Unreleased Work Policy Feedback

I don't consider preview screenings as a leak myself. I just consider them very difficult to verify for others. Namely the lack of clips, it being completely public is the issue too.

I was not being snarky. I believe that the honor system is all the verification we need, and I am honestly puzzled where all this talk of "verification" and "enforceability" is coming from. If someone says they've seen it, and we know it's received a limited release, then what more do we need?

That's just not the same as saying it's "fair game" for everyone whether they've seen it or not, that's all.

Edited by HighCrate on Aug 18th 2019 at 5:55:32 AM

Same.

I'll compare it to the issues we've been having at the RP cleanup thread: Some RPs are only available in fragments, with most content lost to the void. While this means the work does technically exist, there's not enough content to verify anything on the page as true, so these pages typically have been getting moved to Unpublished.

Now, this isn't the exact same thing, but it's a similar issue of "work exists and some people have seen it, but the available content isn't reliable or complete".

Edited by WarJay77 on Aug 18th 2019 at 8:53:58 AM

It helps we can use various clips from the released work.

But previewed works are a different issue. It's not necessarily a true public release. So verification is way harder.

I can get where the honor system is being questioned, but that's not really the case. We will always assume good faith in itself. That's not an issue. But we need to be able to verify the content anyway, as it makes it harder to fix any ZCE, or stuff that only loosely fits the trope. Let me say this as someone who started out as a poor editor; it's pretty difficult to fix an example if you can't really find information to do so. Commenting out ZCE only does so much. There's stuff like trope changes too that are easy to handle. Verification isn't. This isn't an issue for something like gameplay videos, at least. That's easily public.

IMO, the preview screenings are way too hard to verify. Waiting for the general public release should be enough to trope the regular work in itself. Trailers are a bit of a different thing to trope(no less the main work, but yeah).

Since Gamescom is taking place right now up until the 24th, is it possible to add tropes to certain games like Shin Sakura Wars (new gameplay videos for it will be released on August 21 from Sega's official Youtube channel), for example?

Edited by gjjones on Aug 19th 2019 at 12:32:27 PM

I believe we decided gameplay videos were okay, so go for it.

Gotcha.

I agree with the principle of "only trope works you've personally experienced." But since the majority of tropers seem to disagree, it's probably not a good standard to have.

Just to clarify, Naturalironist, we already have a hard rule that a public material can be used by anyone for troping. You do not have to experience it yourself. That one's been set in stone by a mod that it's okay. It doesn't mean you need to use an outside reference. It's not a requirement, but an option. If you'd prefer to experience the work before troping it, that's a completely valid thing to do.

For the current topic, we're figuring out how to handle private screenings. It's technically out in public, but only for some users. Obviously only a user who saw the screening can even properly trope it to begin with(we shouldn't be using any videos that were taken without permission, of course. That's not actually "public" as they're not meant to be on Youtube, etc at that point).

As the topic seems to go over the place, I can't even tell anymore if we've had points made on both sides for and against private screenings. >.<

Notability is not a criterion for troping a work, but verifiability is. If nobody else can check, even hypothetically, to see if what you're claiming about a work is accurate, then it shouldn't be listed. Anecdotal reports ("I know a guy who was at the premiere and he said...") and third-hand reports ("I watched a video made by someone who attended E3...") are not good enough. If it is posted online, publicly (e.g. a Let's Play), then anyone who looks at that can trope it even if they didn't experience the work directly.

Exceptions are sometimes given for "dead" works that were once available but are no longer, but that's a different issue than the one under discussion.

Edited by Fighteer on Aug 20th 2019 at 4:36:58 AM

I agree, Fighteer. We should always be able to verify it(with the noted exception of "dead" works, but it's probably redundant to write this since I already made it clear I agree with you). That's why I don't think private screenings are reasonable enough. Being "kind of" public isn't enough.

That said, I think many others here had their own input to give still? I'd like to take a vote after the discussion is done. Which is going to be ironic as I'm about to ask this; anybody disagree with the idea of making it a vote once the points are all made?

Edited by Irene on Aug 20th 2019 at 4:18:29 AM

Not at all.

It can be "verified" by someone else who has seen the work, the same as any other released work.

That's not what "verifiable" means. It means that anyone: you, I, or your neighbor, could in theory experience the work if we went to the effort, as members of the general public without any kind of special access or privilege, and without committing any illegal acts such as piracy, cracking, or torrenting.

Edited by Fighteer on Aug 20th 2019 at 10:50:53 AM

How is this any different from any other early-release work such as a midnight (or one day early) Hollywood premiere? We allow those.

Having experienced the work first-hand has never been a requirement, only having obtained the relevant information from someone who has.

But is that information reliable? Nobody but the people in the screening can verify what happened in the screening, whereas once a film is properly premiered, it's out- anyone can then go and watch and verify. The issue with private screenings is, sometimes things change from the final, true release.

We want the final true release for information on the core work. Trailers are super easy to verify too. Stuff like Let's Plays do enough of a job to be the final true release. That said, if they're a pre-release, and even if they might change, we still have verifiable information thanks to the Let's Plays. At most we can move things around like into Trivia with What Could Have Been. Though I can't remember the best way to handle beta content otherwise in this particular context.

For those released a day early, they're going to almost always be the final product. Private screenings are however often much earlier than that and meant to be a test of sorts to improve the product before it goes gold. It can vary enough to make it unreliable.

The other problem with private screenings is we can't get the information online due to its nature. Any kind of pirating is a no-go(well, not the best term, but you get what I mean), so how can anyone else verify it? Benefit of the doubt is nice, but we should be able to discuss an example if the way it's written doesn't fit the trope well. ZCE's sometimes are just slightly bad and needs a little more of a touch(while most are admittedly "this name" and that's it).

Edited by Irene on Aug 20th 2019 at 8:18:00 AM

Unless you were at the screening, you have no basis with which to describe the work. Full stop.

Right, and only the people who went to the screening would be able to verify anything.

Basically, all works should be publicly available in some legal way, even if it's through footage on YouTube. Private screenings fail this criteria; special premiers are followed by widespread release, so the work is public and anyone can verify the information even if that first premier wasn't public itself.

Basically, I think we should be less concerned about the event itself and more concerned with whether or not the work can be considered public. Private screenings are, well, private, and unreliable on top of that because things can change, but it being private is the more important part.

It is, again, comparable to roleplays. While very few would actually want to go verify the information, the addition of a working link to content is vital. Anything we can't access isn't publicly released- isn't verifiable.

I agree that private screenings shouldn't be troped for the reasons already stated, but (from my understanding) the Steven Universe movie screening that started this discourse doesn't have the normal barriers of entry. It's a "hey come see this a little early" event that anyone could go to if they bought the tickets. That's more of a grey area.

Edited by Karxrida on Aug 20th 2019 at 6:46:46 AM

IMO, that feels public enough to me. Though we could set a "final release in this many days" as a requirement, but that feels kind of pedant.

For reference, this is what it was:

%% To those who saw the early screening or have any details from it; PLEASE DO NOT TROPE ANYTHING UNTIL THE MOVIE AIRS ON TV. A private screening does not count as the work getting released and should not be troped in any capacity. %% %%

It still technically is a private screening, as all phones/recording devices are taken from the attendees and they are all told not to talk about what they saw before the movie starts.

Edited by Crossover-Enthusiast on Aug 25th 2019 at 11:20:37 AM

I don't think we have a consensus on private screenings just yet? Or a majority vote?

I'd wait for now.