![]()
Would you mind if I added a couple options?
I guess it depends on what they are... Care to discuss your ideas before throwing them on a crowner? The last one didn't work out and we don't want a repeat of that.
Well, I think we've decided that choosing to rework the standards/definition of the trope without first determining what changes should be made is putting the cart before the horse, so I'm not planning on adding that to the table.
The first idea I have is to temporarily lock all pages in the Radar namespace
and impose a moratorium on new Radar pages and usages so we'll have an easier time cleaning up and removing existing misuse.
The second is to require that all proposed new pages (and possibly even all new examples) be run by the cleanup thread
and be given a positive consensus before being approved.
You can probably guess that both of these are intended to stem the tide of misuse so we can focus on dealing with what already exists.
Also, having thought it over, I think I might be willing to compromise on some of the more drastic/extreme options. Maybe we could some kind of arrangement that would assuage certain concerns I have and make me more willing to consider them.
What sort of agreement?
We're not considering more extreme options just because, you know- we're doing it because a lot of us are just kinda convinced it's the only thing that'll work. It's hard to really compromise on things like this because either a solution works or it doesn't and we just need something that'll work without the problem recurring.
But yeah, what sort of agreement are you actually talking about us making?
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall
Here's my idea: what if the more "scorched-earth" options were used as a way to promote healthier and less out-of-control new growth, rather than simply letting things lie in ashes forever?
To elaborate, I think it might be worth considering to use the more drastic options as a means to hammer in that there are standards for the trope that have to be followed. Once we have determined that the userbase by and large understands the standards and is willing and able to follow them, we can relax the restrictions — contingent upon these standards being kept to, of course. If the rampant misuse returns, we put the restrictions back. They can't say they weren't warned, after all, and it would show once and for all that we're serious about keeping to the standards.
Berserk Button: misusing Nightmare Fuel
I don't think we actually need a stricter definition. Like I said before, the definition isn't what's causing the problems, it's that people don't care about that definition.
If we just enforced the current definition more strictly (for example, by not allowing the addition of more examples until we get things under control again), that would probably be enough.
Yeah, that was my thinking about why the trope is misused. There is nothing about the definition that suggests that general innuendo applies, and yet 90% of all examples are about general innuendo.
At Complete Monster we did clean up and lock cleaned up subpages in order to set down examples of the trope in stone. That's why I did suggest that option on the previous crowner.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanKeep in mind that subpages exist because of the amount of examples, not just because. After we clean up there may not be a need for any subpages at all, and that shouldn't be a big deal.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallI've seen some people suggest we create a new trope for general innuendo. I have two concerns:
1. Is this trope worthy? In my opinion, certain types of innuendo are trope worthy. However, I don't see general innuendo being something that's trope worthy.
2. What's to stop this new general innuendo trope from repeating the mistakes of Getting Crap Past the Radar and becoming a page for anything a troper thinks is inappropriate?
Good point. That'd likely end up with the misuse just getting put somewhere else, not stopped.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallWhat's so wrong about getting rid of the subpages, exactly?
Like I keep saying. A vast majority of them will be on the chopping block due to not having enough valid examples to warrant a split. I don't care what order we do this in but all the attention on the subpages is just ridiculous. They exist when they need to. They aren't some special thing we should be focusing this heavily on.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallI also don't think it's something that needs concensus. Regardless, when we do clean up the subpages, the ones that don't have enough valid examples to justify having a subpage should be cut with the remaining examples moved to the main page. That is what happens to character pages and other subpages that don't have enough valid examples
Edited by MacronNotes on Jul 5th 2020 at 4:14:10 AM
Macron's notesBasically:
- If there are enough valid examples, a subpage can be split off.
- If the subpage goes through a cleanup process and enough examples remain, the subpage can stay.
- If however the subpage loses most of the examples, what remains is more than likely going to be merged into the main page and the subpage itself cut.
That's just how it works. Subpages are primarily about cutting down on page length. There's zero reason to keep subpages if there's not enough examples on said subpages, but there's also zero reason to cut subpages if enough examples exist on them.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallOh, I have no problem with cutting pages that don't have enough valid content to justify their existence. What I'm saying is that removing all the Radar subpages would be above and beyond that, and probably needs a consensus before we can actually do it.
Also, I'm not sure the misuse would be as rampant for a hypothetical "general innuendo" supertrope since there would almost certainly be looser guidelines. Besides, if we start monitoring things early, the problem almost certainly wouldn't balloon as much as it did for GCPTR.
So I'll reword the crowner options to say that the subpages can be locked or cut.
What should I reword the "cut the Radar/ namespace, but allow work page examples" option to say? Something like "Purge the misused examples and cut/redirect subpages as appropriate, but allow valid examples of it on work pages"?
Edited by Serac on Jul 5th 2020 at 8:15:04 AM
My concern is less that an innuendo trope would be used just as much as GCPTR, and more that it'll become a dumping ground for examples we didn't want in GCPTR, which is what happened in the past with other TRS projects- stomp out misuse in one area and it just travels elsewhere. But if we don't have anywhere else for it to go people will be forced to stop.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallCutting everything on innuendo just seems so...boring, though. I don't have a good solution for possible future misuse getting out of hand, but are we just going to have the site essentially be the Dewey decimal system of fiction? If that were so then we might as well cut the Moments, Fridge, and Headscratchers namespaces too.
Also, the solution of suppression by non-existence just rubs me the wrong way. It's making me think of Newspeak from 1984.
Edited by BreadBull on Jul 6th 2020 at 8:22:35 AM
Y'all, we're just trying to solve the problem of "people keep shoving any old innuendo into Getting Crap Past the Radar even when it blatantly doesn't meet the very simple and clear definition", not purge all acknowledgement of innuendo from the wiki.
Suddenly I'm... still rotating Fallen London in my mind even though I've stopped actively playing it.
Crown Description:
It is a truth universally acknowledged that Getting Crap Past the Radar has a major problem with misuse. This crowner is an attempt to curb the insanity by agreeing a set of criteria by which examples will be ruled as valid. Upvote criteria you think should count, and downvote those that should not be allowed. If you do downvote something, please drop by the repair thread[1] and let us know why [1] https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=1591292801058841200
