Obligatory explanation for adding or removing a hat on YKTTW

I think that it should be obligatory to leave an explanation for why you add or ESPECIALLY remove a hat, perhaps through a drop-down menu or writing it yourself in a proper field (or maybe both, with the latter being useful for a more detailed explanation if needed). I would also suggest that such explanations should be visible to everyone, complete with the names of people who added/removed a hat.

It's been already way too many times when someone removed a hat from one of my YKTTW without bothering to tell me why, leaving me with an impression that this was done by some douchebag who did it only because he didn't like me or the trope. If an actual, reasonable explanation was included, I could accept it as an actual critique.

What do you think?

Methinks it's a good idea. I would extend it to the flags, too - they also generate complaints.

I agree, this seems like a good idea.

Well I think the hats is supposed to be a secret vote type of thing. It's meant to be a anonymous vouch of support and prevent someone from singling out an individual for their action. Note it's not a + or - counting system but simply offer a hat or take it away.

edited 14th Jul '14 1:40:43 AM by KJMackley

I don't recall seeing anybody being "singled out". Far less commonly than complaints about things not being explained, at any rate.

How do you know that's because anonymity's unnecessary as opposed to doing its job? Since hats and hat removals are only associated with specific people when they say so, they're only opening themselves up to being "singled out" if they want to, are they not?

The hat is supposed to be a shorthand for the trope meeting all the criteria on the checklist for being ready to launch, and as such there's not much to add to that unless you're not using the hat properly to begin with. On the other hand, if you remove a hat it should come with an explanation for what criteria it fails to meet.

I am not seeing too many people who explain their objections being "singled out" or harassed. Certainly not as frequently than unexplained de-hatting.

If people are being singled out, that's something you report. Nobody should be treated badly under any condition.

That's not something to worry about. You should explain both reasons. If you think it's good to go, there's no reason not to tell us why. It doesn't have to be much. That type of fear-mongering only makes to so people refuse to speak up about their opinions and does nothing healthy for this site.

To clarify, I suggested that it should be added also for adding a hat, since I've seen people complain about hats being added to freshly created YKTT Ws by their own creators, so an obligatory explanation would discourage such behaviour and/or make it more evident.

If a drop-down menu and a field for written explanation were both included (with the latter being optional, I'd say), it wouldn't take much effort to select a proper option from the menu, and it would still make a potential misuse evident.

edited 14th Jul '14 10:49:53 PM by ZuTheSkunk

Seems like the thing to do there is to simply prevent YKTTW creators from adding hats to their own drafts, either for 24-72 hours after creation, until someone else edits their draft, until someone else has added a hat, or some other period. Don't know how tough that would be to code though.

I think it should be "some other period" and that period should be "indefinitely".

I agree that adding a hat to your own YKTTW is bad. Some of these people have no idea how to write a page.

I didn't include "at all" because I still cling to the notion of YKTTW drafts as wiki-pages-in-waiting that anyone can edit and no one has ownership of a draft and I couldn't finish that with a straight face.

I find it odd that people are allowed to remove hats they themselves did not place.

A "Hat" means that This Troper thinks that the page is ready to publish. Even though Report Siht thinks (likely rightly) that the page is still in serious need of repair, Report should not be allowed to remove This's endorsement.

That being said, there should be a method of expressing displeasure with how a YKTTW is being constructed. My idea is to add an "anti-hat", e.g. a "Skull", with the guideline that pages should have as few "skulls" as possible.

Also, there should be a notification system wherein anyone who adds a hat or "skull" to a YKTTW, plus the OP of the YKTTW, is insta-notified when a hat or "skull" is added to (or removed from) that YKTTW, so that they may read any endorsing/dissenting comments.

And, yes, the Original Proposer shouldn't be allowed to add a hat. They may, however, add (and later remove) a "skull" whenever they think the page has strayed too far from their original vision (whether for good or ill).

EDIT: I do like the idea of at least a drop-down with common reasons, BTW.

EDIT 2 (9/27) to Avoid Thread Necromancy: 5 Hats + 5 Skulls would be the same as No Hats + No Skulls. Under my idea, a YKTTW would have needed 5 more Hats than Skulls to be launchable. Granted when several people are plopping hats and skulls, 55-50 becomes the same as 5-0. Then again, that's a problem with the current system.

edited 27th Sep '14 5:58:57 PM by DonaldthePotholer

I can remove a hat I didn't place because YKTTW doesn't require unanimity. Hats are way of gauging consensus. Three people think it's ready to launch and give it hats. Fine. Now, how do the five who think it isn't indicate their opinion if they can't remove a hat without having given one first?

Adding a "skull" feature: Why got to the trouble? It's more coding, and more fuss to no benefit. Which one trumps, hats or skulls? If a YKTTW has five hats and five skulls, which one wins? Do we get a bad launch, because there were five hats? or do we get what may be an excellent trope discarded because five people didn't like it and gave it skulls?

edited 1st Aug '14 5:36:56 AM by Madrugada

I'd like to throw in my support for requiring explanations for hat removals and, on top of that, MTD's, because I got one MTD for the YKTTW presently known as Erostratic Infamy Seeker (despite the fact that previously others were fine with just changing its name) and two for its German translation, Der Herostrat. To me, that's completely out of left field. What's going on?

Koveras's first comment is the only thing that would justify the tag. And since that issue is moot, it can be removed.

Bumping to gauge interest.

100 agreed

Given the current TLP design, there should most certainly not be any more hurdles to throwing a bomb in.

As-is, there's three ways to comment on a TLP: Throw in a hat, toss a bomb, and leave a comment.

Comments should be made, but they're really easily ignored. And bombs are already rare, because they're listed as "Discard" and, well, a bomb, which makes it seem like throwing a bomb in is saying "I want to discard the TLP altogether, not discard one hat" and hats are effectively used as "I am voicing my support for this idea and don't realize or care that a hat means 'this is ready to publish' not 'this is potentially a trope.'"

Not that bombs even matter, since I've seen a TLP launched with 6 hats and 3 bombs, which seems... bad.