Moderating Teen Titans Go discussion?

From my limited experience on this wiki (I've been here for only about a year), it seems to me that no single TV show generates more argument and more bile in threads and trope pages than Teen Titans Go. The Cartoon Network thread, for example, has been almost nothing but complaining about that particular series for months on end, and its Dethroning Moment Of Suck page stretches on into infinity. My proposal is that, until this eventually blows over, the wiki try to should lock down or at least heavily moderate, discussion of Teen Titans Go, for the sake of maintaining a stable, sane environment. It would be nice if the wiki could be used in an objective way, and not just as a place for people to complain.

While I hate this show, I'm perfectly capable of reasonably discussing it. I also believe that age is an issue, since I'm 22. So why not an "If you hate it, then why are you whining about it?" rule? Since I hate MLP as much as you people hate this show, and you don't see me whining about that...much...

But then again, I'm an idiot.

Personally I don't understand that rule. I don't see why positivity should be more encouraged than negativity. If you didn't like something you should be able to state it.

Because negative opinions have a habit of driving out everything else. And once a thread has become totally complainy, it often turns into a fight.

A lot of positive feedback effects are involved.

As Eddie put it ages ago, we're fans of things here, not the other thing. In other words, most people visiting our site want to enjoy and appreciate media, not tear it down. Our moderation attitude should correspond to that general goal.

Having conversations taken over by negativity is not fun for the participants, and drives people away.

edited 8th Sep '17 7:55:12 AM by Fighteer

I think about how there are a number of loosely moderated forums that ended up getting shut down because users of the general site didn't view them as a valuable resource. Most famously in semi-recent news that's what happened to imdb. This was in part due to rising alternative social media connections but also due to the sheer vastness of their forums they couldn't properly moderate them all. So basically, if the only solution to having a media topic with a particularly toxic environment is to ban 3/4ths the people who want to post on it, there is no point in having the thread topic. One of the reasons I stay on tv tropes is because they get ahead of troublesome users, I don't always agree with the individual decisions but I appreciate the effort.

I'm gonna have to disagreenwith you there. While I'm fine with purging the (hypothetical) cancer from the forums, but by banning an media topic just because an lot of people hate an certain moment or there's an shipping war going makes it unfair for the newcomers who wants to talk about something that's several years old.

Well, we could just ban everyone who posts negative things in the topic. Would that be better, in your expert opinion? It's certainly more work for us.

edited 17th Sep '17 7:13:54 AM by Fighteer

Considering that there's around 18 moderators for who knows how many users (I'm guessing it's over 15,000) and that you're complaining about the extra work that my proposal would generate, I'm going to shoot the elephant in the room and say that you guys are overstretched here.

So for the sake of convenience, let's summarize what I feel what goes on here.

As in, there's an few threads on here that actually needs an babysitter or it'll go thermonuclear; but that's somewhat normal when it comes to politics, the LGBT movement, and religion. The wiki is constantly growing due to the way the entertainment industry works and our "No such thing as notability" policy, and a really bad PR stunt or an disappointing release may requires an moderator's attention on the wiki if the community can't get an hold of themselves. Plus since an lot of media is constantly being updated, you have to constantly keep an eye on it or it'll look like the wallbangers page for TTG! or the YMMV section of Paper Mario: Color Splash. And then there's the of media subforums: Some aren't that divisive, others were fine until the creator causes an scandal or there's an bad part of the subject, but most of time it's sunshine and rainbows. And I don't know an lot about what goes on in roleplaying and yack fest because I avoid that section of the forums. But the good side about the forums is that old stuff usually stays dead and I usually see up to an third of the threads on an media subforum's page updated throughout an day.

I realize that an team of 18 can't be online 24/7 and some topics can't be resolved unilaterally. So if the workload is starting to pile up, why not enlist more moderators? There must be someone out of hundreds, if not thousands of candidates who are sane enough to take the job.

Did I say we were overworked? That is not the issue; the issue is that we don't want to be the Thread Police, monitoring topics 24/7 lest someone get out of line. Nobody enjoys that: not posters, not mods. If the children can't play nicely with their toys, then the toys get taken away.

Coming in as a neutral party without a dog in this specific fight, I'm curious about what would show that the thread is overloaded with the kids who can't play nicely, to borrow Fighteer's phrasing. As someone who is definitely not a mod, I can only look at the actual thumps rather than thump-candidates (and such), and from page 41 to this post on page 51 (as of this posting), there's about 6 thumped comments. I take it that's a lot of thumps.

Would it be a doable and good idea to "ban everyone who posts negative things in the topic" for a round and then if it starts up again permanently lock the topic altogether? Like I said, I don't really have a dog in this specific fight, but I'd imagine that this would set precedent for future problematic threads.

I've certainly seen a few threads where the negativity seems to dominate thread (such as the UQ Holder thread and the Fairy Tail thread), though interestingly it seems like the people who post in there don't really fight with each other since they all seem to be united in their dislike of the work.

edited 19th Sep '17 1:55:02 PM by dragonfire5000

While I admit that #12 has an decent point by using the last 10 pages as an barometer for drama. I must point out that there's an period of around an year and a half within those pages; and that people tend to come and leave this, so some of those people might not be around anymore. And secondly, 6 bad eggs out of 265 or so posts is barely above 2%. Since when did 2% negativity qualifies as an toxic thread? As for those thumped posts, themselves; those weren't even consecutive, nor they were about the same subject. Since the first 2 was from me asking an question that I didn't considered to be rude, they happened, I asked the moderator about, felt that I didn't get that great of an response from them, I moved on with my life went back trying to kill someone. The next two was from someone calling the show shit (judging from the reactions). I can't tell from the next one, but the last one looks like cursing at other people is against the rules.

Yeah, I was pointing them out in order to get a feel for the objective reasoning. There's only six thumps out of 265-ish posts, but I would think the average is close to 1 out of 265 posts. If that's true, then the average would be 0.38% compared to 2.26%. That's a difference of 1.88 percentage points, and seems like a big difference statistically.

But there's also the issue of comments that are on the "okay" side of "the line" but are still negative or are only okay on a technicality or because it's been too long to thump at this point (assuming there's a time limit). There also could be a bunch of hollers from the thread that we can't see.

And there's the issue that Dragon Fire mentioned, about when the thread is just as negative as this one but most people are in agreement and so there's little fighting going on (which probably leads to fewer hollers and less mod action).

Well, I wanted to say,"Statistics don't matter unless we're talking about something over 10%"; but hey, our percentage dropped (somewhat significantly), so that subject isn't worth pursuing anymore.

About "This thread is an nuclear battlefield", the 2003 loyalists and "This show is mocking my childhood!" crowd haven't been around lately, so I consider that to be an plus if you don't want any arguments. So all that's left is the people who are criticising the show and the ones who quietly enjoy it.

And about the negativism. This show's quality is more erratic than the way I play League of Legends; there's bound to be an little salt here and there, but is it really bothering anyone? Especially since one of the mods dropped by to say that complaining is legal, as long as we're civil about it and don't clog the thread with it.

I remember Fighteer saying this in the Sony Pictures Animation thread after people kept ragging on and on about The Emoji Movie:

Probably something to keep in mind when talking about negativity in threads.

edited 25th Sep '17 8:16:11 PM by dragonfire5000

And quite ironically, the thread went into full "shit on anything TTG" mode since this post.. :/

I'm not sure at this point if it's rather the users there or just the subject matter. Many actually do discuss it constructively, but most of the time it's negative even then.

In this case, I'd say shutting it down is probably the better option. Also, going to clearly holler now, if only to get a stop this this bull.

I agree that almost always, the subject matter is the problem. There's a few cases where it's some users derailing threads/causing issues. From my experience among the TTG threads, it's some of each.

It should also be said that just because a Mod doesn't get involved or a post doesn't get thumped doesn't mean the content is approved of. If a user knows what they are doing they can stay on a thread for weeks or months, agitating and perpetuating arguments without overtly breaking any rules. Those are often the hardest people to get rid of, because individually their posting seems harmless (they say one provocative thing and do nothing as the next three pages swarm over the topic they brought up).

@: I've posted cancer or an part of my usual comedy routine, waited for an hour or so, got bored, played Lo L, did some other shit, checked back on it the next day and guess what?

It's either I get banned for causing an shitstorm that happened overnight or people were freaking out over what I've posted...While I was sleeping. The point is that people will lose their shit over stupid stuff that they see, no matter how "old" or recent it is.

As for the rest of you, what happened to the "avoiding stuff that you don't like" school of thought? It's what keeps me sane (or as sane as I'll ever get).