a ymmv on the rapelay page

I'm simply following policy on YMMV "tropes".

No, you're not just following the policy—you're not saying "I'm not making a statement on whether it's a good idea, but there's no choice since the people who run tvtropes have decided on it".

You're trying to justify the policy. And your justifications are terrible—they are things like "it only takes one editor who disagrees to cause a problem" and "well, we're arguing about it here, so there could be argument on the page", which if taken seriously would condemn non-YMMV tropes as well.

"This example is not likely to lead to a dispute" is itself a subjective call

So leave it in until it actually does lead to a real dispute. If it does, then take it out.

That's how we deal with a lot of things that attract natter—tropes that shouldn't have examples, for instance. We don't declare in advance that all tropes should avoid examples as a preventative measure. Rather we decide to avoid examples if disruption happens or if we consider disruption to be likely. If we make the wrong judgment call and leave the examples in, we can always take them out later.

Well, no, technically, it's not. The current policy is completely different.

Anyway, the system that you're describing might have worked in theory, but in practice, it's basically the same as what we used to have. And back when we did have it, it didn't work. We tried it, it failed, and the folks in charge have made clear that they're not interested in trying it again and seeing if, this time, it'll work out somehow.

Rhymes with "Protracted."

But that leads to several problems:

• Trolls — or people who hold sincere but very strange or mistaken beliefs about things — can have substantial effects on page content simply by existing.
• The standards for "what goes on the YMMV page" become a function of the amount of traffic the page gets, leading to inconsistent style between works pages.

Solving those problems without enforcing a universal rule for YMMV stuff requires exercising a bunch of judgment — is this person a troll/weird person or do they have a reasonable point, is the amount of natter this particular example is attracting excessive or normal, and so on — for things that have been singled out precisely because judgment calls for them are hard.

Yes, you have to exercise a certain amount of judgment anyway. I'm not arguing with that. But what you're advocating boils down to "when it becomes hard to make judgment calls, we should have to make twice as many of them".

132 is the rudest number.

The point is that the difficulty of making judgment calls varies. Making the judgment call on the Rapelay page is actually pretty easy. Sure, you won't have 100% certainty, but you have enough certainty that it's like judgment calls that we do accept.

As for trolls, well, trolls are everywhere. Are they particularly likely there compared to, say, Big Eater?

edited 11th Feb '11 6:57:00 PM by arromdee

Yes. This is a work page with controversial matters (Rape), as opposed to a page about people who eat a lot. It's the type of thing that draws trolls in seeking a laugh.

There are too many toasters in my chimney!

The question isn't about trolls for the page in general, but trolls who cause trouble if Complete Monster is used as a trope. I doubt that there are many trolls who would cause trouble if that is added but who would not if it it's not.

The question was ' Are they particularly likely there compared to, say, Big Eater?'

You should know- you asked it, in the post immediately above mine.

There are too many toasters in my chimney!