Follow TV Tropes

Following

TV Tropes called out by The Mary Sue

Go To

Rotpar Always 3:00am in the Filth from California Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
Always 3:00am in the Filth
Jun 27th 2012 at 10:29:35 AM

That second article is fishy. Anonymous tips and our popular Hatedom providing telling evidence of the site's secret, protected, pedophile users? Riiiiiiiggghhhtttt.

But TVT is well-known for having a “no discussion on the main page” policy, as well as a “no negativity/no bashing” policy. What this seems to lead to is zero tolerance—if users respond with, “hey, that’s racist” when someone says something racist, then both the racist user and the offended user are banned

Well, yeah, if they're arguing the point on the page itself then they both get banned for arguing on the page. You get arrested if you're caught spray painting a wall, doesn't matter if you're tagging an important philosophical debate.

Tomorrow: the shocking expose as the TV Tropes' secret dirty laundry is revealed: the Fetish Fuel site.

"But don't give up hope. Everyone is cured sooner or later. In the end we shall shoot you." - O'Brien, 1984
jkbeta from right behind you Relationship Status: You cannot grasp the true form
Jun 27th 2012 at 10:30:09 AM

How about summarizing ccoa's post as a comment?

After some introductory blah, "We did look into the case of the user who claims they were banned for 'being rude to pedophiles'. This is not, in fact, true: The ban was given for completely different reasons, namely ...". Maybe provide a link to this thread?

32_Footsteps Think of the mooks! from Just north of Arkham Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
Think of the mooks!
Jun 27th 2012 at 10:44:29 AM

The problem is that we set ourselves up for dealing with even worse issues if the anonymous tipper isn't, in fact, the one identified here. "Oh, that wasn't our anonymous tipper... just how often do you deal with this issue?"

The only thing we can do is wait for actual evidence and address the issue as it comes up. Otherwise, we're just dealing with the Many Questions Fallacy. We're dealing with the Internet version of the "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" question. No matter which way we answer, they take it badly.

Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.
shimaspawn from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
Jun 27th 2012 at 10:47:55 AM

Yes, we banned someone for questioning US Bias. If by questioning US Bias you mean inserting rants about the glory of North Korea into articles at seemingly random places. There was no real research done into this second article. I can pull apart every single one of those criticisms, but I'm not going to.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
lu127 Paper Master from 異界 Relationship Status: Crazy Cat Lady
Jun 27th 2012 at 10:56:37 AM

The sad truth is, journalists care not so much for the validity of their statements, but more for the number of views they get.

喜べ
32_Footsteps Think of the mooks! from Just north of Arkham Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
Think of the mooks!
Jun 27th 2012 at 10:58:08 AM

@55 Some journalists do. I'm a lapsed journalist myself, and some of us care for the truth instead of numbers.

Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.
Jun 27th 2012 at 10:59:28 AM

What I don't understand with the second article is that it shifted topics. It first continued to talk of cleanup efforts and stressed the need for certain tropes to be there for the sake of information. But then it began to talk about some kind of deal to let banned users back, and about harboring pedophiles...? The tone/direction of the two halves of the article don't add up.

Now using Trivialis handle.
lu127 Paper Master from 異界 Relationship Status: Crazy Cat Lady
Jun 27th 2012 at 10:59:33 AM

That's good to hear. You don't see it very often. smile

喜べ
JapaneseTeeth from Meinong's jungle Relationship Status: Mu
Jun 27th 2012 at 11:16:43 AM

Oh look, alarmist journalism with obviously biased sources. Hmmm...what's the proper response to stuff like that?

Oh, right.

Reaction Image Repository
Jun 27th 2012 at 11:19:01 AM

[up]Actually, no, that just makes things worse...

Now using Trivialis handle.
JapaneseTeeth from Meinong's jungle Relationship Status: Mu
Jun 27th 2012 at 11:27:33 AM

What I mean is there's nothing we can really do to counteract it; whoever wrote that article is either horribly biased or suffers from a terrible case of Did Not Do The Research (unlikely given that we pointed them in the right direction in the first article). Since it seems that they don't really have an interest in listening to what we have to say, there's isn't much to do other than not get riled up about it. Getting all angry just gives the haters more reason to pull crap like this. At best, we can just explain the situation, and hope that the readers aren't going to take the article at face value.

Raging about how bad the article is will cause way more problems for the wiki's PR than going "Um, no, that's inaccurate." and moving on. If we ignore it, the haters will have to perpetuate the reaction themselves rather than allowing it to bounce back and forth between us and them.

edited 27th Jun '12 11:30:36 AM by JapaneseTeeth

Reaction Image Repository
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland Relationship Status: Mu
Jun 27th 2012 at 11:28:31 AM

Yes, this sounds like trolling on-a-long-range to me.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Jun 27th 2012 at 11:46:04 AM

[up][up]I do agree that the article is flawed and jumped to conclusions. That's why I wish there was a way to directly discuss the matter with the author; article sites like these sometimes bug me when the authors just write and leave but don't respond to any of the comments. Then we don't have a two-way communication going on.

Now using Trivialis handle.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex Relationship Status: Dancing with Captain Jack Harkness
Lost in Space
Jun 27th 2012 at 11:46:28 AM

Someone tell me why we care what these clowns think of us again.

edited 27th Jun '12 11:46:37 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
JapaneseTeeth from Meinong's jungle Relationship Status: Mu
Jun 27th 2012 at 11:50:12 AM

[up][up]The thing is, the fact that the second article continues to bitch about us implies to me that they're intentionally trying to make us look bad. With just the one article, I could buy that they just misunderstood what was going on. After the second one, it's evident that the author is, at best, willfully ignorant. One, I can understand. It's entirely possible to jump the gun and not get all the facts straight. But then doing it again after people have tried to point you in the right direction? Not so much.

Reaction Image Repository
lu127 Paper Master from 異界 Relationship Status: Crazy Cat Lady
Jun 27th 2012 at 11:57:39 AM

Eh, I'd say the sheer timing of the articles makes the motive obvious. Posting a disparaging article with questionable sources right after the issues on the first article were solved? Something stinks.

喜べ
ccoa Ravenous Sophovore from the Sleeping Giant
Ravenous Sophovore
Jun 27th 2012 at 12:01:00 PM

I'm not familiar with the site, but the article itself reads like something out of a tabloid rather than a true article. It's more "look how much dirt we can dig up, shocking, ain't it?" and "who cares if it's true, it sells papers!" sensationalism than anything else.

edited 27th Jun '12 12:02:28 PM by ccoa

Waiting on a TRS slot? Finishing off one of these cleaning efforts will usually open one up.
chihuahua0 Writer's Welcome Wagon from USA Relationship Status: I LOVE THIS DOCTOR!
Writer's Welcome Wagon
Jun 27th 2012 at 12:01:22 PM

Hmm...what about the other articles?

The dog days are over.
Jun 27th 2012 at 12:02:14 PM

The first article seemed reasonably written, but the second one seems very much written by someone with an agenda to push.

Jun 27th 2012 at 12:06:05 PM

Like I said, it's not really consistent, nor does it try to explain why the first half is relevant to the second IMO. It seems to try to take both sides - preserving the need of free information and keeping the site safe - but without a proper transition.

Now using Trivialis handle.
32_Footsteps Think of the mooks! from Just north of Arkham Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
Think of the mooks!
Jun 27th 2012 at 12:06:21 PM

Eh, it doesn't take a genius to figure out how the second article got written.

All of the things cited in the second article are from links that were included in comments either to the first article or on the Geek Feminism post linked to in the first place. If the TV Tropes piece got the readership, a lazy writer unconcerned with checking for evidence could just rehash those comments without actually investigating whether or not they were true, putting in enough so-called Weasel Words to cover themselves in the event that someone rattled the cage about libel.

It shows a lack of investigative talent and really looks like support for the "no" camp in the long-running "are bloggers actually journalists?" argument. But there's not much that really can be done other than ask that the claims be presented with evidence (I mean, if all this happened here on the forums, there should be links to the forum posts in question in the article). I personally don't make a habit of trying to refute baseless claims.

Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.
Akagikiba2 Scallywag from The TV Tropes Forums
Scallywag
Jun 27th 2012 at 12:32:41 PM

The person who got banned for allegedly questioning US Bias was Gilgameshkun, right? He had a history of unruly behaviour. Although the US Bias argument was the last straw, that thread wasn't the sole reason he got banned.

Jun 27th 2012 at 12:34:43 PM

US Bias? Can someone explain this? This is the first I've ever heard of it.

JapaneseTeeth from Meinong's jungle Relationship Status: Mu
Jun 27th 2012 at 12:37:18 PM

If I remember right, some guy kept spouting about how awesome North Korea was and how Americans were slandering it with lies and propaganda or something. Or that might be another incident.

edited 27th Jun '12 12:37:32 PM by JapaneseTeeth

Reaction Image Repository
Akagikiba2 Scallywag from The TV Tropes Forums
Scallywag
Jun 27th 2012 at 12:43:30 PM

The incident I'm talking about is this one. Nothing about North Korea in the OP's post but it's a notable incident where a troper questioned the US Bias.


Total posts: 148
Top

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:

/

Media sources:

/

Report