Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment - Violations, misuse, and other issues

Any thoughts on what I should do for the Vinesauce entry?

I think it's OK to mention in vague terms. There don't seem to be a lot of negative comments on the video where Vinny announced the end of the Art Corner (actually quite the opposite, the comments seem to be wishing Vinny's mental health well,) and I really don't think many people believed any of the alleged claims against him, so I think it's OK to mention (in vague terms, of course, to avoid any contention in case I'm wrong.)

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Sep 1st 2021 at 9:01:17 AM

Found on Loot Boxes:

"Your Mileage May Vary on whether lootboxes are a detriment: While a lot of allegedly free games use them as a Paper-Thin Disguise to hide that they allow Bribing Your Way to Victory, some (mostly mobile) games allow them to be earned freely, some have the lootboxes only contain Cosmetic Awards, some allow the purchase of items contained inside them through other means, some have the lootbox acquisition be parallel to just playing the game and not dropped along with your average random loot drops, and some utilize lootboxes as their only way of monetising a Free-to-Play model. It's the vast difference in business models surrounding lootboxes that has made the general public skeptical of them, considering that one lootbox system may be wildly different to another despite appearing to be the same on the surface. Some countries in the European Union (namely, Belgium) have given up on attempting to differentiate them altogether, filing away any and all lootboxes under laws pertaining to underage gambling. The vast difference also makes it a pain to trope them sometimes."

I know Tropes Are Tools and all, but do we really need a paragraph defending loot boxes?

Uh yikes we really have that as part of the description.

The Quotes page of God Is Evil is most filled with people claiming the Abrahamic God is evil in the the Real Life folder. This strikes me as a flame war waiting to happen. Should I cut Real Life Quotes?

Edited by TheLivingDrawing on Sep 4th 2021 at 7:51:27 AM

That's an actual quote from the page. I love George Carlin, but this is way too contentious for TV Tropes. Slice and dice. We do not need any more religion-related flame wars.

Shame, there are some really good quotes there.

EDIT:

This should come as Web Original, right? It's from Yahtzee's Too Human review (before a comparison to Greek Mythology).

Edited by HighfalutinQuelea on Sep 4th 2021 at 8:19:47 AM

Well, I think "good quotes" is a bit contingent upon whether someone is religious or non-religious, which is why I argued for a cut. I'm a weird mix of Christian and agnostic myself, so I interpret the quotes differently than someone else would.

That being said, TV Tropes isn't interested in people's arguments about religion or atheism. Go to Reddit if you want to have a place to endlessly argue against religion. TV Tropes is a wiki, not a social network. As I said, the quotes section can go.

Also that quote might need to go altogether for being too contentious.

EDIT: I just wanted to clarify that I was not meaning to insult or denigrate you in any way. I hold nothing against people who are not religious. This is just a very sensitive topic for me so I overreacted. I apologize.

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Sep 4th 2021 at 11:35:35 AM

So...A user by the name of TV Guy 2001 wrote this during the end of August on page of YMMV/Cuties.

• What Do You Mean, It's Not for Kids?: Despite its innocent title and starring of young girl actors, the movie is intended for adults audiences, specifically the feminist SJW crowd who criticize the age-inappropriate behavior of adolescent girls in mainstream society through the likes of TikTok and similar social platforms popular with the teen crowd. It features major up-close focus on the sexual dance moves and clothing of underage girls, pretty frequent Cluster F Bombs, a (thankfully off-screen) transmission of a child pornography image, and depictions of cultural abuse of a child to all prove that the movie certainly isn't suitable for minors. Despite all this, Common Sense Media rates the movie with an age recommendation of 15+.^note Which doesn't exactly mean that a movie is child friendly, but it's rated TV-MA in the United States, which recommends viewers to be at least two years older to watch the program without parental supervision. However, this movie definitely pushes the limit for even an R rating and would definitely be warranting of NC-17 should it have been rated by the MPA.

Edited by Stardust5099 on Sep 4th 2021 at 9:58:21 AM

That troper came up recently for removing sections of Dan Schneider that dealt with his controversies. I suspect an agenda, as I said last time he came up until he convinced me (wrongly, probably) that he didn't have an agenda.

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Sep 4th 2021 at 8:24:08 AM

A rewrite is in order though “15+“ is probably pushing it for the trope so it should probably just be cut.

I suspect an agenda too; the use of "SJW" or any other snarlword for that matter was and is always red flag for me.

Edited by Stardust5099 on Sep 4th 2021 at 9:48:42 AM

Since we're taking a harder stance on political commentary works like Louder with Crowder & The Young Turks, I think we should take a look at Cenk Uygur, Kyle Kulinski, and Hasan Piker. Not only do they trope the people themselves, does their content consist of anything other than political advocacy? At least Crowder had the occasional skit comedy and hidden camera prank every other episode, these guys just sit in front of a camera with little to no creative design. They're in the same boat as Ben Shapiro.

Edited by Morgenthaler on Sep 6th 2021 at 3:01:16 AM

Don't know about Piker (I don't watch TYT) but Uygur and Kulinski are politics-only channels. No tropable content there. They can probably be cut.

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Sep 5th 2021 at 5:46:17 AM

Today I found out we have a page for the Babylon Bee and I am interested in how we would cover something like this. Entirely political with no ongoing narrative, but it's a website, not a webcomic. It generally doesn't say anything as openly inflammatory or inappropriate as Stonetoss, but is still very much "Hahaha, trans people, am I right?"

My instinct says that this wouldn't be a cut, but the page for Ben Shapiro was more inoffensive than this and that went.

We also have a page for The Onion, another site that mostly consists of political satire. I think both are definitely much more trope-able than a radio talk show program. They both are parodying newspaper articles, which are works with well-established conventions, and often involve comedic or fantastical elements^note like this article that uses Alien Abduction, Flying Saucer, and Mars Needs Women that are covered by plenty of TV Tropes articles. I don't think there's any particular reason to cut either.

Also while I very much dislike the Bee, it's not "entirely political" any more than the Onion is. It has a right wing slant but I've seen non-political content from it too, I believe. Both are satirical fiction (that don't try to hide their politics) with some actual narratives and thus tropable.

Edited by mightymewtron on Sep 7th 2021 at 4:05:58 AM

The page for Anal Cunt is an abomination. There is constant troping of real people and random insults on there, such as calling Gene Simmons "the physical manifestation of the Greedy Jew trope" or troping the frontman of the band by calling him a Jerkass and a Addled Addict. The worse part is that some of it is not so easily fixable since the real people troping is mixed in with how it relates to some of the music.

Edited by NonsenseBearer on Sep 8th 2021 at 6:50:29 AM

From what little I know of the band, they are tropable, so we just need a massive rewrite to fix the page.

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't trying to imply they weren't. Just that the page has issues.

Oh no I agree, I wasn't saying you were implying anything.

Are there any stand-out entries that need work that we can start with?

It seems the music is being used as an excuse to trope Seth Putnam himself. I also had to reduce the Troll entry to a single sentence due to it going into detail about his personal life.

Edited by NonsenseBearer on Sep 8th 2021 at 8:03:49 AM

Hmm, the impression I got is that the example wasn't saying Gene Simmons is a Greedy Jew, rather it was about how the song describes him like that.

Also, you turned Troll into a textbook Zero-Context Example. It should just have been deleted outright instead of reduced into a single short sentence that doesn't say anything meaningful about the trope or the band.

That entry can just go for troping real life people.

I was looking over an entry on Glurge about a climate change PSA that seems to stem from a troper with an agenda, and the person's logic was that another PSA about Prop 8 was listed as Glurge as well. The other one was cut but here's the example that is still on the page:

• There was an ad promoting Proposition 8 (a law which banned gay marriage in California) featuring a cute, little blonde girl playing with Barbie dolls. While the ad seemed sweet on the surface, advocates for gay rights would see this as a way of using children (who don't really understand what it is they're doing) to promote homophobia.

My concern with this entry isn't calling out the ad, because like, fuck homophobes. But I'm wondering if A) this is better suited for another trope like Appeal to Pity or Children Are Innocent, as it isn't really clear on how the "inspirational" aspect of the trope plays into the ad, and if B) we should avoid listing political PSAs as Glurge to avoid accusations of "exploiting children" and such.

For more context, here's the entry that was cut.

• Climate change activist groups and organizations like Science Moms and The Climate Pledge feature children in their advertisements, tugging at people's heartstrings with trite statements that usually amount to something like, "If you don't do something our children won't have a world to live in."

It used to have a note at the end insulting climate change groups too, but that was obviously removed. Are either or both of these entries okay to stand as long as they focus on the presentation of the ad, not the message?