On the use of Hats and Bombs

Over at the TLP, there's been some recent debate over how hats and bombs are meant to be used, how they should be used, and how the common usage of them may effect the drafting process. Common issues are over whether or not hats are intended only as launch-signals and not support-signals, whether bombs should be used as balancers, and whether or not a draft getting a mass amount of unexplained hats or bombs is inherently something to worry about. In particular, I'm notifying ~Bisected 8 of this thread, as we both want a place to debate the usage of bombs.

My personal viewpoint is:

• Hats are intended to be only launch-signals, and using them as a show of support is one of the big problems occurring at TLP. See, because a draft is automatically ready to launch after there's 5 hats and after having spent three days on the pad, hats given out only because people like the idea make it that much easier for someone to launch drafts that simply aren't ready to launch, especially when they ignore the amount of bombs. Speaking of...
• Bombs are the symbolic anti-hat, and as such work both as balancers or as a sign that the draft shouldn't be launched (and, occasionally, should be outright trashed). However, people see bombs as being a very aggressive stance against a draft, a problem since they're often necessary to halt premature launches or send messages to sponsors in a way comments just can't. Because of this issue, the usage of bombs as balancers for premature hats has become a subject of controversy, as some people (me included) think it's a good thing to do, and others think it's harsh or unnecessary.
• As for excessive amounts of both, at this point I'm often convinced that socks are behind it. There's been enough times where socks have been used in the TLP, that even if the skyrocketing count of bombs or hats is legitimate, it still makes me immediately suspicious. This is a problem because of how there's inconsistency in how people view and use bombs and hats, and since I take a very strict approach to how both should be used, excessive usage tends to send off warning flags that something isn't right. Others, however, just chalk it up to lurkers and don't see any major issues with it.

Edited by WarJay77 on Jul 29th 2019 at 3:10:16 PM

There was a wishlist proposal I remember to make a separate function for ready/not ready and good idea/bad idea.

I like this idea myself.

Edited by Brainulator9 on Jul 29th 2019 at 3:23:40 PM

The entire system probably needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. It would very much help if people had to give reasons for hats and bombs before they could be submitted, but who knows when that will be implemented.

Ha, funny to hear someone else say what I've been saying this whole time.

I agree that the system needs to be rebuilt, it's why I had a little rant at the Crash Rescue thread recently, because as-is the TLP is quite broken and the hat/bomb issues are just one of the symptoms.

Splitting "good idea/bad idea" from "ready to launch/not ready to launch" is definitely necessary, because right now hats and bombs are awkwardly sort-of-but-not-exactly serving as both.

I agree.

Exactly — a bad idea can be technically ready to launch, and a good idea can be atrociously unpresentable.

My main issue at the moment (separate from the issue of what hats/bombs specifically mean) is the way people are bombing or adding hats to "counter" ones that are added early. It only serves to inflate the amount of bombs and hats on a TLP (which is counter-intuitive if the aim is to prevent premature launches, since it puffs up the amount of hats), while also discouraging discussion of the trope (I strongly suspect a large amount of them make tropers reluctant to invest energy in a TLP).

Indeed, this entire discussion started because I've seen a lot of posts consisting of nothing but "bombing to counter the hat" on a TLP which isn't ready to launch. At best this adds nothing (a TLP with a single errant hat isn't going to get launched). At worst, it's posturing and making TLP unfriendly to new tropers (or long time tropers who're making their first attempts at TLP).

Edited by Bisected8 on Jul 29th 2019 at 2:46:08 PM

My issue is, a lot of these premature hats are added by the draft-makers themselves after the minimal amount of work, including stub drafts; A premature hat of that nature is often a sign that the draft-maker isn't aware of TLP etiquette or just generally doesn't know what they're doing, and a bomb lets them know they've made a mistake and, of course, symbolically "removes" the hat.

Should we just use the comments for this purpose? I can see the argument for that. But the issue here is that this use of bombs, while maybe a cynical and less-than-ideal act, is a legitimate use of bombs, and adding these balance bombs is just an act of following the rules- however strict and stifling it may be.

You could call it a literalist interpretation, maybe, of the rules. Bombs are said to "take back" undeserved hats, and so that's what people use them for, even if it may not follow the spirit of these rules.

I guess what I'm getting at is, I do understand the problem of chasing people away by being too strict, but it doesn't always feel like there's an alternative. Now, if we added more "voting" options, this may resolve itself, as there'd be a less aggressive way to tell a sponsor their draft has hats it shouldn't have.

...Maybe if there was a waiting period for hats and bombs? Like, maybe the first day a draft is assumed in the purely pre-development stage and shouldn't be voted on, and then after people give feedback and issues are hashed out, the hats and bombs can come? That might also resolve the issue, as it'd give people more time to work on their draft before people can give random hats/bombs, and it'd let people go at the draft with cooler heads- they can focus on feedback first, and then resort to bombs if that feedback isn't acknowledged or doesn't fix the draft by the time hats are added. Inherently problematic drafts could still be discarded immediately by mods.

Edited by WarJay77 on Jul 29th 2019 at 9:59:48 AM

(also, since I also debated this troper on the subject, paging ~ginsengaddict to join this conversation!)

Again, though, my point isn't just that bombs are being added to counter it. It's that certain folk are just making a post to declare that they're adding a bomb, while adding nothing useful to the draft (not even explaining why there shouldn't be a hat).

Regardless of who added it, a single hat's not going to do anything. We don't need tropers trying to rigidly enforce the rules like that, no matter how well meaning.

A waiting period sounds like a good idea (since the draft can't be launched for three days, it makes sense not to allow any bombs or hats either; that a newly made TLP needs some work done to it's going to be a given).

Edited by Bisected8 on Jul 29th 2019 at 3:48:54 PM

I guess that's a fair assessment. I guess in my case (since I'm one of those people who do, in fact, just say "balance bomb" and leave), it's more out of frustration than anything, as a result of seeing hats misused so often that, when unworthy drafts get premature hats, I'm less focused on constructive criticism than I am on taking said hat away, on principal, and making the situation known so that the sponsor doesn't think I want their draft trashed or anything.

I can fully admit I've been too strict and frustrated with the nature of the TLP, so I can also admit my style leaves little to be desired, and that focusing on the hat count rather than giving feedback is an counterproductive practice. Point fully taken and acknowledged.

But, I still think premature hats are just as big an issue as balance bombing, and it's an issue that does need to be fixed or at least addressed. For every overly-strict balance bomb, there's an overly-lax hat with just as little explanation or point. The only real difference is that people don't think hats are a problem, while bombs come off as being quite aggressive.

Edited by WarJay77 on Jul 29th 2019 at 10:58:52 AM

Hatting is positive feedback.

The issue is that that's not what they're intended to be if you go by the hatting message. This is why we need separate symbols for "good idea / bad idea", because hats as positive feedback work right until the sponsor decides to launch with a draft that isn't ready, just because they got 5 support hats. That's my big issue with hats being anything other than "launch", and that's why we need a separate "support" signal.

If hats weren't used to get a draft to launch, I wouldn't have an issue with this situation, but the fact of the matter is that most bad launches would be prevented if hats were used more sparingly. One support hat? Okay, sure. But they add up fast, and bombs don't do enough to stop bad launches.

Edited by WarJay77 on Jul 29th 2019 at 1:20:22 PM

A hat means: "This trope is ready to launch. The necessary work has been done to give it a good name, a good description, and enough solid examples."

A bomb means: "This trope isn't going anywhere. It's poorly thought-out, not well-defined, has a bad name, doesn't have enough good examples, or is otherwise unsuitable."

That's it. If they are being used for "good idea, bad idea", then they are being used incorrectly.

I disagree that premature hatting is just as bad as overzealous bombing; one hat won't do anything (you need 5 to unlock a TLP for launch). It's the difference between accidentally smiling at a stranger and accidentally glaring. The former looks awkward, the latter can look threatening.

If a TLP was literally just made, the idea that it needs work is a given. So then, what purpose does throwing a bomb serve?

If a TLP has one errant hat, it's far better to let it slide. It might not feel as good as wading in and waggling your finger at none in particular, but it makes for a much nicer environment.

TBH, some proposals are bad enough that bombing them immediately isn't unjustified, although one should generally give even the worst ones some chance.

Again, it's not the single early hat that concerns me, its the other 4 support hats that can follow and allow drafts to launch way to early.

What if there was a time period before hats & bombs could be added? We already have a 3 day wait to discard or launch, so we could add that restriction (or a different timer) to hats and bombs as well.

If you ask me, the three-day wait period to discard or launch a draft is way too short. I'd like to see that restriction changed to "no hats or bombs for three days" and "no launch or discard for a week" (I'd push for further restrictions on launching to three weeks or maybe even three months but that's unfairly aggravating to the most experienced sponsors on TLP).

Anyway, putting a time delay on hats and bombs won't stop premature self-hatting completely, but it might reduce the instances — if the draft makers are forced to sit around and wait for the timer to count down, that gives them the opportunity to either notice flaws or have them pointed out.

Edited by Miss_Desperado on Jul 30th 2019 at 10:55:45 AM

It also lets bombers cool down and give feedback, rather than stress over someone adding a hat.

Yep, definitely!

That being said, there's always those drafts that are so blatantly bad, being against the rules, obvious spam, a duplicate of another trope, etc. We'd need to find a way to deal with those cases if we implement a hat/bomb waiting period, as otherwise we'd just be spamming the mods every day to delete more drafts.

To be honest, I don't think we need a fast track way of getting rid of obviously bad drafts.

As long as they get discarded, the only way TLP's getting clogged up would be deliberate spamming (which is a mod issue anyway).

I sort of miss the old tag system YKTTW had: Needs Examples, Needs a Better Name, etc. But those had the same issue of easily being plopped down in a silent drive by, and they also couldn't be retracted once invoked.