Ask The Tropers

"Don't bother with me. I am just doing my job." ...No, they're not. And they need to understand that whoever's the latest person to add an entry back is in fact responsible for it, and can't go "Don't bother with me".

I think it's okay to remove them and citing this in the edit reason.

While we're discussing that troper, they're troping one-handed (so to speak) HERE and also in some other entries, if you scroll down. Apparently, they've got a mind control fetish...

EDIT: And HERE they added a female example to a man-only trope.

So that's readding entries without discussion, rudeness in their edit reasons, possible P5 violations, and shoehorning tropes. Anything else?

Yes, their grammar and punctuation isn't exactly A-material.

In the link that features the one-handed editing, there's also at least one instance of First-Person Writing.

Edit: Oh, wait, I completely missed that this is a Gushing About Shows You Like page. Is first-person writing allowed on those pages? Those pages were brought up in the past (for completely different reasons), but I don't remember what the verdict was.

I think the verdict on gush is that they allow first person, because they're the Sugar counterpart of DMOS.

Shadow 8411 did mention that using the word "we" is okay if it's the Royal "We" as per this thread.

This might be what Shadow8411 was referring to, but I notice there is a work in their edit history that is a potential 5P violation (and only two tropers have ever edited that page). Shall I flag it on the Content Policy thread? I've never dealt with a 5P issue before, so I'm not sure of the process.

Which page are you referring to?

The "Father Tucker" work and YMMV page.

I think you want this thread. It's specifically for 5P violations. And that page is one hell of a violation. It says in the description not to link to videos of the work because of its nature, but still.

Thanks.

And, yes. Some of the trope entries are churning my stomach, especially on the YMMV page. So, I've used the Report button on the grounds that I feel there's enough content on the page for someone who isn't familiar with the work (like me) to flag it. I've mentioned that on the thread you pointed me to, just in case the Report button wasn't all I needed to do.

Unrelated to the P5 discussion but Bellaboo 2 has also been editing the Works That Require Cleanup of Complaining and adding entries that are themselves complaining or trying to justify the existence of complaining, which defeats the point of the sandbox. Example (bolded for emphasis:)

• Action 52: One of the most infamous and poorly made games of all time. Pages are swarming with complaining. While a lot of it is justified, some of the complaining could be lessened a little bit.

Has anyone actually sent Bellaboo any P Ms in regards to their edits/edit reasons?

I flagged them originally in my initial post on the Moments clean-up thread. This ATT has gone in a direction I didn't expect; I've sent them a PM about the ATT thread as well.

Just commenting on this: those are no lewdness violations, not P5 violations.

I was not trying to cause any problems. I am normally very shy and don't like to engage in discussions, but it seems I must do so now.

I re-added the two entries because they seemed legit and I was confused by their removal. I believed that the tropers who originally wrote them should have been contacted about the thread's decisions and offered a chance to discuss them if they wanted them to remain. I thought the thread made a bad move by never attempting to discuss with them when both entries seemed like lefit reactions. I thought they should have been put back until the thread attempted to either rewrite them or contact the users. I stated in my edit reason that I didn't want to get involved with the debate myself becauase I personally have nothing to do with them. I just don't like legit reactions being cut without consulting whoever wrote them. I was not trying to be rude, I was just adding them back while stating that I thought rhey seemed legit and they should have been perhaps altered or discussed with the users who wrote them instead of deleting them outright. I thought the thread took an unneeded leap in outright deleting them, so I added them back while suggesting they be discussed more. I asked not to be contacted because I had no involvement and didn't want to get involved, I just thought the original usees should have been contacted for discussion. I did not intend to sound rude in the edit reason, just trying to state I didn't want to take part in the discussions myself. I am not a fan, but I am strongly against legit moments in audience reactions being cut without much debate. I apologize for any upsetness I may have caused. At this point, I am done with it. I will just suggest that the thread take more time to discuss examples and consider seeking out the users who added them. I also recommend further discussion of those two entries. This will be the last you see me type out anything regarding those entries, and from now on, I won't be touching any removed entries by the thread without consulting them directly.

As for the shoehorned example, I actually didn't realize Gay Cowboy was males only. I missed seeing it in Always Male. Simple oversight. I apologize. I will note though that the Gender-Inverted Trope page gives the impression that such tropes can have examples of the opposite gender if they are specifically noted as a gender inverted example, and I have seen such examples listed on other trope pages. Are they allowed or not? I am so confused.

The grammer? That's not me it's my stupid keyboard. I often slip my fingers when using it without realizing it. I do take steps to try and use the preview to catch mistakes, but sometimes I still miss some, much to my annoyance. From now on, I will always double check using both the preview and edit history. I apologize for any typos I have caused and am grateful they have been pointed out.

I note that sometimes some of the complaints in pages are legit because sometimes they are legitimate reaction tropes being listed in the YMMV pages (albeit they could be worded a bit less negatively), and the bad writing index of tropes page shows that some tropes or YMMV items are inherintly bad or negative. I just wanted to make sure the cleanup doesn't go too far and simply trims the fat and rewords things to keep the pages from turning into bash fests. I did not mean to imply that the complaining was okay, just that the pages may have some legit criticism in them and the cleanup should sort the legit from the just plain bashing. I apologize for any trouble.

I hope that I have resolved everything. I see that I may have worded my edits the wrong way. In light of this, I have decided to take a break from this site. Let things cool down. Practice catching errors and wording things better.

Since this concerns the Sandbox I created, I'll respond.

You actually phrased it pretty well here. Maybe the entries themselves on the sandbox need to be worded a little better, but I do see where you are coming from. Of course we can document negative Audience Reactions, the concern kicks in when the entries start using bash-y and whiny language or are filled with natter or unnecessary reviewer citations. I'll concede on that front, maybe with the caveat that it could be worded a little more clearly.

I cannot respond to the other claims as I did not make them. I will leave the other tropers here to respond to that.

I wasn't involved in deleting the examples, but I still think I can pitch in.

• If one scene was Played for Laughs but can still trigger a sad reaction, I think it counts, as long as the reaction is genuine and lasting.
• The "Scene Summary" thing is an issue we run into constantly; basically it's people misunderstanding what context you need for these pages. You don't need to describe the scene point-by-point, you need to describe why the scene is sad. Describe the emotions it invokes and why, not just the what.

Bellaboo: Thank you for joining the discussion, but you still haven't addressed the lewdness issue.

They'll be chatting with the mods for now.

^^^ That's it exactly: the entries that were deleted were not a commentary on whether there is a legitimate audience reaction to trope. It's because the entries that existed at the time were talking about the scene instead of the audience reaction (including the Played for Laughs entry). To go back on the page, all that's needed is for them to be rewritten as audience reactions instead of scene summaries. Unfortunately, they were re-added using the original wording, rather than being rewritten as an audience reaction.

I think I can take the content of Bellaboo's edit reason and turn it into an audience reaction for the Played for Laughs scene, if it's acceptable for me to do that. The reason I didn't rewrite the entries myself is because I didn't have the relevant reaction and therefore didn't know why that scene was sad for other people. These should ideally be written by the people who have the relevant reaction. However, the edit reason describes why it's sad for other people, so I could rewrite that as a legitimate entry and post it to the Moments thread to double-check it's an okay example.

Is it acceptable for me to do that? If so, I'll take this back to the Moments thread and work on it there.