This is the thread we use to talk things over with people who have received a suspension notice. A lot of the time the notice goes out just so we can explain how seriously we take certain things, not because we want the person to feel bad and go away.
If you're suspended, give What to Do If You Are Suspended a read, then post here to begin your appeal. We try to respond to appeals in order via batch posts every few days. If a moderator has responded to your appeal, you will receive a notification in your private messages, even if you're suspended from PMs.
The Forum Rules
apply here.
Don'ts
- Don't be rude. Rule 1 applies here, too.
- Don't try to negotiate your suspension outside of this thread, such as by sending Private Messages to moderators or posting elsewhere. Such activity may be thumped or otherwise removed, and may warrant an additional suspension block if it keeps happening. All communications have to take place within this thread.
- Don't respond to other suspended users. This is a place for you to discuss your suspension, not others'.
- Don't post multiple times about your appeal if it hasn't been a few days since your last reply from us, since it makes it more difficult to compose responses. If you've posted, we're likely looking at it, and kindly request you to be more patient.
- Don't make another account to try and get around your suspension. This is called ban evasion and will get you bounced. (Again, read What to Do If You Are Suspended if you don't know what these words mean.)
Edited by Synchronicity on Jul 15th 2023 at 11:35:01 AM
I agree with the Unscrupulous Hero / Noble Demon solution, is there a possibility of doing something about the Politically Incorrect Hero / Politically Incorrect Villain entry as well? I'd still argue that as the character is in no sense a villain of the story at any point, no matter how morally ambiguous he is, only the former applies. It really does apply, though.
Besides that, there's a number of issues with the page as it is right now, such as Dysfunction Junction appearing twice and the general language perhaps being in need of a good streamlining. Are we allowed to adjust it if we stay away from the issues we disagree on?
I was also suspended for edit warring with Bishop999 over the Fables character page, after sending in a motion for help with moderator assistance to make a final decision putting a stop to it, as I am very tired of both it and our lengthy PM discussion, as I have my attention elsewhere.
If possible I would like to get my editing privileges back at some point, and if you do not wish me to do so, I will not make any more edits to the character page, and am mostly fine with the page in its current version, with the exception that I would have liked my changes to Mister Dark's entry to stick. I also have no problem with Anti Hero / Anti Villain being replaced with Noble Demon, Unscrupulous Hero and possibly Retired Monster.
I and Bishop999 have also been talking extensively about the matter through direct messages, and have agreed that we should have moved the most controversial parts to the YMMV page, if the tropes are supposed to be there. However, he has also been quite vitriolic and abusive in the conversation, and among other things, has called me a liar, a bigot, and a hypocrite, which I think is over the line.
I don't however think that I have tried to vilify the character, as everything I have written has been true as far as I am aware, and I have accepted most of Bishop's revisions.
Considering just how ridiculously extreme that character has been in his backstory, including explicitly eating innocent sentients for sport in "1000 Nights Of Snowfall", at the time there seemed to be rationalisations, such as claiming that he deserved to go to heaven or justifying his Disproportionate Retribution philosophy, I was just concerned that the entry rather went too far into onesided whitewashing and apologist territory, rather than equally representing both viewpoints about the character, as I vaguely remember as a previous pre-edit war compromise solution, and it should be noted that I kept all of the positive aspects of the character, such as being a responsible family man. However, after talking with Bishop it seems that whitewashing apologism was an unfair interpretation. Bishop argues that the entry should strictly explain the viewpoint of the character.
I just didn't think that character sections were intended to either onesidedly redeem or bash a character, but to explain them from several angles if they are ambiguous enough, as this seems to be the praxis for most character pages. As I said, we agreed that it is fine to move the most controversial parts to YMMV however to put a final stop to this. I didn't think it was necessary if the page didn't receive a red YMMV dot for the trope, but maybe I misunderstood?
Bishop also says that the page was below Tv Tropes standard, whereas I thought that it was mostly pretty normal compared to other pages I have seen, but maybe those are also below the intended standard?
Thanks in advance for any help and clarifications.
edited 26th Apr '14 12:17:51 PM by CodenameBravo
Bravo and I seem to have come to an agreement on how to handle the character, if we'd be allowed to edit it again.
I'll let him add appropriate shock value to his descriptions, and he won't interfere with me elaborating on the character's personal motivations, and we'll adjust the tropes to compromise.
Agreed?
edited 26th Apr '14 5:52:33 AM by Bishop999
Yes, agreed.
If we are allowed to get our editing privileges back, we return the layout mostly to the way Bishop entered it, me moving the Politically Incorrect Hero text (not the trope itself) to YMMV, and replacing the Anti-Villain / Anti-Hero part with separate text entries for Noble Demon, Retired Monster, and Unscrupulous Hero. And keep Bishop's character philosophy descriptions, as well as the mention that Bigby hunted and ate innocents for sport, since both are explicitly stated in the comic itself.
Pretty please?
Lost in Space
It seems that both of you get it now. Suspensions released.
@Codename Bravo: This isn't your first trip to Edit Banned. One more and there won't be additional chances, okay?
edited 26th Apr '14 1:11:25 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
I recently got suspended. I believe it was because of a mistake on my part, where I had been changing instances of "cloud" to "butt". This was because I had recently installed a plugin that automatically changes any text I read from "cloud" to "butt", and I had not realised it would influence the page I was editing. I have disabled the plugin now, so I should be able to make helpful edits again.
If I was suspended for a different reason, I am not aware of that, and would like to know why.
Zzzzzzzzzz
That is, in fact, why you were suspended. Since you've turned it off, and because the other edits you made before you installed it were generally sound, I'm lifting the suspension. Don't let it happen again — filters like that are generally problematic for us.
But this is the first I've ever heard of a reverse-nanny filter![[lol]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/lol2v12_4863.png "[lol]"){kind=small}
edited 27th Apr '14 4:34:01 PM by Madrugada
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
Lost in Space
~Sledgesaul: Eddie tagged you for page-blanking, but I'm trying to find out where. Hang on.
~Mandemo: I'm asking the other mods, but as far as I'm concerned, you've lost any value you bring to the On-Topic Conversations forum. Any reinstatement of privileges would exclude it.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Ooooh, I see. I think I was page-blanking some unpublished works that I was working on in conjunction with Serocco.
edited 28th Apr '14 4:54:35 PM by Sledgesaul
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Though I personally think that's kinda over-reaction, but I can live with it. Would still like to read the stuff without needing to jump around with threads.
Clarification: I have no objection to staying away from the threads that caused my ban (which, AFAIK, are threads related to sexism), but OTC as a whole? I am not aware I have acted wrongly in ohter threads where I have commented or discussed, though admittedly there aren't many (I don't feel need to repeat points others have made)
Lost in Space
~Sledgesaul: I can only find one case of blanking, and it's on this article: FanFic.Code Geass Zeros Requiem. It's our general policy not to remove articles for works that have been taken down — as it's entirely possible that, given the Internet, someone has a copy — and even if we were to do so, we wouldn't blank it, we'd use the Cut List. Are there any others where this came up?
~Mandemo: The problem here is that you take an MRA-apologist side in sexism conversations and, as far as we're concerned, that's the equivalent of hate speech, to which we take a zero-tolerance approach. It's just not worth it to put up with the fights it starts. I'll release your general posting ban but I'm leaving OTC blocked.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Hi there. I was just forum banned for arguing with Seraphem over in the Fan Fiction forums. While I freely admit to sinking to personal attacks, this was only after a protracted argument in which Seraphem missed or ignored my point multiple times, despite several explanations, and eventually began to imply that I was simply trying to denigrate the work in question, even when I explained repeatedly that this was not the case. In fact, midway through the conversation I even sent a holler to the mods myself asking if somebody could perhaps step in and put an end to things.
I have been thumped in the past, in the same thread, sometimes for similar reasons and sometimes for reasons not stated, but my P Ms to the mod involved politely requesting explanation or appeal have also received no response, even months after the fact.
I freely and fully accept responsibility for my conduct, but feel as if I've been singled out. Can we discuss, please?
Zzzzzzzzzz
Not a whole lot to discuss, snipehamster. You admit that you've been rude, you admit that you've made it personal, you admit that you've been warned and thumped in that thread before (16 times, as a matter of fact, 6 for being rude, 3 for making personal attacks, and the other 7 for failing to observe various other rules). As to "I hollered it myself..." well, yes, you did Holler. But it wasn't "asking if somebody could perhaps step in and put an end to things."; you Hollered for us to act against Seraphem, specifically.
Additionally, one of the posts that you got thumped for before was a link to a chatlog offsite that you had been bounced from. You made exactly the same defense there, and clearly saw no problem with the way you were acting.
As is the case here. You don't seem to get that we expect civility. From everyone. You are not exempt from that rule. If, as you say, you "freely accept responsibility for your actions" (which, incidentally, you aren't really, since you're trying to blame them on "a protracted argument") then you should also accept the consequences of them. In this case, the consequences are the loss of your forum posting privileges.
edited 29th Apr '14 10:54:22 AM by Madrugada
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
Yes, I have been thumped in the past - entire strings of my posts have been scrubbed out, despite the fact that many of those posts were simply arguing in my defense. In one case, a thumped post was simply linking to a review I wrote on this very site and nothing else. There's a post in the thread where Kkat spends several paragraphs making questionable accusations and insinuations about my intentions, abilities and conduct, referencing me by name. My response? Thumped.
The offsite chat ban was for a number of reasons, and I believe many of them were spurious - such as 'abusing halfop privileges' when I don't even know what a halfop is, and 'bullying' someone with whom I get on amicably and who had no involvement in the ban itself. It was later lifted after I had a conversation with the admin.
And yes, I do take responsibility for my actions. I should have bowed out of the conversation and not lost my temper. However, on the other hand the reason I lost my temper was that Seraphem was being deliberately obtuse, which was the reason for the holler. This has happened in the past, and multiple times: I mention something relatively innocuous and on-topic, and he takes it upon himself to stonewall it at every turn, eventually accusing me of trolling or distorting things. I have done my best to be polite despite this - evidently my best was not enough.
There are none that I am aware of, but I good be wrong, Fighteer.
Lost in Space
~Sledgesaul: Very well. I think this was just a misunderstanding and so I'll release the suspension.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Ecclytennysmithylove
If it's because I've been moving some several DMOS posts to their own DMOS pages, then I apologize. I was giving the DMOS pages some clean up. 
I promise I'll put them in folders instead.
"I told you PCs were unreliable." Darwin, The Amazing World of Gumball
Hi, there was a problem with my Unfortunate Implications post for the Firefly episode "Objects in Space". I did re-post it hoping I would catch why it wasn't up to snuff before it was deleted (I didn't. Eep). How could I have improved it?
Tina Belcher is my spirit guide.
Lost in Space
~Ecclytennysmithylove: Your enthusiasm is appreciated, but you've been continually drawing attention to yourself by doing things that aren't necessary or are straight up incorrect, then disregarding people asking you to stop. Recently there was a flap over you getting Needs More Love confused with Needs Wiki Magic Love, and just now the DMOS thing. Just because three examples is the minimum for a subpage doesn't mean you need to make one every time a work acquires that many.
This keeps happening. You're on your third suspension, and there was a separate report after the last one that you were posting cut Real Life examples from the Panty Shot article on its Discussion page.
I'm just not seeing a pattern of understanding our rules.
~Tropershaped: In addition to the Unfortunate Implications thing, which was Edit Warring as well as misuse of the trope, you Nattered on Characters.Firefly, and have also been seen Parabombing on WesternAnimation.Chozen. You have a tendency to add information to examples that's not relevant to the trope at hand. We aim for conciseness in our writing.
edited 30th Apr '14 12:31:50 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Ecclytennysmithylove
I've became a member of Tvtropes since November 2013, so I'm new to the rules.
As for the Needs More Love, why can't we just make a new trope Needs More Episodes?
And as for the Panty Shots, I didn't post Real Life examples, I posted Anime/Manga examples in the discussion page. Somebody must've hacked into my account and posted Real Life examples.
edited 30th Apr '14 8:14:08 PM by Ecclytennysmithylove
"I told you PCs were unreliable." Darwin, The Amazing World of Gumball
Lost in Space
I've talked to the other mods and the consensus is that it's not worth it to deal with your messes. Six months is more than enough time for most people to learn how the site works, so the fact that it's taken you this long to figure it out — after two prior suspensions, no less — is indicative of a problem on your end, not ours. We're not going to go through it a fourth time.
Sorry, your suspension won't be lifted. You may read the wiki, but may not edit.
Edit: I erred in the Panty Shot thing. It wasn't Real Life examples; it was examples, period. The article is under an examples lockout, so circumventing that by putting them in the Discussion page is an intentional rules violation.
edited 30th Apr '14 9:23:10 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Ecclytennysmithylove
*sigh* Fine... But that also means I'm not going to continue moving some marked tropes to YMMV/Trivia pages. *bangs myself on the wall until theirs blood coming out of my head*.
I didn't know that putting the Panty Shot examples in the Discussion page was an intentional rules violation. You could've at least insert the rules about no inserting examples in the Discussion page in the first place.
edited 1st May '14 5:57:43 AM by Ecclytennysmithylove
"I told you PCs were unreliable." Darwin, The Amazing World of Gumball
Why can't I edit?