History Tropers / Kevjro7

!!My Thought's on [=AGuy=]'s Ban

Fighteer [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16037500180A26540800&page=57#comment-1419 said]] that the difference between "dogpiled for an unpopular opinion" and "disrupting a conversation" depends which side you're on, and the story leading to Tropers/AGuy's ban is a perfect example of that.

The events leading to [=AGuy=]'s ban started [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=4#comment-92 here.]] Tropers/ArsThaumaturgis said that he didn't think it was worth splitting off examples that were "extreme cases." He wanted to consider "YMMV" examples as the general case for GuideDangIt, while considering examples where it's infeasible to figure out something on your own as "[[ExaggeratedTrope exaggerated examples]]." [=AGuy=] pointed out that "exaggerated" examples--examples where GuideDangIt is used when no information is provided by games at all--would make up a "very large chunk" of the examples. When [=AGuy=] said that Ars should read the examples, and Ars told [=AGuy=] that he should provide the evidence. When [=AGuy=] [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=5#comment-103 provided evidence,]] Ars [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=5#comment-104 did]] a lot of things: he [[MovingTheGoalposts moved the goalposts]] by demanding numbers, openly admitted that he wouldn't bother reading examples, and brought up the burden of proof again.

I could write a few paragraphs dissecting everything wrong with this, but that's best saved for an essay about why the GuideDangIt thread was the worst Trope Repair Shop thread I've ever seen (if I write it, that is). I'm just going to focus on [=AGuy=]'s reaction to it. [=AGuy=] proceeded to question if Ars was actually arguing in good faith. This resulted in two other tropers calling him out: Tropers/WarJay77 and Tropers/{{crazysamaritan}}.

Tropers/WarJay77 said that because Ars was arguing for it to be YMMV, he was also arguing for it to not be a trope. Disregarding that this isn't how YMMV works,[[labelnote:How does it work?]]There are two types of YMMV items: subjective tropes (CompleteMonster, MagnificentBastard, MoralEventHorizon) and AudienceReactions (EndingAversion, FanPrefferredCutContent, JerksAreWorseThanVillains). Just because something is YMMV doesn't mean it's not a trope. And if [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/discussion.php?id=nzg4x2ajs9p013dkz3iep2qv#comment-pn61076a800d1d2 this comment]] is any indication, Jay is completely aware of this.[[/labelnote]] [=AGuy=] [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=5#comment-110 pointed out]] that Ars argued for it to be a trope [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=3#comment-54 multiple]] [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=3#comment-61 times.]] Also, Ars [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=4#comment-92 displayed ignorance]] of how YMMV works by trying to lump in examples of a hypothetical YMMV trope under "exaggerated" examples, even though YMMV can't played with. This information and the multiple times he can be quoted for arguing it to be a trope prove that he was arguing for GuideDangIt to be a trope in YMMV.

crazysmartian said that [=AGuy=] didn't understand what Ars believes, that it was inappropriate for him to question his good faith as a debate tactic, and that Ars presented a consistent argument. [=AGuy=] [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=5#comment-111 said]] and proved that he did understand what Ars was arguing, and he pointed out that ''Ars'' refused to understand ''him''; in the same post, [=AGuy=] pointed out that Ars was inconsistent several times on the thread. While I agree with martian that questioning or denying someone's good faith as a debate/discussion tactic is inappropriate (Ars wasn't arguing in good faith, but that's beside the point), it's [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=15977075820A61741300&page=5#comment-107 common]] [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=1600839346041650900&page=14#comment-330 around]] [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16037500180A26540800&page=63#comment-1571 here]] for people to do exactly that (with nobody calling them out for it). Why did it suddenly become a bad thing when [=AGuy=] did it? On that note, [=AGuy=] ''apologized'' for questioning Ars's good faith, but nobody noticed or cared.

That was dogpiling. That was the beginning of everyone disliking [=AGuy=].

The events leading to [=AGuy=]'s resumed when Tropers/WarJay77 [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=6#comment-150 said]] that nothing else could be said, nobody was willing to change their mind, and that it was a time for a crowner. On the [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=7#comment-153 next page,]] she said that she didn't see the point of a split. Now if Tropers/AGuy were like most tropers, he would go along with whatever [=WarJay=] says like a sheep. But [=AGuy=] wasn't like most tropers; he's smarter than [=WarJay=] and, more importantly, didn't put her up on a pedestal.

[=AGuy=] [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=7#comment-154 said]] that people did indeed change their minds about things in the thread ([[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=3#comment-58 see]] [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=6#comment-129 here]]), so the discussion was indeed producing value. He then said that he saw value in a split by saying one thing would be a trope that could be clearly outlined, while the other would be AudienceReaction often cause by elements on the trope page, and he used the split between IdiotBall and WhatAnIdiot as an example. [=WarJay=] [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=7#comment-155 said]] that the analogy only convinced her even more that the split was a bad idea for the following reasons: she doesn't know the difference between IdiotBall and WhatAnIdiot, many examples are under both tropes (even though [[{{Hypocrite}} she said]] that something being YMMV disqualifies something from being a trope [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=5#comment-108 earlier in the thread,]] which includes WhatAnIdiot), and that IB and [=WaI=] had the same requirements. [=AGuy=] said that the tropes and AudienceReactions often overlapped, saying that plenty of examples of AndIMustScream and BodyHorror are under NightmareFuel, and pointed out that WhatAnIdiot doesn't require out-of-character behavior. With her point refuted, [=WarJay=] declared the comparison between IdiotBall and WhatAnIdiot irrelevant per "Edit: I don't really have time to discuss the WhatAnIdiot[=/=]IdiotBall thing, and since that's not related anyway I'll just move on."

Also, how can someone seriously not know the difference IdiotBall and WhatAnIdiot? The former is a trope that requires out-of-characteristic behavior for the sake of advancing the plot, while the latter is an audience reaction to the character(s) doing something so stupid that the audience isn't sympathetic at all, regardless of whether it affects the plot. See the folder right above this for examples of WhatAnIdiot that can't be classified as IdiotBall.

Moving on, [=WarJay=] [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=7#comment-157 said]] that something has to be PlayedWith in order to be a trope, and spouted a bunch of other nonsense. [=AGuy=] [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=7#comment-158 explained]] why this was utter nonsense by using NoTitle, OurMonstersAreDifferent, and a few other tropes as examples of tropes that can't be played with (see the "A Challenge" folder on this page for a list of tropes that fail the "Can it be Played With?" litmus test), and explained why everything else she said was nonsense. [=AGuy=] then made [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=7#comment-160 a post]] that put [=WarJay=]'s and Tropers/ArsThaumaturgis's problematic behavior on the spotlight.

Tropers/WarJay77's [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=7#comment-163 response]] was terrible. Let's dissect it.
->I'm trying to avoid debating with ''you'' because even after we've talked about it, you're still getting unnecessarily heated and confrontational.
And yet the only person in the thread she cared to debate with in the thread was him. Pretty counterintuitive. I also do not see how [=AGuy=] was being "unnecessarily heated and confrontational." Was it by putting the spotlight on her shitty behavior?
->I'm not even trying to turn this into a YMMV trope!
And yet:
* The only person she argued against in the thread was someone opposing moving GuideDangIt to YMMV.
* She [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=5#comment-108 left lurking]] to argue on behalf of someone who ''did'' support the move.
* She didn't call out Ars when he admitted he wouldn't read examples.
* When Ars said [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=4#comment-98 multiple]] [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=6#comment-130 times]] that we shouldn't refrain from a course of action for the purpose of preventing negativity, and that we don't make decisions based on what might happen, she never called him out by saying both of those things are exactly what we do on TLP; negative YMMV items aren't allowed there precisely because of what will--not might, ''will''--happen.
* When [=AGuy=] [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=6#comment-127 brought up]] the point about negative YMMV TLP drafts, she argued against a different point in his post while not backing him up on his point about the negative YMMV drafts. And before anyone says she didn't need to back him up because the point was already made, when I [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16258469770A27571900&page=5#comment-107 brought up a point,]] Jay felt the need to support me in the below post despite it being completely unnecessary.
* Someone who supported the YMMV move [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=7#comment-159 liked one of her arguments.]]
* Later on in the thread, [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=8#comment-186 she admitted]] that she didn't agree with the points against it being YMMV per: "But don't act like we're ''wrong'' for not liking the idea and for not agreeing with the points against it being YMMV."
* She never said [=AGuy=] had any good points in the thread until the discussion moved on from the YMMV debate.
[=WarJay=] may not have been actively supporting moving GuideDangIt to YMMV, but her actions (or inaction in some cases) make it insultingly clear which side she was truly on, at least on a personal level. Even if she somehow wasn't on the YMMV move side, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, the difference between it and an actual duck is negligible.
->I was explaining why the split doesn't work
[=AGuy=] provided [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=7#comment-158 rebuttals]] to her explanations, so no, she didn't.
->Administrivia/TropesAreTools applies to ''all tropes'', and if they're tools they can be used in multiple ways.
[=WarJay=] clearly hasn't read Administrivia/TropesAreTools. Anyone who actually reads the page would know that it means tropes aren't bad or good, not that tropes have to be PlayedWith to be considered tropes.
->You get so confrontational and aggressive
This isn't the [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/query.php?parent_id=95840&type=att#comment-276924 first time]] she resorted to calling someone aggressive when she wanted to say someone wasn't right but couldn't refute any of their points.
->you seem to take these debates ''really personally''
[=AGuy=] was the only person in the thread she cared to argue against. If she was supporting the YMMV move, [=AGuy=] would think she was arguing against him because they had different stances. But since she wasn't (publicly) supporting the move and argued against him and only him, he assumed that she was hell-bent on opposing him and only him. I really can't blame [=AGuy=] (well, anyone really) for coming to that conclusion. It's not like she couldn't make jabs at anyone else in the thread; Tropers/ArsThaumaturgis said plenty of inane things in the thread that she could've poked holes in.
->And I wasn't trying to dismiss the whole debate
Well that's how it came across as. As we'll see later, people around here really need to consider the implications of their words and actions, and how they can be interpreted.
->But I get it. I'm leaving this debate now, and the thread, because I'm done. I tried to help move things along and offer my own perspective, you just want to keep fighting, and I'm not in the mood for a fight over a trope I frankly don't even have strong feelings about. Continue the debate all you want. I'm dropping out until things progress and things settle down.
This looks like someone getting angry that she's not winning the debate and someone pointing out her bad behavior. Who is ''really'' getting "unnecessarily heated"? Who ''really'' wants to win? Also, why would she participate in the thread at all if she didn't care about the topic? It's a rhetorical question--I already know the answer.

There was a lot of projection going on here. [=WarJay=] was losing the debate because she made bad arguments that [=AGuy=] easily picked apart, failed to provide any counters to her opponent's rebuttals, and resorted to fallacies.

One thing that should be noted is that people in the thread were [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=6#comment-150 insistent]] [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=7#comment-166 on]] nobody being able to convince the other. "No one is willing to change their minds" is a SelfFulfillingProphecy. The reason why your minds won't be changed is because ''you'' are unwilling to have them changed, and the reason why others won't change their minds is because you are unable or unwilling to put in the effort to convince them.

Another thing that should be noted is that [=WarJay=] ''never'' directly quoted [=AGuy=] on ''anything'' he said. In [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=7#comment-160 this post,]] [=AGuy=] constantly referred to [=WarJay=] with male pronouns; she never corrected him. All of this makes me question if she ever gave [=AGuy=]'s posts a proper reading, or if she just skimmed his posts and decided to strawman him.

As you can see on the thread's [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=8 next page,]] some people on the thread derailed the discussion by making it about one of its participants instead of fixing GuideDangIt. Granted, those people were discussing the trope simultaneously, but that does not change the fact that they became more interested in discussing [=AGuy=]. Tropers/SeptimusHeap should have thumped those posts, but he didn't. However, he ''did'' thump the post where [=AGuy=] got rightfully offended. Admittedly, I didn't get a chance to read the post before it was thumped, but based on the information I ''do'' have, I think whatever it said was justified.

Now let's move on to the [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16207932830A49639400&page=1 Walkthrough Mode]] cleanup thread, which is what spawned the main events of [=AGuy=]'s ban. Ars [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16207932830A49639400&page=1#comment-10 rewrote an example]] of ThatOneAchievement. Everyone else thought it was fine, but [=AGuy=] called it out for being a Administrivia/ZeroContextExample. Unfortunately, [=AGuy=] blanked his posts so I don't know exactly what he said, but I do know that the responses to him were terrible.
->[[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16207932830A49639400&page=1#comment-14 But that's all the context we need here. We don't need all that detail. It's unnecessary.]]
Actually, you do. Otherwise, people won't understand ''why'' it's hard.

Next post: [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16207932830A49639400&page=1#comment-16 " Really? Because in reading Ars' version, I'm able to gather that":]]
->It's an achievement that requires landing in a place extremely difficult to land in
For reasons that'll be explained later, Ars's example failed to explain why landing was "extremely difficult."
->It's hard because it's hard to maneuver around all the obstacles
The example didn't ''show'' why it was hard.
->There's also a narrow time limit
The example didn't explain how the time limit was narrow. For all the reader knows, the limit could've been 30 seconds, 10 minutes, an in-game hour (which varies between games), or something else.
->[[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16207932830A49639400&page=1#comment-18 We don't need complete detail. The phrase "several steps of manual manoeuvring against challenging orbital mechanics" provides far more information than "it's really fucking hard".]]
Both are still vague.
->[[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16207932830A49639400&page=1#comment-22 Speaking as someone who’s unfamiliar with the game, I think the re-written version is clear about what makes this difficult. I’m also more likely to actually read it, because it isn’t going over the whole thing step by step (in other words, it’s not written like a walkthrough...).]]
First of all, the [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16207932830A49639400&page=1#comment-8 original example]] wasn't written like a walkthrough; it was written like an explanation for why the achievement was so difficult. Second of all, that's not what Administrivia/WalkthroughMode is about. The page is about a specific form of natter that goes "Um, actually, it's not hard if you do this." If you want an example of ''actual'' Walkthrough Mode, take a look at [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=VideoGame.ThrawnsRevenge#edit30490420 this.]] Reading the whole walkthrough mode cleanup thread, I think the page is redundant with {{natter}}, and the misinterpretation of the page will result in plenty of stupid decisions being in the future.

Now let's look at [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16207932830A49639400&page=1#comment-24 this post,]] which is where things get really bad.
->I know you have your reasons for preferring the older example, and that's fine. More power to ya.
No, she didn't think it was fine. If it was fine, she wouldn't have posted this in the first place.
->But if everyone else on the thread disagrees with you, at some point consensus dictates that it's the example we go with.
First of all, this is a [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum logical fallacy.]] Second of all, this is encouraging groupthink. Finally, this is textbook book clique behavior. I guess turning threads into cliques is okay whenever [=WarJay=] does it. I guess resorting to logical fallacies is okay whenever [=WarJay=] does it. I guess derailing threads into being about one of its participants is okay whenever [=WarJay=] [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=8#comment-186 participates in the derailment.]] There are a lot of things on this damn site that become okay whenever [=WarJay=] does them.

If you resort to a logical fallacy in a discussion, odds are you're the one who's wrong. If you tell someone what was quoted, they will interpret it as "Your opinion doesn't matter because everyone else disagrees with you, so shut up." Doesn't matter what you meant--that's how they'll feel because... well it's pretty much exactly what you meant.
->Now, I'm not going to stop you from continuing to try and change minds.
Yeah, this is a complete lie. It's pretty clear from this post, the following posts, and a later action outside this thread that this is exactly what she was trying to do.
->there's not much that can be done to change anybody's minds here.
This is a SelfFulfillingProphecy. It's also a toxic mindset. Encouraging a culture where no one's mind can be changed will result in nobody ever undergoing any growth or gaining new knowledge.
->I just don't want to see another huge debate break out over something that's honestly pretty minor in the grand scheme of things.
Actually, it's not. Approving Ars's example sets the stage for more examples like it. The result will be more vague crap that can't make readers understand why examples fit. And if she didn't want a debate to break out, why was she engaging in behavior that would spark a debate? Because stopping a debate wasn't her real goal.

[[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16207932830A49639400&page=2#comment-28 Next post]] on the next page.
->But you're the only one who thinks it ''does'' contradict the policy. That's what we're trying to say.
Once again, the argumentum ad populum logical fallacy is being used. Also, this is claiming that whether something violates policy is a matter of opinion, and ''only'' opinion. I shouldn't have to explain what's wrong with this.
->Trust me, I'm extremely strict when it comes to how I define ZCEs, and even ''I'' think it has enough context.
I'd like to see evidence of that because this discussion showed otherwise.
->Like, I'm not trying to tell you you're ''wrong'' or even to stop. I said no such thing.
As will be seen from the next quote in the same post, this is exactly what she was trying to do.
->All I said was that people's minds probably won't change since you're honestly interpreting the situation and example differently, and '''that's just something that you might have to accept''' if you don't want ''another'' massive debate with you fighting the rest of the thread. '''You can't change minds''' if the issue is based on a fundamental difference in personal interpretation. It's just not possible. There's zero way I can probably convince you the example is fine, and I'm ''okay with that'', but '''you also need to be okay with the fact that you can't change ''our'' minds either'''.
You know what the bolded stuff is? It's trying to tell [=AGuy=] to stop. So much for "I'm not going to stop you from continuing to try and change minds." This is also more evidence that "no one's minds can be changed" is a SelfFulfillingProphecy. Seriously, this is an incredibly toxic mindset.
->I'm willing to just drop the debate and move on, and I think everyone else is willing to do the same.
It's easy to say that when you don't think there's a problem and everyone else is on your side.
->If you think me trying to just mediate things and point out the consensus is rude, then IDK what to really tell you.
That is not what she was doing. She was trying to shut him for having an unpopular opinion. That's pretty clear from what she said on the thread and from a later action outside.
->I was as polite as I could be.
Let's clear this up: yes, ''how'' Tropers/WarJay77 went about this was polite, but ''what'' she was doing was not. And what she was doing was trying to make Tropers/AGuy shut up for having an unpopular opinion. Then again, people might actually be consider that polite around here.

[[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16207932830A49639400&page=2#comment-30 Next post]]:
->I've already explained how it's not a ZCE.
Like in the GuideDangIt TRS thread, [=WarJay=] showed that she still thinks her explanations are valid even after someone rebuts them without providing a counter rebuttal. If an explanation is rebutted and a (good) counter isn't provided, the explanation is rendered invalid.
->My rule of thumb is that if it's a ZCE, you could replace the trope with a different one and nobody would be able to know it was swapped. You can't do that here. Thus, it has enough context.
This is the NoTrueScotsman fallacy. First AppealToPopularity, now this. If you're resorting to logical fallacies in an argument, odds are you're the who's wrong. Also, you can do this, which is why trope slashing happens.
->If there is a problem, it's not with a lack of context, but a lack of ''evidence'', which is a different issue, and one I don't personally think is that big of a deal.
First of all, this shows that evidence is completely unnecessary when it comes to claims that you like. Second of all, we'll why this is a big deal right now. This is why [=AGuy=] was completely right about Ars's example being a Administrivia/ZeroContextExample, at least by the page's standards. One of the examples on the page:
* CorruptPolitician: Alice is secretive, corrupt, and is a member of the city senate.
--> '''This makes the claim that Alice is an example, but doesn't offer any evidence. What secretive and corrupt things does she do? What kind of work does she do in office? If we don't already know who Alice is, this tells us very little.'''
Per the page, examples ''must'' have evidence. You can't just say "Bob abuses Jack, his son." on an AbusiveParents example and call it a day. You have to show it. Let's dissect Ars's [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16207932830A49639400&page=1#comment-10 example]] and explain why it fails the page's standards.
->To get it, you need to manually "land" on the Sun Station rather than enter it from [[spoiler:one of the warp towers on the Ash Twin]]--a feat that's mechanically daunting enough.
There is no evidence that this is mechanically daunting. Needing to land "manually" doesn't mean that it's hard.
->landing requires several steps
At best, this tells the reader it's time-consuming, not hard.
->several steps of manual manoeuvring against challenging orbital mechanics, each steps difficult in itself
What makes the orbital mechanics challenging? What makes the steps difficult? The example provides no evidence for these claims.
->managing all that within a narrow window of opportunity before the station crashes into the Sun.
How is the window of opportunity narrow? There's no evidence.

If people thought that example was fine, then the problem is current policy. Even if Administrivia/ZeroContextExample wasn't a policy, that example violates ShowDontTell. If people really thought Ars's example was good...

"Bad faith" is a term that gets thrown around on this site so much that it's lost all meaning, but [[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bad%20faith the]] [[https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bad_faith actual]] [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith dictionary]] [[https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/bad+faith definition]] is to deceive. An example of bad faith would be a prosecutor trying to convince a jury that a defendant is guilty despite being aware that they're innocent. Another example is trying to make someone believe that only a small vocal minority hates a character, even though you're perfectly aware they have enough haters to be a BaseBreakingCharacter. With that in mind, let's go over why the [[https://archive.md/RUeI3 ATT report]] (you'll see why it's an archived copy later) Tropers/WarJay77 made on Tropers/AGuy--which was filled with half-truths at best and outright lies at worst--was made in bad faith.
->And they can get [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=7#comment-167 really hostile]] at times,
Half-truth. There were 14 paragraphs in the linked post, and he got "hostile" in only one of them. In the other paragraphs, he was completely civil;[[labelnote:The very first sentence in the post]]Please point out a single thing I've said that's incorrect.[[/labelnote]] in the 6th one, he was flat-out ''friendly''.
->When I [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16207932830A49639400&page=1#comment-24 suggested they settle down]]
Lie. What she actually suggested was that he should shut up for having an unpopular opinion.
->I'm not saying they're a bad troper.
That's not why this query was made.
->I love a good debate when they're constructive,
Lie. When he was [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=7#comment-158 being constructive,]] Jay [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=7#comment-163 didn't like it.]] Also, in the time I've spent here, I have gotten the impression that, whether they realize it or not, this community does consider debates to be bad. The only time I've seen a massive debate happen here and ''not'' be considered a bad thing at one point was the Stonetoss discussion... which is... pretty bad...
->And it always derails the threads
Lie. He was discussing something relevant to the threads every time. Then again, the definition of "derailing a thread" on this site seems to be "discussing anything I don't like." Seriously, that's the actual definition of derailing threads around here.
->They always seem to argue with the intent of winning and being right
Lie. In a thread she participated in with [=AGuy=], there were [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=5#comment-111 two]] [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=6#comment-129 times]] where [=AGuy=] either admitted fault or acknowledged when someone else had a point; the second one really stands out because it's a post where [=AGuy=] acknowledged ''[=WarJay=]'' had a point. On top of that, when [=AGuy=] showed up to the report, he said "There are multiple times when I've freely changed my mind and acknowledged when others are right or have a point (including the time I admitted, per the previous point, that my previous actions were uncalled for, in the topic '''you popped in to speak in''', by the way)." She was lying about this.
->that have [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16154227120A21380700&page=7#comment-166 already been]] [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16177675160A68517700&page=1#comment-11 pointed out]] to them at other points.
[=WarJay=] was omitting important context from both those links. In the first post, Ars was just simply parroting her arguments as a substitute for making his own; he never would've called Tropers/AGuy "aggressive" otherwise. In the second post, [=AGuy=] asked in the post just below Fighteer's how he was flipping out, and he was never answered. That's why [=AGuy=] never realized any problems with his behavior--nobody ever ''showed'' why it was "bad." But let's ignore that because it doesn't fit [=WarJay=]'s narrative of [=AGuy=] being a disruptive asshole. Now let's take a look at what Fighteer said in the linked post: "you can take a long vacation. '''Enforced if necessary.'''" Who was really being aggressive there? This also highlights another issue I noticed: from what I've seen, Jay is only willing to recognize Fighteer's problematic behavior when she can simultaneously defend him or "see both sides" in an argument.

Those are just the things she was being dishonest about. Now let's take a look at the other problematic parts in the query that.
->The issue is that they're repeatedly disrupting and derailing project/discussion threads with massive arguments.
Like Fighteer said, this shows that the difference between "dogpiled for an unpopular opinion" and "disrupting a conversation" depends which side you're on. The way [=AGuy=] was being "disruptive" was by pointing out problems. I guess pointing out problems means you're the problem.
->getting upset if people don't want to engage at the same level of effort that they are.
So... it's wrong to get upset about people not putting in effort. [[SarcasmMode Good to know]].
->it leads to a lot of aggression and bitterness that could be avoided if they were just willing to let things drop once in a while
Her method of trying to address his concerns was by trying to shut him. Not really sure what anyone expected to happen. This just shows that if you point out problems with something Tropers/WarJay77 supports, you're the problem.
->I feel like I'm walking on eggshells whenever I'm working with them, because it seems like anything can set them off on a debate, and that's never a healthy atmosphere to have in a cleanup thread.
That's because she was arguing against a strawman.
->they get offended and angry every time I suggest that maybe we ''shouldn't'' keep debating about a particular thing
That's because she was trying to dismiss his concerns and saying his opinions didn't matter. I'd be pissed too if I were in [=AGuy=]'s shoes. Who wouldn't? And how dare he care about problems being addressed?
->I don't really want to inspire an ATT-meltdown
Then the report should have been made private (if it had to be made at all).
->I typically prefer to make them public so that other people can add their own evidence or back me up
You know what this looks like? Wanting others to dogpile on someone. This also in response to someone who advised her to make the report private, but she didn't listen. Most importantly, this shows that Tropers/WarJay77 cares more about being right and having other people shit-talk someone than she does about someone avoiding a public meltdown.

When Tropers/AGuy showed up to the query, he debunked all of the important arguments. Tropers/WarJay77's response was hilarious; she went like "Well shit, I'll leave this conversation because I can't refute anything you said." I also love how nobody responded to [=AGuy=] when he showed up--they probably realized they were full of shit. At this point, [=WarJay=] should have made the query private, but she didn't, presumably out of hope that someone argue against [=AGuy=]'s points on her behalf. There's one particular part of her response that I want to dissect.
->I'm not in the sort of state where I can respond to literally any of that without either making this worse or turning it into a toxic mega-thread.
First of all, that thread was toxic the ''second it was created''. Second of all, this is the '''worst possible thing''' she could have said. Lastly, there are at least two things she could have done that wouldn't have made the situation "worse":
* She could have apologized to [=AGuy=], particularly for saying that he was only insistent on winning.
* She could have explained how he derailed threads like he asked (if they were "derailed," that is).
Since she didn't, it's clear that she didn't want to admit fault. There was a time where [=WarJay=] was willing to admit severe fault. That time is gone now.

[=AGuy=] also said that opposing [=WarJay=] on anything is a death sentence. Let's be honest: was he wrong? Can anyone reading this tell me that their first thought in a discussion won't be to immediately side with her? Not counting mods, I can only think of three--maybe four--people who can give a sincere yes to that question.

And what do you know? A meltdown happened despite the warning, and that warning meant that it could have been easily avoided.

Let's take a lot at what Tropers/SeptimusHeap showed up to say while locking the query.
->Also, when people keep disagreeing with you at some point we expect that you stop arguing about a topic. You are on pretty thin ice right now.
This tells me that [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink groupthink]] is not only acceptable around here, but ''completely encouraged''. And groupthink leads to argumentum ad populum. If you point this out, ''you'' are the problem around here.

After this, Tropers/AGuy [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=5cma6iojg5o27puhulc24sje&page=944#comment-23582 got banned,]] but not before blanking a lot of his posts on multiple threads. We're not done discussing his ban though.

Jay [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=1618435636038403900&page=2#comment-49 said]] that he "wasn't in a good state of mind" and that she'd rather continue without him, even though it was '''her [[PrecisionFStrike fucking]] fault''' he was in a bad state of mind. Then later on in the [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16037500180A26540800&page=55#comment-1357 moderation thread,]] she wanted the mods to private the query because looking at it gave her "anxiety."[[note]]Which is code for embarrassment, fear, guilt and shame.[[/note]] People will lie that the query was privated for other reasons. It wasn't because [=AGuy=] talked about suicide--Jay was perfectly fine leaving [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/query.php?parent_id=96460&type=att this thread]] public despite Nepworks also talking about suicide, and in a way worse manner at that.[[note]][[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/query.php?parent_id=92706&type=att other]] [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/query.php?parent_id=97635&type=att queries]] with meltdowns that are still public[[/note]] It wasn't privated because it had no value left--a lot more queries should be made private with that reasoning but weren't and still aren't. People can give all the reasons they want about why that query was privated, but they're just window dressing--lies to cover the real reason.

Later on in the [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16037500180A26540800&page=70#comment-1728 moderation thread,]] people talked about "trial by clique" as if it was a bad thing, even though that's pretty much exactly what happened with [=AGuy=]. People talk about cliques like they're bad--and they are--but every aspect of this site's culture encourages it. You reap what you sow.

There are plenty of people who are banned from this site that have bullshit reasons for hating this community. Unlike those people, Tropers/AGuy is among a minority whose reasons for hating this community are completely valid.[[note]]The other people who have valid reasons for hating this site and its community are [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/query.php?parent_id=94665&type=att#comment-272528 this guy]] and anyone who has been a victim of Fighteer's abusive behavior (usually in Edit Banned).[[/note]] His ban and the events leading to it opened my eyes to a lot of things about this place, and they made me realize that this community is not as smart as some people--both on- and off-site--think it is.

You're probably wondering why I wrote this. Part of it was catharsis, but more importantly, I hope everyone learns from this. I want people to reflect and realize what they did wrong in this situation so they can improve their behavior in the future. It's probably futile since people here have show they're too lazy to read anything longer than 4 paragraphs, but a man can hope. A man can hope.

[[folder:Work Pages I Made]]

[[/folder]]

* BrokenPedestal: The events that led to Tropers/AGuy's ban have shaken my faith in this community.

* BerserkButton: Seeing people not using em dashes when they're supposed to, or using them incorrectly with hyphens. It happens way too often on this website, and I've even seen some edits of people ''undoing correct usage'' of them. Using em dashes correctly--like this--is not hard.[[note]]Correct usage of em dashes in normal sentences never have spaces between them and the words.[[/note]]

* * Near the end, Gunray and other Separatists are hiding on a distant planet, Mustafar. Sidious contacts Gunray and promises to send his apprentice to them, who will "... take care of them."\\

'''Instead:''' Palpatine admits that he can't cheat death. Fortunately, Anakin still decides to help Palpatine anyway. [[red:Palpatine being out-of-character '''doesn't affect the plot.''' And this example isn't even on the page--I wrote as an example here.]]

'''Instead:''' They fall for the [[PaperThinDisguise disguises]] almost every time. [[green:At this point, I'd argue that it'd be out-of-character for Ash to ''recognize'' their disguises for once. In other words, them falling for the disguises every time is in-character.]]

'''The Result''': Ash desperately begs for the last one, even though Pikachu shocks him for giving him a hug, Professor Oak for giving Ash his tools, and Mrs. Ketchum calling the little mouse weird. The two get off to a rocky start, and only mend their bond when Ash prepares to make a YouShallNotPass stand against a flock of Spearows that he agitated so as to protect Pikachu. [[green:Oak not telling Ash this has no impact on the plot whatsoever.]]

'''Surprisingly:''' Roserade actually ''does'' end up defeating Chimchar. [[green:The plot would've turned out the same, regardless if Barry did the smart thing or the stupid thing.]]

'''As A Result''': The player is able to gain access to the rest of the Rocket Hideout and dispose of the remaining Grunts and Giovanni, forcing them to abandon the hideout. Oh, and "Oh, no! I dropped the [[CapitalLettersAreMagic LIFT KEY]]!" became a [[MemeticMutation meme]]. [[green:A random grunt has no character to be out of.]]

[[AC:''The Phantom Menace]]

'''Instead:''' Not only does he do so, but he continues to be involved in a losing effort in a role that just '''''screams''''' "expendable fall guy." Sure enough, he gets arrested and the Trade Federation scapegoats him so they don't lose their empire.[[green:Gunray being a moron is in-character.]]

'''Instead:''' After pumping said gas into the room, Gunray waits about ten seconds before ordering his Battle Droids to open the door themselves and "destroy what's left of them." Who knew that opening the door after such a short amount of time would provide an easy escape route for two armed Jedi? [[green:Gunray being a moron is in-character.]]

'''Instead:''' He sends her away, guarded by a small squad of light Battle Droids who are outnumbered by their prisoners two to one, despite knowing that there are two Jedi in the area, unaccounted for, and probably looking for the queen. [[ForegoneConclusion Guess what happens.]] [[green:Gunray being a moron is in-character.]]

'''Instead:''' They proceed to ram the blockade, sustain damage to the shield generator and the hyper-drive, and need to stop to make repairs, leaving them in a position that makes it very unlikely they'll get to Coruscant at all. [[green:Everyone in ''Star Wars'' doesn't take advantage of the third dimension.]]

'''Instead:''' Gunray demands Dooku to get Amidala killed as a condition to join the movement. Dooku complies because he knows Palpatine will lead the Republic to war with or without her opposition, but from the Separatist perspective, Gunray is shooting them on their collective foot by driving the Republic to be overriden by militaristic movements and make things much harder for the Separatist plans. However, not a single complaint about this is heard in their council. [[green:Gunray being a moron is in-character.]]

'''Instead:''' She sleeps in a room with a huge, unguarded window, where a flying droid can approach unseen and easily cut through. [[grenn:Padmé being stupid is consistent with her character.]]\\

'''Instead:''' [[SkewedPriorities She is more concerned about Anakin snooping on her and turns off the cameras in her room]]. [[Has no impact on the plot.]]

'''Instead:''' She not only flirts with him by wearing revealing clothing (and toys with him by saying that she can't love him because she's a senator), but she marries him at the end of the theatrical film after knowing him for about two weeks ''tops!'' [[green:Padmé being stupid is in-character.]]

'''Result:''' Anakin's actions turn Padm&eacute against him, which leads to him Force choking her in a fit of rage. Both of these things lead to her dying after she gives birth to their kids; he ended up [[SelfFulfillingProphecy fulfilling the very prophecy he wanted to prevent.]] [[green:Anakin being stupid is in-character.]]

'''Instead:''' The Republic commits here the same mistake as the Trade Federation in Naboo and voluntarily meet the Separatists in the middle of neutral terrain. Also, oddly enough, the Republic forces are positioned in the ''least'' intuitive order: first the Wookie infantry, then the AT-AP charging forward, and only then the A6 following by. As a result, the clash ends up being an uphill battle for the Clones and one of the bloodiest fights ever for the Wookies. [[green:HollywoodTactics, not IdiotBall.]]

'''Instead''': Anakin's fears of Padmé dying, a fear Palpatine seems to know a bit too well, are ''only'' alleviated by the possibility of the chancellor's help to save her. [[green:Anakin being stupid is in-character.]]

'''Instead:''' Windu rudely ignores Anakin, forgetting he's still a significantly dangerous Jedi who is openly unsure of his alignment at the moment, and instead moves in dramatically for the kill, which drives Anakin to act reflexively to stop what he sees as a murder. His reaction ends up making Windu lose his arm and his lightsaber, which leaves him open to be killed by Palpatine. [[green:Windu being an arrogant asshole is in-character.]]

'''Instead:''' Palpatine admits that he can't cheat death. Fortunately, Anakin still decides to help Palpatine anyway. [[green:Palpatine being out-of-character '''doesn't affect the plot.''' And this example isn't even on the page--I wrote as an example here.]]

'''Instead:''' Anakin continues to do Palpatine's business for him, slaughters children, and eventually injures his wife by accident and gets dismembered, despite the fact that he now has zero evidence Palpatine can even fulfill his part of the bargain. [[green:Anakin being stupid is in-character.]]

'''Instead:''' They miss the hint and the several opportunities presented to them and just sit on their butts until Anakin arrives and... well, [[DeadlyEuphemism takes care of them]]. [[green:Gunray being a moron is in-character.]]

'''Instead:''' He says, "You underestimate my power". After Obi-Wan tells him "Don't try it", Anakin jumps at Obi-Wan right forward. With Anakin stuck on the momentum of his jump and open to attacks, Obi-Wan finds the perfect chance to do a lightsaber move that takes off as many of an opponent's limbs as possible. If Obi-Wan underestimated anything, he underestimated Anakin's tendency to lose limbs. [[green:Anakin being stupid is in-character.]]

'''Instead''': He leaves Anakin to a ''painful death'', assuming that it would be left to the will of the Force. However, Anakin survives, is rebuilt into a dark cyborg and becomes Sidious's powerful attack dog during the next 20 years of their reign over the galaxy, and Obi-Wan [[DoomedByCanon has to deal with the consequences.]] [[green:This is in-character for Obi-Wan.]]