Needs a dramatic overhaul: GettingCrapPastTheRadar

As nice proof that the Radar remains highly contentious (and not YMMV, don't you dare think it is), nothing has a clear lead. This may be a while.

Just want to add something regarding the very blatant examples and Word of God proven examples options, both are just more of the same and will result in the same issue with the resolution pushed slightly further forward in time until someone gets pissed at the situation again.

Blatant examples only won't change anything as people are weird about what is blatant and what isn't, all the examples that exist right now were blatant enough that they had to be added, whether it's very blatant is left upto the flithy minded troper. All we're doing if we do this is taking the warning sitting at the bottom of the trope and making it red and slightly bigger.

Word of God is a tricky one because that requires proof, something we don't require here and not something many tropers will have readily. Anything can be construed as proven by the Word so you need to police it and keep it clean which won't happen easily as it does come back to relative ideas of what is proof and what isn't. Basically, the trope needs actual reform and not patching up the small holes whilst ignoring the wall which fell down a while back.

edited 8th Jun '11 1:06:14 PM by treelo

Bump.

Currently (June 10, 11:00 am):

+7 (yeas:10 nays:3) 3.33 : 1 Tighten definition to very blatant attempts

+4 (yeas:8 nays:4) 2.00 : 1 Restrict examples to those stated through Word Of God

All other options are at zero or negative.

edited 10th Jun '11 10:56:16 AM by Madrugada

Can you define blatant examples again?

I guess the problem is that "blatant" has never been all that well-defined.

Personally, I would go with examples in which content got in that should have been banned based on whatever rating that piece should have gotten (my favorite example is how Capcom got a graphic 8-bit depiction of Adolf Hitler exploding into pink goo in Bionic Commando during the days of extreme censorship - link here for the curious).

Though it occurs to me that might actually count as Refuge in Audacity - I mean, exploding heads is disgusting and generally not entertaining. Making Hitler's head explode? Yeah, that was fun, even when I was 11 and didn't have a great grasp of just how bad he was.

Still, I won't cast my vote until we get an exact definition.

Is blatant something that we can even use as a criteria? I've explained why not AFAIC up above but "blatant" seems to be something the writers knew wouldn't pass but ended up doing so anyway somehow. So I'd say it's something which seems outlandish enough that it's a surprise it did make it in, problem using that though is that wretched perspective thing making it inconsistent.

The two leading options are strange anyway, they weren't serious options due to them being unworkable and/or not changing anything but they're in the list because they were mentioned. Can I argue that they don't count because they do nothing to fix the issues with the trope?

edited 11th Jun '11 11:18:18 AM by treelo

I don't see any of the options fixing the trope honestly.

Well, the Cut one would... but I don't think anyone's going for that.

Specifically, I don't believe there is any way to prevent the page from being misused without cutting it altogether. A fix per se is impossible.

edited 11th Jun '11 4:25:13 PM by nrjxll

Clearly we have different definitions for "fix".

I'd accept 90% less "examples" than we have now as a fix. And yeah, cutting it out completely or having no examples at all are fixes (by which I mean limiting examples severely or having none as you can guess), just downright unpopular ones.

edited 13th Jun '11 10:44:02 AM by treelo

The crowner votes are currently going to very blatant attempts (expect another round of crowner voting for what "very blatant" means) whereas every other option is either zero or negative.

edited 13th Jun '11 10:50:14 AM by treelo

I don't think cutting it will help, because some pages have legitimate examples, but I think that a lot examples need to be moved either to Accidental Innuendo or to Parental Bonus. A lot of them also seem to be by fans who think that True Art Sticks It To The Man or something like that, when really what was shown is perfectly acceptable for the show's rating.

edited 13th Jun '11 8:28:02 PM by wuggles

Proposal for what constitutes "Very Blatant": If you need more than one sentence to explain why it counts, it doesn't count. Compound-complex sentences are right out.

I like that one, I personally think that and a very specific cap on just how many examples are needed would help. No reason I can see why this trope requires so many subpages regardless of how many times it appears, it doesn't need to be exhaustive does it?

The reason it has so many subpages right now is that the criteria for being an example is so low that it includes all sorts of things that aren't examples, either because there was no radar to get them past or because the radar wasn't concerned with them in the first place.

Madrugada's definition is a good one. With one sentence, we could see if the creators were really sneaking something pass the readers/radar or the Troper is just reading into things too much.

As long as it doesn't result in X Just X examples, I'm good for it.

X Just X gets cut, like anywhere else.

Alright. Seems we've come to a pretty clear crowner so where do people start with implementing this?

On at least one occasion, I have removed an example from Getting Crap Past the Radar. It adressed the reader, indignant that it had not been added before, and missed the point that it was already in an R-rated work.

Basing an entry's inclusion on what a ratings board says isn't a good idea. Limiting it to deliberate examples would mean that didn't matter.

(Metaphorically R-rated, it wasn't even a movie and had not been rated by a ratings board)

I meant in general, as that's one of the options.