Let's Improve the TLP

I kinda like the idea of vetting a trope idea before starting a TLP. That kind of thing happens a lot in Trope Finder, actually, with "we don't have this trope, start a TLP" happening pretty commonly.

However, I'm struck by the unusual situation "my" second launched trope was in. (This is very hard to discuss without sounding arrogant, especially because I'm mentioning it again but I acknowledge this was all luck.) I started the draft for Pumpkin Person without being aware there was a much better draft called "Jerk-O-Lantern" that existed, and when somebody pointed this out, I just left my draft behind. A while later, I was genuinely surprised to see that the TLP community decided to move that draft to my proposed name, because they had decided it was less restrictive. I wonder, with a vetting thread, if that could have happened. If I heard that my concept was already being used, then I wouldn't make a draft and the more restrictive name may have been chosen. I'm not trying to say anything along the lines of "I saved the trope" because other people decided while I wasn't observing and I take no credit, but would a "good draft, but the other one might have a better name we can use" situation be possible with a thread that weeds out duplicates? Or is this just too specific of a scenario to consider?

Edited by 8BrickMario on May 23rd 2020 at 8:27:57 AM

It could happen I suppose, you never know.

I like the idea for a "Trope Sounding Board". Maybe starting it in the forums and then it eventually gets coded into a separate section of the site akin to Trope Finder.

That's a good idea. It would be a good way to catch trope ideas that have conceptual problems or that are redundant.

In general, I think we should make it a bit harder to add hats. At the moment, the only thing stopping people from adding their hats is an automated message that's easy to ignore. I'm not saying adding hats should be a labyrinthine process, but it shouldn't be as easy as it is now.

Reminder, we do have a Trope Idea Salvage Yard sandbox at the moment, but that's for (hopefully) tropeworthy ideas that need someone to take them on, not for posting any potential idea. An idea vetting area can work well with this sandbox, if someone has an idea but can't personally make the draft.

Edited by WarJay77 on May 23rd 2020 at 12:16:25 PM

I agree that a thread for giving trope ideas and vetting if it's a good idea first before starting a TLP draft would work, I think I've once asked in ATT if my idea works but a more general hub would be more helpful. As for hats, I think the earlier pages already have ideas on how to make hatting more difficult.

I love the idea of having a sounding board, vetting thread, whatever you want to call it. That would help people drafting, too, to not commit their effort to something that goes nowhere. It must be frustrating to put a lot of work into drafting something only to be told "we already have this". (Not that everyone puts a lot/any work in but... for those who do)

I'm down for making this thread; I want to make it now. Where should it go, Trope Talk?

Trope Talk seems like the best place, yeah.

Join me.

This is something I just thought about. What if we made a policy that only people who have commented on a draft can add hats to said draft? That would force people who want to hat a draft to give some feedback to it first. Granted, I'm sure people will get around it by commenting something like "This draft looks ready to launch to me", but I think this will cut down on unearned hats. This would also apply to bombs, forcing people to explain their reasoning to want to bomb a draft.

That's been discussed, though less as a "need to comment to vote" and more "comments when you vote are compulsory", because the issue at it's core is not knowing what the hats and bombs are for and who posted them; I feel that forcing people to comment when they vote would make a more coherent explanation of events than trying to figure out which random commentor did what.

That idea makes sense. My idea was more geared towards getting people who add hats and bombs to contribute or offer feedback. This seems like a big problem with bombs. If people explained why they're bombing a draft before adding it, this might give the sponsor time to fix the issue.

That does make sense. My only concern is that not bombing sometimes means the sponsor ignores the criticisms or the draft gets overwhelmed with hats before the issues are fixed; but there's certainly times when it's better to post feedback first and bomb second.

Edited by WarJay77 on May 25th 2020 at 5:25:44 AM

That's a concern, but this policy would also make it harder for a draft to get overwhelmed by hats, reducing the need to add bombs in order to balance out unearned hats.

Good point.

So there's a lot of perpetually "Up For Grabs" drafts that just kinda float around because nobody is taking them. Might a "TLP Adoption Drive" thread/sandbox be a good idea here? The Discard Project kinda dealt with these things a little bit but focused mostly on clearing away the backlog and salvaging ideas over drafts; but several drafts just need a sponsor.

Sounds like a good idea. I've been eyeing a certain draft for a bit now actually...

Sounds like a good idea. I've been adopting a lot of abandoned drafts lately.

Should it be a thread or a sandbox?

I think a thread would work better so people could if certain drafts are still worth adopting and prepping for launch.

I like how sandboxes lets multiple people organize and keep track of the status and update as they go, although a thread would let people announce their intended claim. That could also be accomplished in a sandbox if people put their name next to stuff?

I mean, a thread could still make use of a sandbox of course, but I do think a thread would be better for the sake of discussion, attention, and accessibility with the thread being where we keep track of it all.

... Oh duh, they aren't mutually exclusive!

Now just a minute War Jay! Last time I suggested and tried to start such a thread, you shot me down! Now here you are re-suggesting it as if it was your idea?

... Okay, that came across as if I was a lot madder than I actually am. I'm not mad at you, I promise, I'm only ever so slightly disgruntled.