TLP Community Issues

Another point about ban evaders: wiki policy means we have to revert or reword the edits someone made while ban evading. This would be an annoying amount of extra work for mods to handle alone, so other users must be aware of ban evaders so we can work together and go through their edit history. This is especially necessary if the ban evader, like many other suspended users, has recurring habits that make the wiki harder to read and thus need to be fixed by the community, such as shoehorning or bad grammar.

Yes that’s clearly a case that’s acceptable, I understand. War Jay and themayorofsimpleton already explained how ban evaders and bad actors are caught. That user was citing non existent policies so clearly suspicious / bad behavior needing mod intervention.

And If the user was also sent a link in the first place perhaps they could be caught sooner or, conversely, given a chance to defend themselves. I feel like not mentioning their name becomes irrelevant if they get a link or notifier to the query so they are aware. And once pinging is brought to the query forums it’ll make sense to put their names in order to get their attention. If that gets pushed live soon then it’ll be the opposite, all queries will have the username, since it’ll be to ping them of the situation.

NOTE: nothing has been officially posted or changed so continue as usual for AT Ts for now

Edited by kory on Sep 2nd 2023 at 7:55:39 AM

But the important thing here is intentionality. Before searching the user's name, I had no idea whether this was someone who was just misunderstanding site policy (which happens) or someone acting with intentional shadiness and it was only by searching up other ATT posts that had the user name that a pattern of behavior could reasonably be pointed out. Because misunderstanding of site policy regarding formatting isn't a bannable offense (at least, not in the one-off), especially in these cases given that the policy was unclear in both situations.

In general, we don't default to treating users as bad actors needing to be called out. Users make mistakes and the default is to send them a notifier or PM precisely so they can explain themselves, which is how most issues are resolved and how I tried to deal with the issue at first (I mention that in my second post [1]). It was only when we had reached an impasse that I took it to ATT. Had I not done the search, the situation likely would've ended with just that thread, maybe with a follow up PM by me, which would not have gotten to the actual issue at hand which was intentionally misinterpreting site policy to impose their personal standards.

ETA: to be clear, I have no issue with users being sent links to reports that they are directly involved in/are about them. But that's not really enough for understanding the scope of an issue, which is needed to understand the severity of actions to take against the user (if any)

Edited by amathieu13 on Sep 2nd 2023 at 7:59:27 AM

I've noticed the conversation has gone from TLP to reporting people in ATT queries in general. Does it need own thread? Actually there were threads about it.

I did suggest that this topic should be moved to a new thread because it's beyond the scope of this one. We moved past discussing how to handle TLP reports specifically.

The convo can end here. I’ll post another thread if we need to discuss it more but I don’t think we will.

This draft is a stub that's attracting a lot of bombs (at the moment 16) and some snarky comments.

Discarded that one.

Can we get some additional input on the name discussion Buddha Was A Beatles Fan?

The name was changed to one that blatantly violates the "clear" part of "clear and concise" via a title crowner, but because of that fact, it never should have been included in the crowner in the first place. I content that it cannot launch with that title, as explained in the comments there.

lbordowitz launched NPC Boom Village without a launch announcement, and with barely enough examples to meet the minimum.

^ The draft also hadn't been updated since May 2022.

We're not supposed to report here anymore, and this is more suited for Crash Rescue.

...Okay, so, there's been a trend of people jumping to immediately assume that tropers posting stubs are trolls, ban evaders, or in one recent case, a bot. While this is implicitly not allowed due to the rules against dogpiling and being rude to sponsors, I feel like it may need to be spelled out more clearly that people shouldn't automatically assume bad faith just because someone's first draft seems odd or not-up-to-par.

What are the suggestions aside more active TLP moderation and be able to holler/thump TLP comments?

There could also be a label near the reply button, like "Assume good faith for stub drafts, the sponsor may not be familiar with TLP Guidelines or has started the draft by mistake."

I mean, I was just going to suggest an amendment to the rules page so we have something to point to, and a more clear issue to point to if they continue doing it.

(Additionally I'd like to ask why engineers can't early-discard drafts, there's like three right now that are just acting as bomb bait, and it's odd that we can unlaunch stuff but not discard stuff)

Edited by WarJay77 on Oct 6th 2023 at 6:02:38 AM

Speaking of TLP, is it still gonna have all those changes people were talking about (like turning the hat into a rocket, etc)?

Ya I can add code early next week that will allow engineers to discard drafts early like mods can. Probably just missed a spot when adding all the if-statements for the engineer function.

Oh, okay cool, I wasn't sure if it was just an oversight or not so that's why I had to ask

I feel like far too many people forget how hard it was to make your first TLP draft, and also that some people may be less active and thus still think they can draft a very quick idea and get away with it. Even the most infamous bad drafts that invited trolling and mockery were not themselves troll drafts. Hanlon's Razor is at work. The troll/bot(?!?!?!) accusations feel like such bad faith to me.

Well, to be fair, THAT draft may not have been entirely genuine of an effort (though not in the sense that they wanted to be bombed and memed on) but the others surely weren't. People have better things to do than go on the TLP and post garbage. Nobody actually sets out to make a bad draft and that's what people constantly seem to ignore (aside from me and that experiment draft, but that was a different scenario).

That's why I want to at least add something in the TLP Guidelines that reminds people that making drafts is hard and that 90% of the time, the sponsor who's draft your bombing either gave it their best effort or just genuinely didn't know the rules yet. An "Assume Good Faith" rule could cover other things too, like not assuming that people who give criticisms are just doing it to be unreasonable.

Edited by WarJay77 on Oct 6th 2023 at 7:59:02 AM

An "Assume Good Faith" rule for TLP would be pretty useful. I can understand how hurtful certain types of false assumptions/accusations be and while I never experienced it myself, I can see how someone trying their best on a TLP draft only for it to get bombed excessively and assumed to be a troll/bot would get upset over it.

I mean, my big incident with TLP didn't end up getting bombed, but it was the result of lack of proper teaching on a third draft.

sometimes im not sure if i should bomb or not, cause a draft looks like it has some pretty serious issues that should not be on the wiki, but also i dont have any examples or care enough to help fix it (i generally leave at least one comment exaplining my issue, but sometimes that goes into a long discussion or gets ignored). should i just leave it alone in that case? espesially if theres enough hats that it could be launched

Edited by Tremmor19 on Oct 7th 2023 at 5:21:06 AM

That actually is a time when it should be bombed. Even if you can't provide help yourself, slowing the launch by pointing out the issues is in and of itself helpful because it prevents a trope from launching when it's not ready.

(x8) OK, maybe it's because it's been a while since I've seen the changelog, but I was under the impression that Page editing was going to update/develop before any TLP. Though I could be wrong, feel free to correct me.