*takes screenshot of first post*
The issue with Middle East threads, as I see it, is that the potential for flame wars is too high, as the past has (probably, 'cause to be honest I didn't read any of them) shown. So although your post was probably very well-written and respectful, new threads on the subject would not go so well. It's disappointing, but some things are really worth just giving up on after enough unpleasant experience. It's Why We Cant Have Nice Things. If I were you, I'd be glad the mods nuked my thread instead of leaving an embarrassing two-post locked thread with my name attached to it.
Requesting that this thread be moved to Wiki Talk.
I'm not crazy, I just don't give a darn!Hoo boy, this thread is gonna be fun.
Except the entire point of the post was that threads that weren't engendering flame wars are still getting nuked despite long lives.
edited 2nd Apr '12 8:59:20 PM by MorganWick
To me it unfortunately sounds like a whim... would like to see the screencap to try and confirm it, though the message reads like enough. Then again, in these cases it could perfectly just be a new or simply too tacit "one thread per subject" rule, which, while not bad, is problematic for internal organization.
As for the other changes in the wiki, yeah, we are apparently heading now towards the elimination of not only controversy but also the ability to reflect controversy. Right after the thread on "creepiness" or lewdness or whatever they want to call it now reached a notorious consensus on what to do, another similar thread was opened for depiction of violence, and the creepiness thread went on a long tangent on Zeta Ryuki or whatever the thing is called. I'm assuming soon threads on depiction of religions will be opened as well.
The thing is, those threads so far have been quite well controlled and have not gone into producing purgings or retcons (the violence one in particular is working on defining things well in consideration to international standards, for example), but I have the feeling they are being seen as a "good" opportunity to force "one single thought" over the "one single voice" concept of the wiki.
Fanfic Recs orwellianretcon'd: cutlocked for committee or for Google?One of the threads was nuked because it was devolving quickly into flames and paedo-appolgy, both are against site rules.
The other was nukes for yet another flame war requiring moderator intervention.
The threads are not as blameless as the OP makes them sound. Both of them had ongoing issues that came to a head. It's more bad timing that it happened now than anything.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickI remember there were at least two OTC threads about the "Anonymous try to shut down entire internet thing". Both were deleted because it was confirmed as a hoax. But, I can't help but think that the second one would never have gotten created if the first one was simply locked and that the OP for the second thread would have easily seen it was a hoax. The first thread didn't even get very far until it was discovered to be a hoax.
edited 2nd Apr '12 9:23:26 PM by ThatHuman
somethingThis site is about storytelling, not current event controversies. Hard to tell that from the moderation viewpoint, since all the work comes from current event controversies.
Seriously, all the junk about people's religions, politics, and sexual tastes is just a nuisance to host. On top of that, nobody really has anything new to say about any of this. They just want to take up positions and squabble. Not in the least bit entertaining to people not involved in the spat.
edited 2nd Apr '12 9:24:54 PM by FastEddie
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty"On top of that, nobody really has anything new to say about any of this. They just want to take up positions and squabble. Not in the least bit entertaining to people not involved in the spat."
And it's not always fun for those caught within them either.
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.The reason I opened the thread on the depiction of violence was that I think it's silly to ban links to explicit sex if we don't ban links to explicit violence. I would be fine with allowing links to both explicit sex and explicit violence, but since Fast Eddie has said we can't link explicit sex . . .
Anyways, depictions of graphic sex and depictions of gruesome violence are often disgusting, but I don't think depictions of religious offensiveness can be anything more than irritating. Thus, there is no reason why bans on graphic sex and graphic violence would reasonably lead to bans on links to religiously offensive content. (Content in the forums that's deliberately defamatory to religion has been banned for a very long time, and that ban is unlikely to be lifted anytime soon, but that's based on different reasons.)
Now, with that said, do I think we have a problem? Absolutely! I just think the purge of NSFW content is a byproduct of the mindset that also leads to the problem, not a part of the problem in and of itself.
edited 2nd Apr '12 10:41:43 PM by feotakahari
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something AwfulAnd then you get people who seem determined to misunderstand the simplest things.
We can have RECOMMENDATIONS and ARTICLES about works that have explicit sex. Just not pedophila. We'd rather not have links to visual pornography. This is the extent of the restrictions. There was nothing said about any other restriction.
edited 2nd Apr '12 11:25:42 PM by FastEddie
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
Diagonalizing The Matrix
Now if we get people making example descriptions that are basically written Gorn, then we might see something that would reflect badly on this wiki.
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.Eddie basically covered what I was thinking here. If current event controversies keep requiring attention to prevent constant flame wars, then something must be done. It's one of those things that is completely off-mission and yet we have to police it endlessly. It's not helping our work in any way, it just keeps causing problems. I honestly hate having to see topics banned, but when the userbase has proven they obviously can't handle it, it seems like the only way to go.
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer
I can't help but disagree. The first sentence (watching current even threads and policing them repeatedly) is literally the job of every moderator of every topic of every forum of every site that's ever existed. While it's annoying to have people constantly have to sift through topics that shoot through 30-40 pages in a single day, that's not a failing of the site so much as it's a demonstration of how successful the site is. If we need to implement some sort of "Slow Mode" for problem topics (restricting posts to only one per hour if it starts jumping from 10 posts per hour to 70 posts per hour), that would be a more effective strategy than closing entire topics wholesale.
I have to say that some of the discussions on passionate subjects/current events have helped me shape and grow, and (in turn) has led to me discovering new tropes and becoming more involved in the site as a whole. To that end, I can't say I would understand the idea of touting the site as a place that seeks to avoid controversy.
edited 3rd Apr '12 7:11:28 AM by KingZeal
In case you haven't noticed, the mission of TV Tropes is to talk about Tropes in Media. Being a forum for current events discussions is nowhere implied. We have an On-Topic Conversations forum because people want to gab about this stuff, but if it comes down to a question of utility, it loses, as does most of the right-hand side.
So that it doesn't have to come down to that, we are being strict in what topics of conversation are allowed.
We expect our users to monitor themselves and call us when there are problems. If a topic comes up that we believe will be difficult for people to control themselves in, we don't allow it.
edited 3rd Apr '12 7:14:44 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
Moderation here has nowhere near enough staff to actually police anything other than Ask The Tropers and the Hollers thread. They are here to come when they are called, more like an ambulance than police.
That's why we are supposed to exercise some amount of self-policing, and it means that precautionary measures are necessary so that problems can be avoided before they need moderator attention.
Also, like
says we are here for tropes more than for controversial topics.
edited 3rd Apr '12 7:14:23 AM by SeptimusHeap
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman![]()
![]()
But the mods have both the wiki and the forums to take care of, with the former being more important than the latter, since it's the site's mission. And when we have to police the issue endlessly, but still get epic shitstorms on our hands (take a look at the "Appeal to the moderation" thread throughout December), then it really becomes straining for all parties involved.
In addition, those conversations follow a very distinct pattern. Someone comes in expressing inflammatory opinions for some reason, and then we get ad hominem attacks. It's become really tiring. And if I recall correctly, the very first post be Fast Eddie in OTC states that he expects some self-moderation from the forum.
edited 3rd Apr '12 7:20:22 AM by lu127
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - FighteerI seriously have never been part of a forum in which the general discussion part of the forum has discouraged the topic of general discussion (unless the topic was seriously twisted, like pedophilia, pirating or things that could be bring legal culpability). Yes, I understand that you're short staffed. But that's also why those forums usually had more mods dedicated to solely policing problem subforums.
I mean, of course, in the end, Eddie is captain of his own ship, but I'm just offering what I hope to be constructive criticism.
edited 3rd Apr '12 7:20:36 AM by KingZeal
There are lots of other places on the planet to have discussions about politics, religion, sexuality and what ever video game everyone is all upset about this time but this place is the only place to talk about and collect tropes. Things that pull energy away from that don't help.
So ninja'd
edited 3rd Apr '12 7:26:38 AM by blackcat
![]()
You continue to make the fundamental error of assuming that this site is about its forums. It is not. It's about the wiki. However, far more of our time as moderators is spent handling forum issues than wiki issues. You can be sure — make no mistake about this — that when the forums become more trouble than they are worth, they go.
Also ninjaed, slightly.
edited 3rd Apr '12 7:27:20 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"No I'm not. 99% of the sites that have forums are not "about its forums", but the forums inherently become a huge part of the site. That's how things go, and to deny that is the "fundamental error". And remember, this is a wiki, which relies upon voluntary user participation. This isn't an editorial or commercial site. It would be like claiming that the purpose of a democratic government is to "make and enforce rules" and that political discussion forums and public opinion are unimportant. Even if the forums are only tangentially related to the process of making and documenting tropes, it's fallacious to assume that stymieing the forums is the most immediate solution.
In short, most tropers come for the tropes but stay for the forums. Your "if X happens, the forums go" solution is essentially shooting the entire wiki in the foot.
edited 3rd Apr '12 8:08:08 AM by KingZeal
I gotta agree with Zeal there - I did, more or less, come for the tropes but stayed for the forums. Of course, I participate more in the forums that are about the tropes, but the point still stands.
"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.I've got to admit that the second of the two threads went in an aggressive direction; that would almost certainly have spiralled into a flame-war if it had been allowed to continue on. My view is the mods made the right call there; there was way too much drama starting up in that thread.
It didn't help that one of the posters involved was severely misunderstood during that thread, making things look a hell of a lot worse than they actually were. Lets just say Poe's Law and Poor Communication Kills were in full effect and leave it at that.
I... also admit I fucked up. Posting at 1AM in the morning with a belly full of sugar on an issue I get heated about is never a good idea. It ended as well as it always does.
edited 3rd Apr '12 8:40:47 AM by GameChainsaw
The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

First of all, I am not arguing for the threads and/or the topics to be reopened for discussion.
I simply write to express my concern about some recent new policies that have been implemented around the forum. A while ago, a fairly civil thread on sexual majority laws was banned. Moments ago, a thread on Israel that had been going for years, with its ups and downs but mostly showing a positively brilliant track record given how sensitive the topic is, was cut in one single move. Some days before, it was suggested that, because it might be difficult to tell the fanfictions with sexually explicit content involving individuals under the age of sixteen from the rest, it might be a good idea to excise Fanfic Recommendations entirely. Thankfully, a crowner was opened, and it was a unanymity that thought that might not be the best response.
I can't help but fear that our leadership might be considering eliminating every single source of controversy on the wiki, and that they are growing less and less interested in hearing the users' input on that at all: I opened a thread to discuss the closure of the Israel thread, spent quite some time writing as persuasive an argument as I could... and it was nuked! Not dismissed, not closed with one short answer, but nuked. Thankfully it was still open in another tab. I have saved it, in case I am asked to produce it. And what was the message?
I can't help but feel there's a definite change of direction in the way our leadership is handling conflict sources. I just want to understand what motivates it, how far it might go*, and if a compromise where all parties are the happiest can be reached. Of course, compromise isn't, strictly speaking, indispensable, and arbitrariness is, without doubt, an option. But I have the audacity to hope that our hosts and benefactors can be persuaded to to allow us to continue to try to persuade them.
Or something like that.
edited 2nd Apr '12 7:50:02 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.