On the use of Hats and Bombs

This probs was suggested already but it would be nice if there was a way to make people write down their reasons for bombing/hatting so they won't do it and just leave without providing feedback.

Macron's notes

Sadly, there's nothing in the code to enforce that, and it doesn't seem like that code would be written any time soon. In the meantime, I can and do try to lead by example, but admittedly my presence on Trope Launch Pad is too sporadic to really start a trend.

If not for this anchor I'd be dancing between the stars. At least I can try to write better vampire stories than Twilight.

I've been trying, too.

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Here's my ten cents.

I, for one, agree that hats should only mean "launch". I mean, it literally says so when you go to click the hat!

To be honest, I don't know what bombs mean. I used to think they meant "discard" but that was only because they're the opposite of hats and discarding is the opposite of launching.

I think the trouble might be that the people in charge don't define what bombs are for. There should be a "So , you're saying..." disclaimer for bombs as well as hats.

I also totally agree that "launch/discard" and "good idea/bad idea" should be separate.

For every low there is a high.

There is.◊

Trouble Cube continues to be a general-purpose forum for those who desire such a thing.

Oh! So bombs are to take back hats! Then how come it's possible to bomb something that's never been hatted? [wishes there was a thinking emoji here]

For every low there is a high.

Think of them as the Anti-Hat. Hats launch and can be used to balance out a bomb. Bombs discard and balance hats. Hats launch, Bombs destroy, both can be used to "cancel out" the other. ...And, also, if we couldn't bomb a draft with no hats, there'd be no discarding some drafts.

Edited by WarJay77 on Sep 24th 2019 at 9:19:18 AM

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

The problem is continuing. Recently, I've noticed a few underprepared drafts getting a mass amount of hats really quickly...and then a lot ofother drafts getting a mass amount of bombs out of nowhere with no explanation left in the comments for any of it. I wanted to report it, because I wanted to acknowledge that there's a problem as of late.

As much as some of us try to encourage constant discussion about these things, clearly there's some people that aren't even bothering to try.

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I think what needs to change is that hats and bombs need to be accompanied by usernames.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Right.

My concern is that these unexplained hats and bombs are causing problems- allowing underprepared drafts to launch (which one of them actually was when I made the post), and making drafts that don't have any obvious problems get prevented from a launch without any reason why they shouldn't launch.

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

^ That would probably help a lot.

TV Tropes's No. 1 bread themed lesbian. she/her, fae/faer

Even if people aren't weighing in on the discussion, I wonder if the discussion has stirred things up somehow.

I almost posted on this thread when it was new, but felt that what I wanted to say was pretty much already covered. I felt like stopping by right now though, because I've noticed weird TLP activity recently. Particularly, I feel like I've been seeing more drafts getting swarmed with bombs. The only reasoning I can discern is that they are drafts that do not start in a perfect, 100% launchable state, but that defeats the purpose of the requirements needed to launch to begin with. Of course it doesn't start in a perfectly launchable state. Even the three required examples isn't enough to launch. That's no reason to start with a bomb.

I guess it's an issue I have in general, though. It seems people would rather throw in their votes to discard an imperfect draft than spend any effort helping fix it, even when there's an obvious great idea that just needs some polish. It's like the stereotype about Like buttons being used in lieu of people actually interacting with their friends and family anymore.

I know not everyone has the time to contribute (and I know I could contribute more than I do if I wasn't super self-conscious about overstepping my role), but in my experience, Hats aren't anywhere near as big of a problem. A million hats alone still won't get a draft launched. I'm constantly surprised how often I stumble upon a great draft in the TLP that turns out to have been from, like, 2014, and somebody just bumped it after all these years because no one ended up launching it despite it being ready for it.

I hang out a lot in the TRS too, and in my experience, if we find a really bad trope that isn't getting a lot of attention, it's usually because it predates the TLP, not because it slipped by with underdeserved Hats.

Finally, at the very least, if Bombs are going to officially be "anti-Hats", then they need a new name. Bombs give the connotation of an instant discard, that something is so bad you just want to blow it up. It doesn't sound like you're just trying to offset the overeager.

Edited by Jokubas on Nov 27th 2019 at 7:51:41 AM

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I wrote that and then had to run, so I apologize if it came off more strongly that it would have had I more time.

Now that I think about it, I haven't really seen any problems with Bombs either. I've seen drafts with tons of Bombs still sitting around, so it's not like they're outright killing interesting drafts. What bugs me personally is just seeing "not ready yet, tossing a bomb" instead of "here's how it can be made ready", especially when I can see promise in the draft.

In the end, I think the nature of the TLP feed kind of polices itself. A bad draft is going to disappear into the deep pages, with or without Hats or Bombs. I mean, it happens enough to good ones that get lost in the shuffle.

At least, it had been. I don't know what's been going on recently. Behaviors definitely feel like they've changed. Still, making the system a little clearer and changing the names probably wouldn't hurt regardless.

Edited by Jokubas on Nov 27th 2019 at 6:36:19 AM

I agree with lots of what has been said in this thread.

Preach.

That — Not quite.

This was true before. Now there is a effort to clean TLP and remove (or discard or "nuke" to use the lingo) bad drafts from active TLP drafts. To make the TLP board more organized and get viable drafts a better chance to be seen. The effort is going great but I fee potentially good ideas get thrown out with the really bad ones.

It's also not true that bombs don't hurt anything. They do. It discourages newbies and I've seen the bomb have done harm to potentially tropeworthy ideas. Just last week, there was a draft that was fairly okay though not particularly well-defined with clear purpose from the beginning but the idea was there. The OP intended to work on it and was willing to discuss any issues. The draft got many bombs practically immediately, almost without any reasons. One reason doubted tropablility because there were only three examples (which technically is fine and all that is needed; though obviously the more examples from TLP, the better). It was a one-day-old draft. The draft collected many bombs really quickly and I think the first few bombs just swung others. No wonder the OP discarded it. But it could have been a thing.

---

My take on this (my ideas and others' ideas that I think are great):

• Postpone the possibility to hat or bomb a draft (after 3 days? 5 days?)
• Perhaps the OP should declare when they think the draft's in the phase where feedback with launch/discard options is welcome. There could be a button for "allowing" hats or bombs.
• Hats and bombs should be signed with our handles. The anonymity is the worst. (It can be for valid reasons but you can't contact anyone to explain it or ask what should be improved. It can be trolling and vandalism at worst.I speak mostly of bombs, but premature hats are problematic too: it would be good to ask others why they hatted something that's obviously not prepared.)
• Launch announcement button could help with stealth-launches. It happens a lot that a draft sails under the radar, fails to catch any attention and isn't discussed at all but somehow gains 5 hats. Many tropers take it as the absolute rule "5 hats = launch asap". There should be some mandatory waiting period for prepared draft to have time for additional feedback. (Usually these are dealt with in TLP crash rescue thread but that's extra work that might not be necessary.)
• Mandatory reasons for bombs: It's extremely frustrating to get bombs without any feedback. I think there could be buttons for the most common concerns. If someone thinks a draft is a bad idea, it is usually because it's duplicate or chairs. (These could be buttons.)
• Things like bad formatting, insufficient description or too few examples don't deserve bombs because these can be fixed easily. Poor description is a reason to hold a launch, not a reason to discard a draft.
• There used to be tags like Description Needs Help or Is this tropable? These could be brought back. But comments about what exactly should be changed or added, or why something is or is not tropable are better.
• Have another button for "this is a good idea". Many tropers use hats as general support instead of a signal for launch. We could introduce new buttons: for example thumbs-up or hearts. Or hats could be used for liking the idea and crowns for launching.
• I agree that the lingo sometimes feels too destructive. Bombing a draft or nuking a draft, these are strong metaphors. It's easy to take it personally if you write a draft with best of intentions and then the message tells you "Enough tropers think this draft should be nuked from orbit." Things like thumbs-down or minus points would be easier to stomach, probably.

I think implementing just one of these would help a lot. Probably signed hats and bombs would help the most.

Edited by XFllo on Nov 28th 2019 at 8:02:34 PM

We can't have bombing reasons without hatting reasons. Even if you think bombs are the worse problem, undeserved hats can be disastrous, allowing poorly-made drafts to be launched way before they're ready, and people have taken advantage of the broken system by making sock-puppet accounts solely to get their drafts launched. Hatting reasons would be extremely helpful.

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I don't disagree. Though hatting reason is just one, no? A hat means this is ready for launch (and all of the requirements need to be met: name is okay, description is clear, there are enough examples with context and at least one index is chosen; top page picture and quote are optional).

I mentioned in the post that premature hats are problematic, especially if the OP happens to ignore problems.

Edited by XFllo on Dec 22nd 2019 at 3:06:12 PM

Well, that's the thing. There should only be one reason to add a hat, and if people are forced to explain why they're adding hats, we can very easily figure out how many of the hats should actually be there. If half of the hatting reasons are "I like this idea" or something, then those hats probably don't count.

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

That's why I think it might be useful to introduce something else to show support, like the like button on FB.

But there is nothing like a comment explaining why something is adequate or not.

Yeah, it has been said before that there should be a button for "Good Idea, Bad Idea" independent of the Launch and Discard buttons.

And probable the latter should be the only ones that require to comment why, while the "support buttons" are free to use.

I think a major problem is that bombs can signal different things for different proposals. If you're bombing a 'stub', it means you want it discarded. If you're bombing a potentially launch-ready draft, it means you either dislike the idea, or just want to prevent a premature launch.

OPs who hat their own draft without giving any visible effort, or people who hat other people's proposals as a sign of support when the draft itself can't be launched, make the feedback process very difficult , especially when you want the draft discarded.

I admit I sometimes hat my own drafts, but only when it theoretically could launch in its current state. We need some kind of system where the draft has to be theoretically launch-able before getting hats or bombs.

Honestly I think we should go back to the old system with slight modifications. So we would get rid of bombs and bring back the 5 (or more if needed) hat system. But this time have text prompts for add a hat and remove a hat and people will be required to explain why they are giving a hat and oking the thread for launch. Also they will be a anti hat button to take away a hat and then people have to explain why. And you can push the anti hat button and submit even if there's no visible hats

Edited by MacronNotes on Dec 9th 2019 at 4:40:55 AM

Macron's notes

But... that'd be the same thing as just making hat and bomb reasons compulsory and making bombs actually prevent launches. The only change would be that the bombs would be randomly replaced with something else. And what about drafts that just need to be discarded, would you "subtract 5 hats" from those?

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

oh wait that yeah that doesn't make sense. Sleep deprived

What if there's three options? Discard, Not Ready, and Ready for Launch? Symbols TBD

Edited by MacronNotes on Dec 9th 2019 at 5:04:03 AM

Macron's notes

Yeah, that's actually been tossed around a lot. I think it's a good idea. We'd also need a fourth option, "Support". (Hats should be used for launch signals, not "I like this" votes, but people don't get that)

So, two different things: Hats and Bombs for launching and discarding, and Support/Non-Support signals for other scenarios.

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness