![]()
![]()
![]()
edited 20th May '11 7:34:33 PM by SavageOrange
'Don't beg for anything, do it yourself, or else you won't get anything.'@ DS: I'll see what I can do.
@ Eric: I already have mod powers here, actually. Nevermind, you meant OPs in general, right? Yeah, don't see that happening, sorry.
I think Eddie and Maddy might throttle me, and deservedly so, if I suggested something like that again.
This is pretty much the OFH.
edited 20th May '11 7:40:37 PM by BobbyG
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staffedited 20th May '11 9:06:35 PM by EricDVH
Well, it's not happening, I'm afraid. It's certainly not within my powers to do something like that. If you want to propose something like that to Eddie, go ahead, but I was rather hoping those kinds of extreme measures wouldn't be necessary.
ninja'd
edited 20th May '11 9:03:40 PM by BobbyG
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The StaffDid you know that IJBM still exists
? It's no longer run by TV Tropes and is considerably smaller but no less shitpost-prone than before, but it's still there. Of the three you mentioned, IJAM isn't nearly as megathread prone as OFH or YF, but it's hardly a place to hold debates, so I guess it's not what you're looking for.
But this is off topic.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The StaffBit of a Thread Hop, though I have read the whole thing— It seems less like we have an echochamber going on, and more that we have a handful of folks who have a few pet issues that they deviate really far from the norm on. As a result, either get a Blue-and-Orange Morality thing going on, where no one seems to understand how they could hold that opinion, or they're ostensibly on one "side," but they're so far on that side that even those guys don't agree with 'em.
That set of guidelines, however, looks good. I wouldn't suggest splitting this along serious and 'fun', although it may be worthwhile to have a "Current Events" forum to talk about things in the news, and a main OTC for general "hey, how do you feel about this issue?" kind of stuff.
They lost me. Forgot me. Made you from parts of me. If you're the One, my father's son, what am I supposed to be?And the other problem is that they seem to work their pet issues into threads that have nothing to do with it. Yes, I'm a bit of a Single-Issue Wonk when it comes to religious freedoms, but I don't wander into a thread on, say, vegans and start coloring my arguments with it.
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -DrunkscriblerianYeah I wouldn't go as far as banning people with a Single Issue Wonk whom work it into every thread, but more warn them, and try to get them to not insert said issue in every thread.
After all, differing views make for interesting discussion. At least for me, it's always interesting to see other's views even if I don't agree with them.
Doing what moderators are, by definition, supposed to do is no extreme.
Mark, there are numerous examples of Single Issue Wonks who were warned about their behavior, and either never changed, or who cleaned up their acts for a day or two at most before going back to their old habits. That method simply does not work.
edited 20th May '11 10:48:32 PM by EnglishIvy
Yeah, but banning should only be done if the person makes a major infraction, like posting blatant pornography or repeatedly and aggressively attacking other posters. If anything, I'd say rewriting the rules to emphasize that you should point out to the problem poster what he or she is doing wrong, point towards the rules, and suggest making a new topic if necessary. If the poster continues to infringe, just ignore. Really, I just think this forum needs a slight change in attitude, more than anything.
edited 20th May '11 10:50:18 PM by Usht
The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.*shrug* I guess. I guess it's more that I consider most people here, if not friends, interesting people, and would rather not see them banned. For instance, I like seeing Mark Von Lewis inject alcohol into a conversation. It's entertaining, even if it were technically against the rules.
edited 20th May '11 10:50:42 PM by Wulf
They lost me. Forgot me. Made you from parts of me. If you're the One, my father's son, what am I supposed to be?There's a vast difference between drunkposting outside of OTC, and posting about, say, how all governments are turning into Big Brother and we should become anarchists, even in threads where that has nothing to do with anything. That gets disruptive really fast.
edited 20th May '11 10:53:41 PM by EnglishIvy
I like seeing it too. It means the young padawan has learned his lessons well.
Which does, ironically enough, bring up an important point; When does harmless exuberance become harmful intent? At what point do we smack down irrelevant posters instead of congratulate them?
If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~EDIT: ![]()
Good question because even a light hearted joke can be taken the wrong way during a particularly heated discussion. Perhaps when only when it doesn't directly involve another poster?
edited 20th May '11 10:59:40 PM by Usht
The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.My thoughts: It is vital that we draw a distinction between Single-Issue Wonk types derailing threads and people with unpopular views stating their opinions on a thread and being pounced on by the majority for it. Only in the former case is it the fault of the person with the unpopular opinion, and the latter is precisely the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say that this board is generally hostile towards non-majority viewpoints here. I also agree with Mark that differing views make for more interesting discussions.
So, here's an example scenario of how things could go. Suppose That Troper really doesn't like the Bush administration. In fact, he thinks they're so dreadful that he really, honestly holds them responsible for just about everything, from global warming to those moronic viewers failing to appreciate his favourite television show.
So, say tropers are having a discussion about Finnish politics and That Troper comes in and starts arguing that the Bush administration are directly or indirectly responsible for the True Finns' victory, something which makes That Troper very angry. The worst case scenario here is that the thread is derailed for pages and pages as tropers try to argue that no, this has nothing to do with the Bush administration while That Troper insists that it does. We want to avoid this.
Under the proposed guidelines, That Troper is required to actually have an argument to support his claims when they are contested. If he doesn't, he will be asked to drop the subject or leave the thread altogether. This will not prevent him from making the argument if he has an actual point to make, but I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing; this is an opportunity for a reasonable and potentially interesting discussion. If, however, this discussion moves away from the original topic, as has a tendency to happen, then those participating will be asked to take it to a new thread (any objections to adding that to the guidelines, by the way?).
That way, That Troper is not punished or discriminated against for having strong opinions regarding the malevolent influence of the Bush Administration, but at the same time, is not permitted to derail every thread on the board (or indeed any thread) in his efforts to explain how they were ultimately responsible for Russian violence against homosexuals, Cubs' poor performance against Red Sox yesterday, the Spanish Inquisition, etc.
Now, regarding jokes, I don't like the idea of prohibiting or restricting them with any kind of rule. Sounds a little anti-fun. Maybe we could simply include a reminder to apply the Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgement when making them, and to bear in mind that it can be difficult to read intent over the Internet?
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The StaffI'd just like to plainly and clearly place my vote for no changes. I like OTC just the way it is, I don't want to see it split, and I'm actually ok with short-distance derails. Mega-threads don't bother me hugely, nor do multiple threads on the same topic* , and I've got no complaints against the various mods that hang out here* .
Of course, my other usual forum has a moderator that only bans spammers, and it's full of name-calling and insults, so perhaps I'm used to standing around a forum in an asbestos suit watching the fireworks.

@Bobby: good idea. Make sure the text is large, and flashes. If it isn't huge and shiny the geeks might miss it.
If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~