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
Would that it were so simple.
I know that fourth chances are rarely given, and I understand that by asking for one, desperately, I'm asking you to take it essentially on faith that a month from now, a year from now, and beyond, there won't be another incident like this one. This time will be different. I won't abuse your generosity. Please consider my proposal; I don't want to be banished from the forums forever. I know what I posted was wrong and warrants punishment. I take responsibility for them, not just because of what they resulted in, but because they're just toxic things to say, that made me look like someone I'm truly not. It's just that I'm genuinely saddened by how much I look like an asshole with what I post, and it's not how I want to be perceived.
Another chance at the forums will be met with positive forum behavior, I swear it. I'm not just acting sorry to appeal to authority; I would apologize to my peers on the Star Wars thread who I offended, but I'm incapable of doing so because of this ban. If it were removed, I would do so, because we've been discussing stuff together for like nine years at this point, and it feels genuinely empty not being able to do so, and I feel really horrible and ashamed of how I behaved. My good behavior won't vanish with your back turned if you remove the ban. I know that you'll claim I haven't learned my lesson, and perhaps I haven't learned it well enough, but the past few days have been quite an education in it and a rollercoaster of emotional turmoil that I won't forget. I want to demonstrate to you all that I'm speaking in good faith.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
Please do not multi-post unless you are adding something substantial or new to your appeal.
We realize that the thread is backed up, and we are working on catching up.
Now a lurker. See you at the forums.
I am suspended. I guess it was because of a commentary I did in the anxiety forum, about wanting to kill myself with poison.
I apologize, It wasn't the right thing to do, I was feeling incredibly depressed due to my situation, and I accept this punishment. I didn't think about other people who were feeling the same as me in this forum.
Is there a way for me to be allowed to be part of this community once more?
To win, you need to adapt, and to adapt, you need to be able to laugh away all the restraints. Everything holding you back.
Now a lurker. See you at the forums.
And I apologize for posting again, but, I didn't read any private messages. I was out watching a tv series with friends. This is my last excuse.
To win, you need to adapt, and to adapt, you need to be able to laugh away all the restraints. Everything holding you back.
~Tomodachi, we find such posts extremely concerning and do not take them lightly. This is (as you noted) partially for the sake of other tropers, who may be triggered by such language. This is also for your own sake. We'd like you to take a break before restoring your posting privileges. How long that break lasts depends on previous behavior, the post(s) in question, and your behavior in this thread.
~CrimsonZephyr, as Septimus stated earlier, as a mod group, we have serious doubts about restoring forum privileges. However, you have a long history with us. We don't enjoy banning long-time tropers.
If - if - we release your forum ban, and you violate our trust again, then everything will be locked to you. You will not be able to post, edit the wiki, anything. This is us being extremely generous. You have plenty of past history with us that should provide guidance on what is and is not acceptable. There won't be any excuses to rely on.
~NEX7, if the inclusion of an example is contested, then removing it and initiating a discussion (as was done) is appropriate. Furthermore, your appeal here is about you. It's not about the other troper.
That being said, as soon as it became contested with the other troper removing it, you should have been the one to start a conversation about the example's validity. The discussion page, or ATT, or PM-ing the other party. You did not do so, which, as Septimus noted, is interesting because you've had another edit war in the past, so you've been through this rigamarole before.
Regarding the Wall of Text, it definitely did not need to be that long to provide sufficient context and make your point.
~TheCastawayPariah, that's the thing about Single-Issue Wonks - it's troublesome enough behavior that we have permanently banned people before, because they are unable to just let it go. We release their ban, they behave for a bit, then they see something that Must Be Righted, and they end up right back here again.
So, if we release your hold, your interactions (and potential critiques) over other other edits must be civil, and they must be based on fact. That's simply the way it has to be, and if you do not feel that you can control yourself and adhere to those rules, then we will have this conversation once again.
~Chairdesklamp, to be frank, your previous post exemplifies the word cruft issue that partially brought you in. We are trying to be concise in documentation.
And if you would like to point out racism towards one minority, then you should be able to do so without diminishing racism towards another.
~firewriter, it is up to you to control your argumentation and behavior in heated topics like politics and race. If you feel that others are being unfairly combative towards you, then the appropriate measure is not being just as (or more) combative back.
When we get OTC suspensions / hollers, it's always a question over whether or not the person is arguing in good faith. It has appeared in your last spate of posting that you are not willing to engage with others in a sincere exchange of opinions, instead becoming more insistent that your position is correct and unassailable. It's tiresome, frankly, not just for other conversants but for us mods.
~SilentStranger, well, we just need to trust that you will review the topics covered in the notifiers and adhere to their directions. If you don't understand them, then we want you to ask so you can contribute meaningfully. Was there anything you didn't understand in the notifiers?
~ryanisbetter, if the consensus disagrees with you, then you must accept that conclusion gracefully. If you understand that, then we'll release your suspension and wish you the best.
~Korvalus, yes, please go and use the Help with English thread for your grammar issues. You can come back here once you feel you've improved significantly and in such a way that clean-up will not be necessary after you have edited.
~NNinja, I've released your suspension. Please use the Help with English thread as well.
If someone has been missed, please let us know. Thanks again for the patience.
edited 24th Mar '18 11:57:20 PM by nombretomado
@ nombretomado
I understand that and I will do my best to check myself before posting more. I could just avoid heated topics, since I get along better in entertainment forums than sometimes on topic ones. On some subjects I get more heated, but I will try not to make things tiresome anymore for everyone including the mods.
~firewriter, if you cannot avoid it, we will avoid it for you by implementing an OTC ban. Keep a level head and take yourself out of the conversation before your behavior gets you kicked out.
I have released your suspension.
edited 24th Mar '18 9:35:10 PM by nombretomado
Now a lurker. See you at the forums.
Understood. I shall accept this punishment.
To win, you need to adapt, and to adapt, you need to be able to laugh away all the restraints. Everything holding you back.
Would that it were so simple.
If - if - we release your forum ban, and you violate our trust again, then everything will be locked to you. You will not be able to post, edit the wiki, anything. This is us being extremely generous. You have plenty of past history with us that should provide guidance on what is and is not acceptable. There won't be any excuses to rely on.
I understand these conditions. Thank you.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
~Tomodachi, come back when you're ready. We recommend a few weeks at least.
~CrimsonZephyr, last chance granted. Don't waste it.
edited 24th Mar '18 10:19:20 PM by nombretomado
Trivia Depository
@ nombretomado - No, I think I got it, I only ignored the PM's because I wasnt able to read them in the first place, and didnt know what I was doing wrong. If I screw up again, I'll know what I did wrong since I can access the Inbox now and be able to correct it.
...
~nobretomado
I understand. The “don’t insult people” rule is a basic and easy way to avoid this happening again, so I shall adhere to it. As for edits over that topic, well, I can definitely base them on fact. Some reverts of my edits were rather unfair, like when someone removed my example of Skewed Priorities because “it was insulting”, without saying why it didn’t count as an example. I hadn’t insulted any real life person with that particular edit, in the edit itself or the reason, but it was still removed. I would consider that a “Justifying Edit” on their part. I do, however, admit to insulting them when I put my edits back, something which will not happen in future.
But yes. I know how to remain civil and will do so in order to keep my editing privileges.
edited 25th Mar '18 3:54:19 AM by TheCastawayPariah
"~ryanisbetter, if the consensus disagrees with you, then you must accept that conclusion gracefully. If you understand that, then we'll release your suspension and wish you the best."
Ok, I got it.
I only made one edit where I placed it back, in which case I laid down very carefully the case as to why it qualified as Protagonist-Centered Morality, and assumed that would be enough. When it was deleted a second time, which is when I was going to head to Discussions, I had already been suspended.
If anyone could diminish the Wall of Text I made, I'd be more than happy to let them go at it.
But going back to the Discussions topic. let's suppose we do head over to Discussions for a second. Suppose either side refuses to budge on their point of view, even if one side makes a clear case, then what should be done?
I never got the feeling I had to be careful with being wordy here. This isn't a wiki entry. I already told you I have this problem in Real Life, and, being aware, I'll do better when making wiki entries. As far as I'm concerned, though, this is a conversation. Dialogue in literature breaks grammatical rules because conversation does.
I said I'd look at articles like blackface where racism is acknowledged and do that over on the articles like the ones I was having problems with.
I don't see how saying"Asians are people" diminishes racism towards someone else, unless I wasn't just paranoid, which I've been trying to tell myself I was for three days, and this site is very angry at me for saying Asians are people, and is now grasping at straws to make there be a bad guy and make me him
And now, I get the feeling I'll be told I was acting paranoid all along in an attempt to gaslight me because I just revealed I've been hiding paranoia.
I was spoken to with flippant attitude from the get-go here, even though the top of the page insists a ban isn't a "we don't like you," and a lot of people in the West get really mad when I point out that racism against us is still racism.
I have been nothing but level-headed while mods have had tone with me, suddenly I get dropped when I make a good point, then you come back later with complaints about how I speak and not how I make entries, and an all-new accusation of something I'm not doing and doesn't even make sense.
I guess it wasn't paranoia. I guess this site is mad at me for believing I'm a person. Madam Butterfly is the no 1 opera in the country and all that. And I'm not being"obedient and submissive," but making, from the looks of it, my case in a pretty solid way, since your arguments against me are devolving into Insane Troll Logic
edited 25th Mar '18 9:35:16 AM by chairdesklamp
~SilentStranger, TheCastawayPariah, and Ryanisbetter: you're good to go. Thanks.
edited 25th Mar '18 10:00:40 AM by nombretomado
~chairdesklamp: Yes, we don't want that you soapbox on the wiki about race issue. We have perfectly suited threads in the On-Topic Conversations forum for such discussions. This is a wiki about storytelling devices, so "pointing ot" racism here is unlikely to remedy anything anyhow.
edited 25th Mar '18 11:24:25 AM by SeptimusHeap
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
~NEX7, then you bring in more opinions by soliciting ATT.
You added it, it was deleted, and then added it back. Adding it back again is an edit war. You don't seem to be getting this point.
edited 25th Mar '18 11:32:55 AM by nombretomado
I get it. The point I'm making is that I thought adding it in back once and explaining the reason for why it qualifies would be enough. It was then that it was deleted a second time. I didn't, nor did I have any intention of adding it back in a second time without first resolving it in Discussions.
I don't think editing it back once qualifies as an Edit War.
edited 25th Mar '18 7:48:03 PM by NEX7
The third edit in an exchange back and forth (add, remove add; or delete, add, delete) is what makes it an edit war.
Ok. Got it. So there are three edit rules before it qualifies as an Edit War. Can I be unsuspended, please?
Also, how do I solicit additional ATT?
edited 26th Mar '18 8:22:21 PM by NEX7
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Yes, you may. Create a post in Ask the Tropers if the discussion is at an impasse.
Alright, I mostly get it now. Is there a forum where I can go to talk to somebody about how wiki markup language works?
Yeah, I've been banned for editing after I deleted an entry on Stuffed In A Fridged and the original author posted it back and said I was silencing them for "criticizing the creator."
However, I'd like to argue that the person was using the entry incorrectly and that I shouldn't ahv e been banned if I may.
This is the entry in question:
[spoiler:Pyrrha Nikos]] in RWBY [[spoiler:sends her partner and crush Jaune Arc away and goes to fight the series' villain, Cinder Fall, who defeats her and burns her into ashes to emotionally devastate Ruby (which some have felt was odd as Ruby and Pyrrha barely interacted over the three volumes). The death of Pyrrha was essentially done to motivate Ruby and Jaune, her love interest, who was already a Base Breaker to some. Pyrrha's death was incredibly controversial, and the arguments over whether her death was this trope in action have caused arguments on various sites, including Edit Wars on This Very Wiki. While her corpse is never put on display, her body is burned in front of Ruby to emotionally devastate her, so the effect and outcome fit the bill for this trope. That's not even getting into the subjective arguments over how the character was treated, how her character had just started being developed and fleshed out prior to her death, and her motivations for going to fight Cinder in the first place came off as confused and contrived to many. The fact that in Volume 4, Jaune and Ruby are the only ones who seem affected by her death while Ren and Nora, her other teammates, only bring her up once and very subtly at that, not even mentioning her name, doesn't help matters.]]
There are a few things here I think would invalidate the entry: 1. It's mostly about things outside of the show. It talks about Jaune being a base breaker, Pyrrha's death being controversial ect. While this might be fine on a YMMV tab (where her death is located): Stuffed In The Fridge is not a YMMV trope. And nothing else in the examples is written like this so there's no exceptions. 2. The entry is misleading. Although the entry says Pyrrha was killed to emotionally devastate Ruby, the actual event shows that Cinder didn't even know Ruby was there. The only one who would be intending to emotionally traumatize Ruby would eb the creators and that just comes with the territory. 3. The entry is highly opinionated. Between the link to the They Watsed A Perfectly Good Character page, bring up Jaune as a Basebreaker and the overall tone: The entry is made in order to associate an event someone did not like to a trope that people have a negative connotation towards, akin to how the Mary Sue label is misused. 4. The example doesn't fit properly. The key components of the trope Stuffed into the Fridge are (as I assume) follows: A. The person must be killed in a horrorific manner. B. their body must be displayed. C. It's done by the villain to harm some D. It must be intentionally seen by the person made to suffer and E. They are the only one affected. The only one that works is A and even that is questionable as we never seen Pyrrha scream in pain or anything and she just turns to ash. B, doesn't work because the body was never displayed (the exact opposite happened). C Doesn't work because as recent episodes show, Cinder didn't even know who Jaune was and didn't know Ruby was there. D. Ruby unintentionally saw it (as shown by Cinder's shocked expression) and E. is contradicted by a character named Qrow showing guilt over Pyrrha's death. 5. Examples Are Not Arguable The fact that the trope is argued in the entry itself is an example of arguing the trope should be on the page, trying to make a case for something that should be naturally there. A case like the Spider Man entry with Gwen is one thing but this is not something that should be allowed outside of discussion.
All in all, this sounds like to me that the entry was made because someone didn't like a decision that was made in the show and tried pulling a "Mary Sue as the character you don't like" on it.
I ask that I be unbanned because of this and that the entry be reviewed for consideration.
@Septimus Heap
I'm sorry, but don't think I did anything wrong this time. I actually made my case for why this qualifies as Protagonist-Centered Morality, and laid out an elaborate and detailed (albeit long) explanation as to why it qualifies as Protagonist-Centered Morality, even drawing the comparisons to the explanation on the main page of Protagonist-Centered Morality. And I don't see why I'm the only one getting suspended when the other person deleted my edits just as much didn't.
As for the wall of text, yes, I do know it was long, and believe me, I do wish I could have made it smaller (and I tried to), but the problem was that the storyline was so complex, that without giving an overly long explanation, it would have been made no sense without context.
edited 24th Mar '18 12:06:22 PM by NEX7