On the use of Hats and Bombs

I like that we're forced to actually engage in commentary to an extent, the issue is that bombs and hats can just be added by anyone at any time for any reason they choose, and if people choose not to explain their hats and bombs there's literally no way to know why they were added.

That's, again, why I think enforced reasons would help, but also one of the bigger issues with the TLP in general- for all the emphasis on community and discussion, there's nothing preventing people from coming in and spamming sockpuppet hats, or rogue launching a draft they've never posted in, or launching their drafts while never engaging in actual discussion about said draft, or even rogue discarding drafts they dislike. And this manifests as rogue hats and bombs far too often, but it's just a symptom of a bigger problem.

Edited by WarJay77 on Jul 30th 2019 at 12:38:41 PM

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I feel a little bad about bumping, but a dead discussion fixes no problems.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

If you let me a comment here.

I think maybe the symbols themselves might be a problem. I remember someone mentioning on a draft that bombs are for balancing hats and not necesarily saying that the draft should be outright discarded. But a bomb is not used to repair stuff, is for outright destroying it. I guess that people might feel bombing is harsh because of the analogy of blowing up the draft.

I would really like separate symbols for "good idea" and "launch ready" (maybe use the hats for support and a rocket for launch) but maybe a first step could be that a draft cannot be lauched unless it has 5 net hats, so at least then the idea of balance bombs would make sense.

I've made a wishlist submission for that exact thing. It'd cut down on improper launches significantly, force sponsors not to rush, and would just...make sense.

I mean, in what scenario would it make sense for a draft with 5 hats and 15+ bombs to be launched? It's insane to think that the current TLP system allows this nonsense.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I guess the intended analogy is "blowing up the undeserved hat"? That came across real well, of course.

Trouble Cube continues to be a general-purpose forum for those who desire such a thing.

As the daughter of a computer programmer, I know how quick and easy it is to take the code that tallies hats, take the code that tallies bombs, subtract the number of bombs from the number of hats, and use that number instead of the hat tally to determine whether or not the launch button shows up. What's the TV Tropes programmers' excuse?

If not for this anchor I'd be dancing between the stars. At least I can try to write better vampire stories than Twilight.

"We are working on so many things that even though this one is very easy, we just haven't found time to actually do it yet," presumably. That's the usual answer to "why aren't you doing this easy thing". That and "are you sure it's easy in our codebase? because you don't actually know that".

Trouble Cube continues to be a general-purpose forum for those who desire such a thing.

"We are working on so many things that even though this one is very easy, we just haven't found time to actually do it yet" makes a whole ton of sense. My father's most stressful jobs were ones where his bosses wouldn't let him test and debug his own code because they were pushing to meet a rush deadline.

The "are you sure it's easy in our codebase?" excuse makes less sense. No matter what codebase you're working in, if/then statements and simple arithmetic are the basic (no pun intended) staples. My father knows how to do that in every single codebase he knows how to program in, and they're one of the first things he learns when he's learning a new codebase. And in the specific case outlined above , ninety-nine percent of the code is already written.

If not for this anchor I'd be dancing between the stars. At least I can try to write better vampire stories than Twilight.

Yeah, at this point you have to wonder if the lack of having bombs... do anything... is a glitch rather than an intentional part of the code. Wouldn't surprise me with how glitchy everything in the TLP is if the current code isn't working and has yet to be fixed.

I Dk, all I know is, the only issue posed by bombs currently is that they make drafts discardable. Any other effect is psychological, as they may come off as aggressive or angry or threatening when in reality many are just there to slow or prevent a potential launch before problems are fixed. I think this is why I find bomb-related issues less pressing than hat-related ones, as while an undeserved amount of bombs can be unsettling, an undeserved amount of hats (even those given with the best intentions) can allow a draft to launch prematurely.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I think there is already a roadblock in this thread, since any solution we bring is something we cannot actually take action ourselves.

As of now everyone seems in favor of going with the net hats solution, but from what I read, is not something feasible.

Well, really, a major reason for this thread is that there's been controversy over what hats and bombs even mean in the first place. It's just that the people who expressed those other opinions haven't stuck around so the discussion moved on...

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Re-reading previous posts, I noticed Fighteer put this.

I don't know where that definition comes from, but said like that, it seems like a Bomb is definitely a signal to discard.

The way I personally see it is:

• Hats are intended only as "Launch" signals; misuse is problematic as it can cause premature launches.
• Bombs halt launches by symbolically removing a hat, and they mean "don't launch". Enough bombs becomes a symbol to discard, as much like 5 hats gives the launch option, 5 bombs gives the discard option. However, because of the "anti-hat" part, I don't see bombs as being inherently a "Discard Now" signal more than I do a general "this draft shouldn't launch" signal, whether temporary or as a discard effort.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I apologize if I'm going in circles right now. Seems like the only thing I can do for the moment. But once again it all boils down to everyone having their own definition for each button.

I understand that hats are for a launch-worthy trope, (I admit that I used to give them for ideas I liked) but I don't know of any other way to show support for good ideas. Adding a comment is an option, but that means cluttering the comment section with basically the same message, which wouldn't be ideal either.

The only other option would be that little like button, though no one seems to use them (and for some reason you cannot like a draft when you are actually on it).

Edited by ElBuenCuate on Aug 4th 2019 at 12:27:22 PM

That's the exact issue- nobody can agree on what Hats and Bombs should be used for, which causes too much confusion and conflict.

Those who add hats to unfinished drafts as a sign of support get called out by those who see it as an invalid use of hats. Those who think it's good to add "balance bombs" to TLP drafts get called out for being too strict or harsh to the unfinished drafts. Those who think bombs are only for discarding get hurt when their draft is bombed. ETC ETC ETC...

I would like for this discussion to end with an agreement on how hats and bombs should be used, but yes, as of now it's either an echo-chamber of "make bombs do things" or a looping debate over when hats should be added.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I hope I don't sound like a broken record, but I think a cultural discussion is definitely in order here, even without a technical solution^note And, if I'm honest, we can't exactly ask the dev team to make changes when we don't know what we need yet anyway.

Basically:

• Doing a drive-by "I'm bombing this because there's a hat" is exactly the same issue as rogue launching a draft with too many hats. It's a low effort action which someone might get into a habit of because they think it's helping (and since they do it and move on, probably won't notice it's causing more problems than it solves).
• Same applies to someone just throwing in a hat because they like the idea. Even if the issues they create are slightly different.

The solution is engagement; we need to somehow encourage tropers to take part in TLP discussions. Even without actual changes to the wiki, there's plenty of ways we can do this:

• More feedback between tropers (even without the devs adding messages or enforcing it with software, we can all lead by example):
  • Encouraging "drive-by" users to contribute a bit more (just a simple "could you elaborate on [point]", by PM if necessary, works).
  • This includes follow-up questions on examples, especially of the sponsor isn't familiar with the work (at the moment, sponsors usually just add them to the draft or don't).
  • Don't just say "this is a ZCE", explain what information's needed.
  • Don't quietly add hats/bombs; say what makes you think the draft deserves one.
    • And don't just use a boilerplate explanation. If there's a problem or something good about the draft, you can tailor your explanation.
• Encouraging contributors to ask for help with examples they've thought of, instead of either leaving fully written up examples on the TLP (e.g. "I recall something like this happening in The Adventures of Report Siht, but I can't remember the episode") or not bothering.
  • Seriously, it feels like there's a taboo against correcting or improving a suggested example on TLPs.

Edited by Bisected8 on Aug 5th 2019 at 2:40:24 PM

TV Tropes's No. 1 bread themed lesbian. she/her, fae/faer

"That little like button" is not actually a like button, despite the picture — it's a "put this on my watchlist" button. The thumbs up is a misleading picture. Belated edit: I'd prefer an eyeball icon instead of thumbs up.

(bunny trail)

Admittedly my presence on Trope Launch Pad is too sporadic to really start a trend, but when I half-remember an example for a TLP draft, I usually do what I'd like to see others do: I leave a comment saying what I remember along with a pothole link to the query I post on You Know That Show. That way, if I forget to come back to that draft, the sponsor still has a convenient link that will eventually turn up further context.

Edited by Miss_Desperado on Aug 5th 2019 at 9:06:55 AM

If not for this anchor I'd be dancing between the stars. At least I can try to write better vampire stories than Twilight.

I absolutely agree about communication issues. That's a major thing- but just as we need to encourage people to engage with sponsors, sponsors need to engage with commenters, as it's too easy for people to get hats just by scooping up examples and ignoring questions and feedback, so the communication problem goes two ways simply because, as of now, there's no requirement for anybody to engage with a draft in the comments.

People can launch and discard without even a comment; hats-and-bombs can be added silently and thus for seemingly no reason; sponsors can get by without talking to people and commenters can just drop a half-finished example and leave, etc.

When I find a draft that interests me, I do try to stick around and engage in discussion, but that's only possible so long as others are also interested in discussion.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

...I know, that's exactly what I said.

IMO being a draft's sponsor includes asking followup questions (and PMing contributors for more info, if necessary).

Edited by Bisected8 on Aug 5th 2019 at 2:07:18 PM

TV Tropes's No. 1 bread themed lesbian. she/her, fae/faer

I was just trying to say I agree but that it goes both ways, since you seemed mostly focused on people not giving feedback. We're in agreement here, I just have a bad habit of explaining things too much.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Oh, same.

TV Tropes's No. 1 bread themed lesbian. she/her, fae/faer

What I guess it all boils down to is:

Despite the wiki being a collaborative endeavor, there's nothing about the TLP that necessitates people to collaborate with others properly in order to launch/discard tropes, which is a bad thing.

(Edited to stop myself from sandwich posting more) Er, thanks? Dunno, though. I once suggested that maybe people should be forced to engage in the comments before the launch button appears for them, even if they're the sponsor.

Edited by WarJay77 on Aug 5th 2019 at 10:25:10 AM

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I think you've hammered the binding pin on the flat end there.

How do we fix it, though...

TV Tropes's No. 1 bread themed lesbian. she/her, fae/faer

I guess the best we can do is to try to enforce the idea that people need to comment why they gave a hat/bomb, and try to add more than simply stating that they did.

Communication issue becoming apparent at Memetic Comparison, where it's going from both sides. People who've bombed the draft haven't really stuck around to say why; the people who think the draft is fine aren't really addressing the concerns when they're actually mentioned. This leads to an overwhelming consensus to discard, contradicted with an in-discussion consensus that the draft is fine.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness