How should we handle Stonetoss?

Yeah, funnily enough I only stick to this side. I rarely leave this part of the forums.

But yeah, there's a massive disconnect.

I've been on the wiki since 2012, only had terrible experiences with certain fan forums in 2018, and no experience with forums otherwise until only a few months ago. *shrug* The forums are now where I spend most of my time because I guess I like the back-and-forth and feeling of involvement in the site.

Edited by mightymewtron on Aug 18th 2020 at 8:42:03 AM

I spend most of my time here on the Wiki forums, if I have to be honest. Most of my edits are usually simple typo fixes.

When you're a Sonic fan and don't want to be reminded about how professional video game critics hate the franchise and how the Internet hates you...

There's better things to talk about.

I came here from Reddit at the start of the pandemic, and found out that TV Tropes Will Ruin Your Life. But there's an upside to that, as I feel I've joined one of the smartest, most non-judgemental pop culture communities on the Internet.

Edited by ccorb on Aug 18th 2020 at 8:52:53 AM

Most of the works I care about are pretty obscure anyway. Not many people to discuss them with, so why bother?

But this is getting off-topic. Point is, the forums and the wiki proper are extremely disconnected, and both side of the forums just as disconnected.

Edited by WarJay77 on Aug 18th 2020 at 8:49:30 AM

So there needs to be a major change implemented so the other-siders can learn about wiki policy and important discussions and actually participate. It's just like Real Life democracy, and that's how a wiki works.

We're trying our absolute best to reach everyone. It's not our fault people don't want to participate.

Democracy in a nutshell, that.

That, and one difference between a democracy and mob rule is that there's a set of rules in place to establish and enforce decisions, rather than iregular short-lived gatherings that appear and disappear based on the whim of the crowd. This thread is about a crowd demanding justice for a perceived moral wrong because it is a political Gag-per-Day Webcomics with Negative Continuity. I have a strong objection to de facto policies instead of de jure policies, especially when there's nonsense like this being debated in Congress.

And that's why the mods are discussing policies that could be implemented to settle this. The mods are our experienced congress that handle tough issues like this.

Edited by ccorb on Aug 18th 2020 at 9:30:54 AM

Yeah, none of us are acting like a mob trying to insist the mods do X thing to get rid of the eeeeeevil comic. We're having a debate over the best course of action, criticizing each other if necessary so we can understand the pros and cons of keeping this page, and whether we should implement a policy against certain works that could cause similar controversy. If the mods decide there's not enough urgency to cut it, then we don't cut it. I could live with that.

Now we've gone from "It's a work and it should be troped" to "the people against it are just a sanctimonious outrage mob and it should be kept anyways because they're wrong."

Kinda condescending.

Huh? Where'd you get that from?

About three posts up from mine. Crazysmaritan's. "Perceived moral wrong against a negative continuity webcomic."

I know you're supposed to wait 3 days to call a crowner, but I think that A) everything that can reasonably be said about Stonetoss has already been said; and B) the margin to cut and PRLC Stonetoss doesn't seem like it can be negated. Thus, keeping this thread open seems like it's just gonna invite flame wars. I'd like a call and close, please.

Plus we've already been talking about it on the ROCEJ thread for a few days before this.

So it got left behind given how many posts the thread has had, but I do want to bring attention to this post, because it's discussing the exact same work that I mentioned I had concerns about when it came up in the ROCEJ thread. Victoria sounds both absolutely vile and weirdly approved-of in its troping. I've seen it randomly mentioned on various trope pages.

I'm aware that this thread is about Stonetoss - I just wanted to note that I do think Victoria needs discussing at a later point.

Again, it's likely the mods will amend the content policy to handle works that are primarily hate speech on a case-by-case basis with the 5P like they do with porn and pedopandering. So your question will likely be answered.

Maybe we can discuss Victoria further in the ROCEJ thread. I wanted Stonetoss separate because it was overtaking the ROCEJ thread, so we may as well give that thread some other use. :P

Victoria should probably just be cleaned up to remove the implicit approval of the author's views. Unlike Stonetoss, it has an actual narrative.

Yeah, Victoria had a troper who attempted to apologize for it in reviews and the like. It needs a cleaning but is keepable.

Wait really. Is the review still up.

The troper in question didn't post any reviews as far as I know, but they did comment on other people's reviews.