The point of letting them know now is that people work hard to make this site great, and people (including me) consider it to be a refuge for finding acceptance. There Is No Such Thing As Notability is how I tried to live my life. Finding out we've been left out of the loop on purpose will hurt.
edited 15th Apr '12 11:24:05 PM by condottiera
More pluck than an Alabama banjo festivalWell, I mean no offense when I say this. But by coming into metawiki talks solely for when it deals with tropes/articles in question, you're implicitly allowing people that do also handle metawiki issues to make the decisions for you. I think this is the idea behind this post.
You know what though, I agree with you. It's part of a bigger issue of how much of a role the administration should play. The issue isn't the announcement of the changes but the actual changes themselves.
edited 15th Apr '12 11:27:22 PM by abstractematics
Now using Trivialis handle.I've learned long ago that I can't do everything myself, and sometimes I need other people to help me. I'm OK with other people making usual decisions about administration, because it leaves me time for other things and usually doesn't interfere with my tropeing. Interference has forced me to care, and I would not be here arguing about minutia right now if a page I wanted to see had not been deleted.
More pluck than an Alabama banjo festivalAlso, this is a thread about policy, and the policy pertaining to the announcement of aforementioned policy is also policy, and thus something we are here to discuss.
More pluck than an Alabama banjo festival(1) - The Wiki Talk
I forgot what discussion it was, but this was brought up before when I was present. The stance of the administration is that the forum is where the decisions are being made, and rather than trying to expand decision-making wiki-side, it's better to encourage people to participate. This was why Eddie changed the "forums" link from the homepage to "workshops", so that people can go straight to wiki-related subfora without being overwhelmed by all the cliques in the media subfora.
Have to say I support that decision. Maybe we still need to promote the forum more, but if some tropers are still refusing to participate for some bizarre reasons it's simply not their right anymore to complain. That said, this is a big decision, and I admit that in theory there should be a headline. In practice, however, a headline will possibly worsen the situation.
(2) - The tone of decision-making
For a while now I understand the stern, simplifying tone is what the administration prefers, (e.g. "It's simple. If it's paedo-shit, we cut it.") especially Eddie. It has been working very well, despite several problems, since it squashes all attempts of lawyering. Would go so far as to say I like it in less consequential issues.
This time, however, I don't think it's helping very much.
edited 15th Apr '12 11:38:24 PM by Catalogue
The words above are to be read as if they are narrated by Morgan Freeman.I'm going to have to reverse my stance back to my original one this is not a matter we can not post something about this isn't like Na Ka Ma and a single trope, or even Troper Tales. This is something which effects not only works and tropes but the entire mission of the wiki itself.
We cannot not make a mention of this, even if we are opening the flood gates of derail and complainers.
edited 15th Apr '12 11:38:00 PM by Vyctorian
Rarely active, try DA/Tumblr Avatar by pippanaffie.deviantart.comThat is just it: they don't have to be left out of the loop. In one sense, they are choosing to be left out of wiki policies/decisions by not visiting the place where most of the policy decisions are made: the left side of the forum (check the main forum page if you don't know what I am talking about).
If they notice the issue (like you did), they can come and add their thoughts. (True, this place can be hard to find, but that is a conversation that does not relate to the rest of this topic.} If they don't notice the issue in the first place, they probably would not have any helpful input.
The only thing an Announcement would do is bring people who don't have interest in the topic or have none of the cut pages in their watchlist of theirs into the conversation.
(Sorry if that did not make much sense, I need to go to bed)
I do think the issue needs to be better explained, but that can wait until we can explain the "solution" as well.
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!![]()
![]()
Great to have you here. Not everyone wants to participate in the argument, but they should know that it is going on. I was completely caught off guard by the cuts, and I'm still upset by them, at least in principle, because the only cut page I wanted to see was Lolita.
edited 15th Apr '12 11:40:02 PM by condottiera
More pluck than an Alabama banjo festival@Belian: I never made the choice to not participate in these fora because I didn't know about them. As soon as I did, I made that choice. That letting them know what's going on could change their minds as well speaks to my point here. Besides, the issue is letting people know what's going on, not whether or not they want to spend all their time in a forum. It's a matter of choice, but they should not be punished by having information that will effect every one on the site, not just people who use Troper Tales or admins, withheld from them.
More pluck than an Alabama banjo festival![]()
![]()
For purely practical reasons, I agree that this should be kept here until the council is formed.
Once it is formed, it's going to be a huge mess when you announce it. However, it's important enough that you guys should announce it anyways.
Full Battle ModeIndeed, abstractematics (if you don't mind this nobody butting in!)—I hardly ever come to these forums, and it's a whole culture (and technical setup) I'm not familiar with, as much as I love using the tropes wiki itself. I guess I'm really just a lurking newbie here, in a lot of the ways it counts. And it seems that's coming back to bite me, when big changes suddenly present themselves as a fait accompli. :(
Worse yet, now I'm worrying that anything I personally might try to add regarding the future of the site wouldn't make a difference, anyway. I'm just one voice, and a tiny, quiet one at that. :(
@Bobby: Thanks for answering my question. Yes, it was chiefly the cutting of Lolita that worried me, and what it might spell for works like Death in Venice, A Clockwork Orange and I, Claudius.
I have a few more questions about the processes involved with this policy. It might be too soon to think about them; please indicate if this is so.
- Are references to pornographic works in trope lists explicitly identifying them as pornographic content* now considered Kill on Sight? Or will there be an official announcement before we begin cutting these references?
- Will the appeals for each work function separately, or is there a degree of "common law"? Are we allowed to justify keeping/deleting a work X because work Y which is similar due to A, B, C reasons was kept/deleted by the committee?
- In a similar vein, will precedent be established for an individual article? If article X is deleted, appealed, and the decision is to restore, or if it's reviewed by the council and the decision is "keep", will flagging it again result in a re-evaluation or a simple statement that it's been looked at before?
- I don't know how feasible it is, but something to notify tropers trying to create a work page that we don't accept pornographic or paedophilic works would be nice. Something like "before creating this page, please check our Content Policy". A note on Work Pages Are A Free Launch would be good as well.
- Let's say a troper wants to create a page for a work that falls into the grey area (one which hasn't been cut before). Would it be appropriate to maintain a thread in Wiki Talk for the purposes of asking whether work X in the grey area is acceptable before creating a page, possibly requiring a committee member to comment? Or should it go through YKTTW?
Edited for mark-up.
edited 15th Apr '12 11:59:36 PM by Yuanchosaan
"Doctor Who means never having to say you're kidding." - BocajSo here's how this is going to go. Note: I am not a mod or psychic, I've just been on the internet longer then you have.
Once all the techy stuff is set-up and the council is formed Eddie will make an announcement. This will probably take the form of the little blue box on the left I ignore with a passion. Once this happens there will be a flood of editors who are angry either because A: They were not informed like the troper tales incident B: They're against censoring anything on moral grounds C: They really love troping porn and paedo material.
Group A will come around when they realize it was either this or no wiki. Group B will never come around cuz we're dicks like that and group C will be banned.
From here one of two things will happen. The plan will go forward despite peoples rage and it'll eventually die down to never be heard from again (fetish fuel, troper tales, etc) or B: Jesus descends from on high to give us all the money to run this place in line with our beliefs.
So yes, this is a major shift in wiki policy. We're censoring ourselves. We don't have much of a choice.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?@ranchoth: No your not. Be loud. Tell everyone.
edited 15th Apr '12 11:58:59 PM by condottiera
More pluck than an Alabama banjo festivalThey can't keep us from spreading the word grassroots style if they won't make an announcement.
All we'll have to tell is the truth.
More pluck than an Alabama banjo festivalThe truth of the matter is we are hosting content that is either pedo friendly or just straight up porn. This needs to go. It threatens the continued existence of the wiki and is also really fucking creepy.
There really is no reason to make an announcement yet. We aren't going to change course because we have no choice in the matter. This will be happening and no amount of angry tropers will change that.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?The reason to make an announcement is because people should be aware of what's going on. If they have objections to raise, then let them, even if there's whining and complaining. Everybody should get a chance to have a say in something as important as this.
More pluck than an Alabama banjo festivalNormally I'd agree with you. In this case, however, there isn't anything to discuss. This is happening. Should wait till we've got everything up and running before we turn on the floodgates and have the editors rushing in to argue for a few thousand posts.
edited 16th Apr '12 12:41:27 AM by thatguythere47
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?It shouldn't matter what's convenient for us. People have a right to know.
More pluck than an Alabama banjo festival
I have to agree with thatguythere on this one. It's more for purely practical issues than anything else. Wherever this wiki goes, tropers complaining won't help. This isn't a democracy. If, when all this is done, you don't like where the site ended up, then do the mature thing and leave quietly. That's what I plan to do anyways if I have any severe objections to how this site ends up.
If this forum is public, why do you want to keep it a secret?
More pluck than an Alabama banjo festivalSo some things are more public than others. Then how is it open to everyone?
More pluck than an Alabama banjo festival
Bluntly speaking it's not. This is an issue of practicality. Once the council is up and running, this site will be more prepared for the shitstorm that will occur.

Everyone I've mentioned this to who used TV Tropes at all was interested in this.
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful