Ask The Tropers

Alright, here's what I can gather:

KingZeal doesn't care if the example is on the page or not, but if it is, he wants it to be neutral.

WaterBlap cites mods as why this political mess doesn't belong on the page.

KingZeal states that, and I quote, "An example stating that his show lost a large chunk of subscribers due to the host's political views isn't troping the person directly."

WaterBlap points out the Loophole Abuse pothole and links to the forum post that he quoted the aforementioned mod policy on Trump from.

KingZeal states that it wasn't his idea he stated, that Water's second point doesn't address what he said, and that "We were asked to come here to discuss the matter, not have one person mini-mod it." (red flag)

WaterBlap is confused as to how the idea that KingZeal said was not his idea, that the second point he made is about what King said about Audience Reaction tropes, that quoting a mod isn't minimodding, that the discussion is supposed to be about the example and not policy, that King's idea exploits a loophole, that he's just trying to avoid beating around the bush, and that people want to add the example back even though it really shouldn't go up.

KingZeal refutes Water's last post: he doesn't care about the example being added or not so the idea isn't his? In addition, he states that if we're talking about an example that violates policy, policy can and will be brought up. After that, he clarifies that he was confused earlier about how Water drew the conclusion that he did.

WaterBlap states that Sargon and JonTron are similar works: since Sargon isn't tropeable in this regard, neither is JonTron. Seems good, but then he gets a bit aggressive towards King: while he is being passive-aggressive though, he states true things (King potholed Loophole Abuse, minimodding apparently means "stating policy", and that King is playing the victim with his parting message, "At this point, what I'm more upset about is how you handled it...but I'll walk that off.") (red flag)

tl;dr: Both of you are wrong.

^ Slight correction to Mario Man's post. I was saying the debate itself is similar to Sargon's You Tube channel. As in, they are political non-fiction works, the latter of which was determined in the Websites/ cleanup thread to be non-tropeable. I wasn't saying that Jon Tron's show is similar to Sargon's channel.

^^ I don't think that first numbered bullet is a fair point. I did respond to Larkman, ironballs16, and you. Only one person who I didn't directly respond to said to put it back (zmanwarrior). Your fourth point isn't based on my response to Larkman. I said that "I don't see how a third party, nonfiction debate is a part of his work." I never said that there was nothing wrong with the suggestion, and I didn't say that I had a personal problem with any of the suggestions.

"King potholed Loophole Abuse, minimodding apparently means "stating policy", and that King is playing the victim with his parting message, "At this point, what I'm more upset about is how you handled it...but I'll walk that off.") (red flag)"

Can you help me understand why those are "red flags"?

I potholed Loophole Abuse because it seemed like a policy gray area, where no policy I've heard of technically applies to this example. It seems a couple of tropers seem to agree with me on that, so I'm not sure what's a "red flag".

Likewise, what is this "playing the victim"? I stated an opinion: I'm disappointed with how Water Blap is handling this, and how he continues to handle it even in this thread. If I'm somehow wrong for stating this, please let me know. But I don't see how arguing he could handle this bettet is "playing a victim".

Either way, though, I'm going to leave this alone.

^ Addressing your statements in order:

The red flag was directed towards WaterBlap's passive-aggressive remarks in the March 19th message. That was pretty unclear on my end, sorry about that.

The fact that you potholed Loophole Abuse at all makes your idea seem pretty suspect since you literally admit that you're using a loophole to keep this entry on the page.

I state that you're playing the victim because despite the fact that you're part of the cause of this debate, you just up and walked away and posted here on ATT asking for someone to tap Water on the shoulder.

Leaving it alone seems like a good option at this point.

See, there's a misunderstanding. I potholed that Trope because, trying to be neutral about the issue, I was making it a clear that while it's technically a gray issue, there might be administrative policy that goes against the suggestion. If we have another trope for "rules gray area", I would have used THAT instead, but I don't know of one and now admit it was a mistake altogether.

Second, you're getting the order of events wrong. I was perfectly willing to leave the matter settled where I said I'd walk it off, except not only did the debate continue, but Water Blap made his passive aggressive remarks AFTERWARDS. At which point I brought it here. I didn't run away from the debate—I just know continuing it further would have made it a personal feud.

I beg your pardon but saying "I don't care if we do X" and then arguing to do X, even if it exploits a loophole in policy, does not come across as being neutral. It comes across as being deceptive. I'm willing to accept that you meant no harm in the pothole to Loophole Abuse, now that you've specified that you just meant "administrative gray area," but your other comments, as well as bringing the issue to ATT while simultaneously making demonstrably false claims in the ATT thread, are suspicious in my opinion.

I don't see how the order of events could be taken out of order when there are time stamps. I would like to point out that neither of us are without fault here. Yes, I did make some passive aggressive comments on March 19th. This came after multiple comments trying to explain the same thing to someone acting suspiciously. That said, your comment about mini-modding was aggressive and — since you want to point out the order of events — happened well before any passive aggressive behavior on my part.

You keep using the rhetoric of "not wanting to continue this," but you keep escalating the issue.

Ah, quick question and I'll ask in discussion as well.

Is there more to wanting the example up than just wanting Jon Tron's ass nailed to the wall? Suppose Peebee in Mass Effect: Andromeda made similar comments, would there be such desperation to portray her as a racist?

Is there more to not wanting an example discussing his comments than trying to defend his honor? Suppose someone involved in scandalgate trigger troll target #scandalgatetriggertrolltarget made comments on sexism in video games and said there needs to be better portrayals of minorities. Would there be such a push against using the wrong trope?

Jesus, Blap...I want to be done with this but you keep attacking my motives.

Let me finish by saying this: just because I don't oppose your decision doesn't mean I agree with your logic or methods.

That's seriously it. I'm done defending myself.

Frankly, both of you are getting out of line, here and in the discussion page, and both exchanges are excellent examples of why ROCEJ exists in the first place. Stop sniping, now.

As for the original question - a very carefully worded Internet Backdraft example would be the most lenient resolution to take. But if no such wording can be crafted, the page will survive without its inclusion.