Alright, I understand now. Not sure why we're assuming it was a vote-bombing, however.
Because:
- Nobody who voted for it showed up to say "hey, here's what I think we should do", while everyone actually in the discussion ended up agreeing the option was too vague to be helpful.
- It went against everything the discussion was actually leaning towards, while the actual more thought-out options were randomly downvoted.
- It has way more votes than there are thread participants, implying that more people showed up to vote.
I'm usually not the one to cry "Drive-by bombers!!!111!!!", but in this case, I think there's pretty solid evidence to suggest that it was upvoted by people who didn't bother to read any of the thread, and who went with the least wiki-altering option.
Edited by WarJay77 on Jul 12th 2020 at 7:36:46 AM
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallI do too! But that's participation, and a vote alone doesn't count as such.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallAre we any closer to figuring out what to put on a new crowner? My sense is that we've been talking about:
- Make Getting Crap Past the Radar on-page examples only. Keep current definition.
- Pre-emptively cut pages in the Radar namespace, but still allow off-page examples after some cleanup. Keep current definition.
- Create another trope for general innuendo
- Split Parental Bonus into different subtropes for sexual and non-sexual adult content in children's media
- Redefine Getting Crap Past the Radar to being about sexual content in childrens' media
^ GCPTR isn't just for sexual content and IDK if I'd restrict a potential redefinition that way either, it involves drugs and swearing and violence too. Though only if it's subtle enough to not just be Defying the Censors.
I think it would help a lot to look at Defying the Censors; a lot of misuse of GCPTR that shows blatant defiance of network standards would better fit there, but it's not thriving, most likely because GCPTR overshadows it so much.
Edited by mightymewtron on Jul 22nd 2020 at 1:18:31 PM
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.Why can't we just add a Word of God requirement and call it a day? It's a simple solution that's easy to enforce.
Occam's Razor and all.
Edited by Karxrida on Jul 23rd 2020 at 12:08:14 PM
Because a lot of legit examples don't have Word Of God. We don't want to toss out real examples with the bad ones.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallPlus certain proposed definitions don't need a Word of God requirement, depending on how narrow we consider the "Radar" element. Personally I think the context can make it clear what would be considered a bit far for the show, like the show's age rating or similar innuendo that got cut from other shows or in earlier episodes.
Another idea could be effort posting but I imagine that's an absolute last minute resort.
Edited by mightymewtron on Jul 23rd 2020 at 3:47:54 PM
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.@mightymewtron's discussion: "^ GCPTR isn't just for sexual content and IDK if I'd restrict a potential redefinition that way either, it involves drugs and swearing and violence too. Though only if it's subtle enough to not just be Defying the Censors."
So, potential Parental Bonus splitting between 'Not meant for the kids because it implies things Moral Guardians wouldn't like (sexuality/violence/drugs/etc)' and 'Not meant for the kids simply because they aren't expected to understand the references' (or just 'not in the first category')?
Edited by PointMaid on Jul 23rd 2020 at 10:07:08 AM
That was my thinking, yes. My point of distinction is whether it would risk boosting the show to another rating if caught by the censors (TV-PG to TV-14, for example). So sex, language, drugs/alcohol, violence, language, etc. Whereas the other half would be what Parental Bonus is more often used for- references that kids don't get, like older pop culture. But IDK if that's gonna fix things or if it's just accepting the misuse.
And for non-American shows, it would get a bit murky due to Values Dissonance. Something that would be getting crap past the radar in the United States would be just a normal gag in, say, Europe, while something that would be Getting Crap Past the Radar in Europe would be enough to get the show cancelled in the United States.
And as for Live-Action TV series that aren’t for children such as Radar.Arrested Development and Radar.Modern Family, there are some things on the page we should think about cleaning up. Radar.Vacanta Mare is for a No Export for You Romanian series, and several examples on that page consist of Curse Cut Short and other minor innuendo that should probably not be on the page.
Edited by ccorb on Jul 27th 2020 at 8:17:59 AM
Rock'n'roll never dies!The Radar will also usually give something a pass if it is within the context of the story. For example, the Modern Family episode “Caught in the Act” is about the kids walking in on their parents having sex, and therefore the Radar examples relating to that episode are irrelevant.
Rock'n'roll never dies!I would say lock the page and have a thread similar to what Complete Monster has so mods can determine if something is really Getting Crap Past the Radar.
Rock'n'roll never dies!Yeah I figured nobody wanted it to come to Complete Monster standards but there's so many factors and the misuse is so baked into the wiki culture that I wouldn't be surprised if it comes to that. The issue is we still need to confirm exactly what these standards would be if we change anything in the definition.
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.I don't think that the standards of the trope are really a problem. What is a problem is that most examples currently aren't correct(ly written) and simply locking the page does not resolve that issue.
That's why I think the first step is to assemble a list of legitimate examples that we can put on the main page. And then lock it so that we can wet new additions. Then one could go through the subpages and wicks, copy accurate examples onto the main page and delete wrong examples and now-unneeded subpages.
(It is possible that in the future a page split will be needed, but for now we can assume there will be only few correct examples)
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman- The innuendo must be radar-pushing for its country of origin and for its time. For example, Ho Yay in a kids show would be radar-pushing in 2007 but would just be "Seinfeld" Is Unfunny these days and would probably even get backlash for portraying queer love as a gag.
- Make sure it's not Accidental Innuendo or Have a Gay Old Time.
- Is it crucial (or at least makes sense) within the context of the story? Then it's NOT getting crap past the radar. Swear Word Plots and plots that involve getting Caught with Your Pants Down are especially relevant to this rule.
- Curse Cut Short and other convenient gag censorship is NOT getting crap past the radar.
- If the work is not rated the equivalent of TV-Y or TV-Y7 or E for Everyone, compare the gag to what would normally be allowed in works with a similar rating (there are several Wikipedia articles such as Television Content Rating System that discuss several rating systems from around the world.)
- Since creators are not likely to talk about things that they were surprised the censors didn't catch, then Word of God is not needed, but would be a significant bonus.
- Also see G-Rated Drug, G-Rated Sex, G-Rated Mental Illness, Defying the Censors, or Does This Remind You of Anything? to see if the example fits those tropes.
Edited by ccorb on Jul 27th 2020 at 10:16:07 AM
Rock'n'roll never dies!
Sounds great to me. though I'd rewrite that first rule to be about gay jokes in general since video examples, like text examples, could always be changed.
Also funny you mention Swear Word Plot considering I had a pothole to GCPTR in one of the examples when I launched it, even though it was too blatant to be an example. (It should be included that examples that are just straight-up going against the censors without even trying to be subtle are Defying the Censors.)
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.I don't know. To me this sounds like it makes the trope definition unduly prescriptive and irritating to read.
I also think the key issue isn't covered there: You really need to be familiar with media ratings, the content standards of countries and companies and how they changed over time to identify valid examples. We need an Analysis.Getting Crap Past The Radar page that lists how certain things are treated by various radars.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanOk, then I’ll get to writing it as soon as I can get access to a computer.
Just typed it up. You can read it here.
Edited by ccorb on Jul 27th 2020 at 6:53:08 AM
Rock'n'roll never dies!Improved on the Analysis page, I'm wondering if other tropers could give it some Wiki Magic Love.
Edited by ccorb on Jul 28th 2020 at 6:06:05 AM
Rock'n'roll never dies!Hrm. That sounds like a good description, but I think that for the purposes of this cleanup, we'd need to describe things in a much more specific fashion. For example, saying that videogames rated T can/can't show <some stuff>.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Berserk Button: misusing Nightmare Fuel
The analysis used Ho Yay as an example of something that might have been radar-pushing in the past. I changed it to Homoerotic Subtext, because Ho Yay is specifically about unintentional subtext, which would be Accidental Innuendo, a completely separate thing that's mutually exclusive with GCPTR.
I added US TV ratings to the analysis, and I'm wondering if anyone could add video game content ratings.
Rock'n'roll never dies!I too oppose cutting this trope, i'll admit there are some examples that are a stretch, but it's not a trope that does not need to exist like Ralph Wiggum was(which was basically just another version of The Ditz).
There used to be a whole GCPTR page for Friends and I always wondered why that got cut.
Edited by darksteel on Aug 2nd 2020 at 8:45:09 AM
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
