exists for several main reasons:
  • Eddie (who owns the site) does not want to pay for bandwidth to host material he isn't comfortable hosting.
  • Pages on such material tend to reflect badly on the wiki's reputation, which costs us viewers and links, as well as potentially causing trouble with ad providers.
  • Such pages often attract creepy edits, to the point where it's less work for all involved to just cut/lock the pages in question rather than continuously clean them

I personally don't see a problem with it. Yes, we're probably going to lose a few things, but ultimately I think it's a net gain. Not everyone will agree. And that's the problem. It is impossible to create a policy that's going to satisfy everyone.

That's where most of the trouble with the policy really is: Eddie and the mods are willing to compromise, but it's impossible that everyone is going to get what they want. Even if the staff is willing to concede to all the standards a particular person desires, I guarantee you someone else is going to complain about it. It's impossible that the policy ends up such that everyone can agree with every aspect of it.

We can go on and on about how we think the policy could be improved, but frankly what's going to be done at the end of the day is what's actually doable. The current system is not ideal, obviously. But it is practical. It has some kinks, but any plan that we can actually enact is going to have some problems because the entire issue is based around a standard that's ultimately subjective. I think everybody just needs to realize that whatever policy we end up with has a miniscule chance of actually being what any particular troper is going to want. The policy can't make everyone happy; it can only aim to make as many people happy as possible.

While I find this discussion enlightening, I would like to point out again that the written pedo-pandering policy is actually much looser than the P5 have been enforcing them.

They have the right to exercise their judgment. The appeals process is open if you think there's been a wrong decision.

Honestly, I'm not inclined to even argue about the stuff the panel is doing that much anymore. I think it's somewhere between a complete waste of time and actively destructive, others disagree, but there don't seem to be any new arguments on either side.

I do question the whole "we want people to stop calling the site creepy" motive. A lot of those people seem to have a basically fetishistic attachment to holding that position, and as such are unlikely to change it, because they enjoy having that position.

And then there's the sudden disappearance of indices, without any obvious discussion or reason. That feels a lot less like Eddie doing things because he feels it's best for the community and/or supported by the community, and more like Eddie treating the site like his own personal blog. And it makes me really disinclined to contribute to the site when I have no idea what might disappear into the ether next.

I would just like to add that as someone who actually reads KNJ,

With the current policy it dose not in any way belong on this site.

edited 3rd Nov '12 11:23:06 PM by shadis

edited 4th Nov '12 1:03:56 AM by brunoais

Please try not to conflate the two - while the issue of Google Ads was the original precipitating event, that doesn't mean that taking away the issue of funding will cause the admin to change their minds on the type of content they want on the site.

As for the issues with implementation and enforcement of the rules in a stricter manner than some would like... as has been said above, the rulings are admittedly subjective - it's a compromise based on what's doable, as J Teeth said. We can try to make it as fair as possible, but there will inevitably be points of disagreement. Even among those of us helping out, some of us don't completely agree with certain decisions on particular works or actions that have been taken, but you can't satisfy everybody.

edited 4th Nov '12 1:15:31 AM by Pyrite

The ads are on a click-through basis, not a page-view basis. This means simply loading a page does not create ad revenue by itself; it costs us bandwidth.

I've never seen that happen, and I've known of this site long enough to remember when Headscratchers was called It Just Bugs Me and was symbolised by a green bug's head. Sure, I noticed pages that could potentially entice paedophiles (Kodomo no Jikan, RapeLay, Boku no Pico, that MLP unbirthing story, and so on), but never any comments that painted actual paedophilia or even loli/shotacon in a positive light. I've seen more comments on the looks of real life people; I could understand deleting edits that might be affecting someone who actually exists, but the prevention of paedo-pandering seems like a gut reaction to something you personally find disgusting. That's not to say I'd take joy in reading fiction about the rape of children or anything like that, but you come off like it's some objective truth that having a page on fictional naked children is inherently horribly immoral, and it isn't. It's your opinion. It's an opinion that I recognise as important, but it's also all it is.

Which is why your arguments about the horrors you've seen written here on TV Tropes don't work, because from the point of view of the people who don't share your values, you're overreacting. We know that how we feel about this doesn't compare to how Eddie feels about it, but don't be surprised when we don't buy that TV Tropes had become a haven for perversion, because we don't agree. It's like telling a statist that a dictatorship is a bad idea because it's gives too much power to the dictator; the statist doesn't care, because his/her values are entirely different.

Speaking of different values:

There's a humongous difference between the needs of the many and the wants of the many. In the system you've created, I can't write about Popotan because an alleged majority doesn't want me to, not because the existence of that page caused them actual harm. You don't have to compromise when you can stay with your own kind and let people do whatever harmless things they want to, so to speak. It's the people who can't accept the fact that people have different views on what's disgusting and leave TV Tropes because of it that need a wake-up call, not us. People are leaving because Eddie lets his own values pollute the community, but apparently their thoughts don't count.

I'll give the same answer to that as I will to the praise of the good job the 5P is doing: that is very true (I think the 5P could have done a better job responding to our reasons for why Popotan should be restored, but there's no denying their efforts result in what they're supposed to result in). It's also completely irrelevant, because the problem is the policy itself. The ends don't justify the means.

Perhaps not, but if the funding problem was dealt with, then the only arguments you'd have would be that Eddie disapproves of the content and that the site would lose visitors (which wouldn't matter if money wasn't an issue).

So let's for the sake of argument say that I was able to support the site to the point that advertising was obsolete. Then I'd be the one paying out of my own pocket for the site to stay alive. Would it still make sense that Eddie was allowed to do all of this?

Oh, and sorry, Septimus. It appears that there's too much that needs to be said for me to keep my posts short.

I'll just answer your reply to my statement - don't want to put words in other people's mouths:

Well, then it would be your site, not his, and you'd probably be free to do what you wanted to it, regardless how the rest of the population felt.

Precisely. So I'll ask again, not for my sake, but for everyone's sake in general:

How much does the site cost?

Concerning the paedopandering policy...seriously, can we finally kill this zombie topic? We all realize that the policy is ultimately subjective - but the point is, it's a really strong opinion here. Not the sort of opinion you can just treat as irrelevant or dismiss. So can we agree that it's always going to be subjective and leave it alone?

And for the record, I am sure that many people are relieved at seeing certain works gone - or are coming here just because of that. It's not just scaring people away.

Finally, there is anothe reason why we want many visitors...Bigger Is Better.

While I don't think that such numbers are given out freely - in the thread on The Situation I've heard "thousands per month" as the operating budget.

edited 4th Nov '12 8:22:44 AM by SeptimusHeap

And that's in addition to doing the programming that Eddie currently does. He writes everything from scratch. Which means you'd have to either hire someone to do the coding which needs constant work with a site this large or do it yourself.

By that I meant selling price, not financial maintenance. It's good to know that too, though, so thanks.

Okay, I've been trying to keep myself out of this (rather pointless) argument for the longest, but I must ask this: unless you're actually planning on buying the site from Fast Eddie (good luck with that), why, exactly, are you asking this question? Is there an actual point to it?

Except for the fact that this itself is a subjective statement that not everyone is going to agree with. I honestly don't think that Eddie's views are really "polluting" the community that much; any complaints I have about the policy concern the execution rather than the idea behind it. I can't really complain about his desire to remove works that cater to pedophiles from the wiki; I think it's understandable that he wouldn't want that stuff on here.

As for this:

I might just be misreading something, but as far as I understand your argument so far, you also seem to be falling into this. You're basically demanding that Eddie allow content on the site that he isn't comfortable with hosting (and that other members of the community don't really want either) just because you personally think he should.

Again: The decision of what needs to be removed and what doesn't is subjective, and if you disagree with it and want to change it, there needs to be a solid reason beyond "I disagree with the policy". If you can explain why changing the policy would improve the wiki in some way, go right ahead.

edited 4th Nov '12 8:51:04 AM by JapaneseTeeth

Hey! I'm here. I know how to properly program, so that's not an issue if that were to happen.

edited 4th Nov '12 8:56:59 AM by brunoais

The wiki is not for sale.

@520: I suppose I question whether "people in the community don't want it around" is a good reason to remove something or not.

Given time I could probably find more than a few things that have pages on this wiki that I'd like to forget existed, but that's not a good reason to get rid of them.

Could we put this thread on a temporary lock? Things are going in circles, and way off-topic.

As long as it stays "temporary" (maybe until tomorrow?), yes.