TLP reform

I would like the "middle" one between hats and bombs to be a 'needs improvement' type thing, and which improvement.

I'm a little hung up on it as a little 'under construction' sign...

I wasn't really active in the trope launching area when tags were still a thing, but I like Water Blap's idea of a drop-down list, and I agree with Candi that the Neutral/Needs Improvement section should have some specific and common issues. If it's possible to throw in an "other" selection with a mandatory comment box for an explanation, that should cover the vast majority of cases.

I do think there's some thinking to be done about how to manage Needs Improvement tags. I do think it's not common for people to return to drafts they've already given feedback on, which makes allowing a commenter to mark their own feedback as "resolved" an issue; on the other hand, allowing other tropers (even non-sponsors) to "resolve" a NI tag not their own is a crazily abusable loophole.

Otherwise, I think the comments about making the Hats Needed To Launch number a net count rather than a straight one have a lot of merit. If both that idea and the feedback tags list go forward, we'd need to figure out how NI tags stack up in the count.

edited 7th Mar '17 1:55:37 PM by Mythtaken

I'm with Water Blap, the drop-down list does indeed sound like a good idea to me.

The NI tags won't a easy thing to solve (or maybe it is and I'm just being blind) but it does sound like it will help rather greatly.

I got nothing in terms of brilliant ideas.

Hey, a fresh eye to say, "that sounds good," "that needs work," or "that's crazy talk" (/humor) is always a good idea.

Adding back tags is a good move, but I wouldn't say that they should factor in hats/bombs counts. And I'd say we ought to have a minimum hats/bombs ratio rather than a hats-bombs difference.

Abuse of hats is hard to address. Maybe renaming it to "votes for launch in the current state" would help but it's kind of dry.

Also, allow people to discard at any time.

Change the icon to a rocket ship and the name from "hat" to "ready to launch."

Or change it from "hats" to "fuel" ^Eh? the stuff rockets need in order to launch

using ratio rather than difference

on ratio.

The Real Life Maintenance Thread uses ratios to great effect, after all.

The rocket pic instead of hat rather makes thematic as well as practical sense.

The thing is, when we did have the tags, they generated a lot of complaints that they weren't doing their job properly. If anyone can add them, and anyone can remove them, and no rationale is required, then it's problematic to make clearing them a technical requirement for launch.

In general, I support the idea, but the implementation needs to be workable.

Only a moderator can remove tags, including duplicate tags.

Bring back tags. With the future potential to impose requirements on adding them, such as either forcing tropers to select a "pre-approved" message from a drop-down list or using a comment box (with a character limit to avoid tropers adding "..." to the comment).

-ing on bringing them all back. Namely, I've voting to exclude "Motion to Discard."

To be clear, my "specific circumstances" is that they are tentatively brought back like they used to be, so that they can later (within the year? within two years?) be revised again in a thread similar to this one or from some other decision.

Also, in response to , could duplicate tags be auto-rejected by the system?

edited 9th Mar '17 2:05:07 PM by WaterBlap

Right, I forgot that only mods could remove tags, but doesn't that then require moderator intervention to launch any trope with tags? Not that I mind that per se, but I do have other things to do.

edited 9th Mar '17 3:12:35 PM by Fighteer

No, tags don't prevent launches.

Regarding tags: I don't think having tags makes a huge difference. Most tags simply highlighted a single issue the OP wanted to fix (Needs a better description/name/image/examples). However, I remember seeing drafts with every "need" tag. They feel redundant because it's a draft, it's expected to be WIP.

However, if tags do come back, I would like to see an automated system that removes tags, OP's ownership, and makes it Up For Grabs after the usual time abandoned. That would streamline the backlog cleanup.

—

On a second note, I agree on creating a multi-stage creation process, similar to what Koveras said in#11. I agree with it from a process and idea generation standpoint. (I also like the idea of only having a "we have this" bomb in the first stage). But here's my idea on how the layout the launch process.

1. The first stage is brainstorming.
   • This was the core essence of YKTTW where someone asks "so you know that thing in that show where...". This stage should have the least rigid requirements and should only be firm when an idea clearly is an existing trope. The focus on this stage is to clearly define the core idea of the trope and create a good laconic.
2. The second stage is drafting.
   • This stage sees the most growth. Examples, images, and quotes would be added. The description will continue to grow, and might change to fit the evolving trope. The main focus here is to create a launch-ready page.
3. The final stage is revision.
   • This stage focuses on polishing the draft and making sure the idea is clear to tropers. The OP and posters should call out shoehorned examples, unclear descriptions, and unclear trope overlap. This is where wiki-wide implications such as supertropes, sister tropes, and omnipresent/universal tropes. Potential misuse is also considered here. (Essentially a mini-TRS).

What would be good is to bring some of the Repair Shop mindset into the creation process without hurting the creative flow and positive energy. I've seen too many drafts bombed into oblivion before the author had a chance to fully develop and express his idea. That scares people away.

edited 9th Mar '17 7:22:52 PM by pokedude10

The 'bombed into oblivion' issue is one reason I want a system -drop down or comment box- to explain the bomb.

One feeling I've gotten from some bombs/motion to discards/etc. over the years is the troper is saying, "I don't like this." Without quantification, that's useless.

It doesn't help identify good drafts -you can not like an idea and it still be a real, solid trope. It doesn't help fix potentials that just need work. It doesn't prevent bad tropes from being launched.

Having to explain reasoning, however briefly, will hopefully make people stop and think before clicking and bouncing off.

Don't bring back the motion to discard tag. It's not really helpful, and it overlaps with the purpose of multiple bombs.

I rarely come back to the development side of things but was intrigued by the bulletin. So take my advice for what it's worth.

I agree with the comment requirement for rejections and perhaps approvals as well.

I disagree with only being able to say "Yes, We DO Have This One" in the initial phase. It should be able to be said in all phases. That having been said, if it's said outside of the initial phase, then the burden of proof should be on the Dissenter to prove that it is The Same But More, instead of the Sponsor to prove a negative.

Neutral on most tags, though there should be a difference between a "Fix This" and a "Motion to Discard". Unless my idea below gains traction:

On that note, instead of Hats & Bombs, we should carry the "Launching" metaphor further:

Trope Reviewers, Listen up! Give me a Go/No Go for Launch!

It would be an inverted traffic signal with "Go" (green) on the top. Alternately, it would be a 3-setting switch with the switch colored to the currently active option.

• The signal would default to "No Call" (yellow/middle). Any "Go"s would only be valid for 6 days before automatically reverting to "No Call", "No Go"s would be valid for 8 days before auto-reverting.
• A "Go"/"No Go" can be withdrawn at any time by clicking back to "No Call"; a "Go" removed in this manner is locked out for 24 Hours, whereas a "Go" that expires can be reinstated instantly. "No Go"s can be reinstated at any time.
• Active "Go"s and "No Go"s will be shown either at the top or near the switch. Each active "No Go" would either link to the individual dissent post or else display the first few words of such post (or a tag if used) in the Alt Text of that "No Go".

Any proposal on the Pad cannot be launched without having spent at least 8 days on the pad, having a minimum number of "Go"s (that are active), and having no (unexpired) "No Go"s. The 8 day timeframe for "No Go"s and the Pad itself is to allow any visitor to be able to review the idea/ address the dissent; as a "Go" only requires ascent, the 6 day period allows for/requires a weekly renewal.

If a proposal goes 15 days without any active "Go"s,^note regardless of whether there are any "No Go"s active, it is sent to the Morgue. This time limit means that the proposal is Morgued 15 days after the expiration of the last "Go"; as opposed to any proposal that gets a "Go" in its first 15 days being free to become a TLP Freeloader. While this would be the only way to discard w/o direct Mod Action, if we can get it in the code, it should reduce the need for Mod Action.

Oh, and you can't "Go"/"No Go" your own proposal. Though the original Sponsor could have a "Scrub" button, which would effectively be a "Holler"...

One recommendation for 2.0 would be to have drafts go up for grabs automatically if they see no sponsor, or sponsor/other, activity for a set period of time.

Instead of a stoplight, maybe have a little rocket clearing for launch. It's an amusing image, at least.

It looks like for the future, a definite three-part system for voting is definitely recommended, regardless of the pictures used to display it.

Also, I hope this doesn't sound too complainy, but could the messages in TLP vX.X be completely gender neutral (it's only a little thing, but being sir'd when throwing a hat in s me a little)?

Maybe tags can be arranged like a poll or survey, and an individual vote can only be changed by the person who made it? That way, you could see how many people chose each option, and a single "Not Tropeworthy" wouldn't be noticed against 15 "Needs Improvement"s.

Sort of like the voting system on crowners? That's a thought.

Whenever I think of someone other than the OP launching an unfinished TLP, I think of Dee Dee pressing the red button, while Dexter says "Don't touch it, you eediot!"

The OP is the sponsor, not the owner. And sometimes something happens in RL and they don't return, or they leave because they become unhappy with the site. (Read at least some of the edit banned/suspended thread; it's educational.)

The other part is no one should be launching an unfinished trope draft, or creating an incomplete work page outside of the Sandbox namespace. It makes the wiki look poorly done. That's why the YKTTW [TLP] Crash Rescue Thread exists, to evaluate and handle such pages.

One of the things we're working on is signaling that a draft still needs work and shouldn't be launched -the whole point behind the discussion of flags, bombs, hats, and splitting the last two into three categories.

The interesting part comes when people show by their actions that they seem to think that launching lots of drafts, regardless of quality, is either a mark of honor or highly entertaining. That's a no go ever.

edited 16th Mar '17 5:24:56 AM by Candi

Maybe I have severe myopia, but ultimately a bottleneck is needed to thwart project-in-the-works pages from being launched directly into the Tropes gallery. I know this sounds like "moderator approval," but ... yeah, that's what it comes down to. Experienced, competent, knowledgeable Tropers need to review these TLP pages to ensure they meet Trope Codes. Perhaps if this would overwhelm the current trusted staff, there could be micro-mods appointed, with jurisdiction solely on pre-launch TLP pages. These people could either vindicate launch when a page is truly Tropeworthy, or send it back to TLP with a note on its shortcomings. And even upon righteous launch, those pages that are more Trivia-class or YMMV-class would be directly shunted there. Since the issue is Quality Control, then a quality assurance team of some type seems inevitable.

Kind of like a forum herald? I think there's too many drafts to reliably have mods or specialized mods approve drafts pre-launch. It was also mentioned in #12 that there's a bureaucracy issue.

To bounce off of your idea, though, what about having a special tag for the "TLP heralds"? It doesn't need that same kind of rhetoric: "Herald Endored" or "Inspector Approved." With a name attached to the tag for mods and everyone else to see. Alternatively, it could be "Inspected by [name]" or something neutral sounding.