Wiki and Forum Policy - General Discussion

I'm just chiming in to say the first thread was a self report and the other thread was for a different entry regarding the definition that was deemed to be valid to stay. On that matter, is there a rule to not touch an entry for a trope that's determined to be valid by ATT?

Edited by FishiousRend on Dec 11th 2021 at 9:06:09 AM

Speaking as a regular user, the Forum Rules seem a bit excessive to me. I don't think I've fully read it in years, and I think this is mainly because it comes across like Viewers Are Morons, and some of the weirdly specific rules and wording look like Obvious Rule Patches made from short-term problems that probably aren't relevant to the average forum user.

Also, some of the replies just repeat what's in the first post, inflating the thread and making it look longer than it really is, which is probably unintentional.

I'd suggest trimming down to the core of the rules. For example:

Getting along:

• Treat people with respect. No personal attacks, or attempts to single out a person or group of people. A "Just Joking" Justification won't work here.
• No infighting or agenda pushing. Don't create or drag out unwanted debates or panics. Attempts to dictate more than politely discuss subjects will be noticed and stopped.
• Don't work against the mods. If a mod restricts something, rather than using loopholes just talk to the mods about what you disagree with. Don't help other users bypass these restrictions either.

Preventing trouble:

• Don't bring up private matters or controversies. Controversies from elsewhere can be discarded as they are secondary to the site's mission.
• Don't just complain or vent. This website is meant to be a celebration of fiction. Criticism is fine, but be mindful.
• No suicide or self-harm threats. If a user threats self-harm or suicide, holler the post, and the user will be referred to mental health services by the staff team privately. Don't reply to or encourage suicide or self-harm.
• Don't direct or instruct users towards illegal activity or materials. This includes, but is not limited to digital piracy and unprescribed drugs. United States law is used for reference, as it's where the site is hosted.
• Don't direct users to explicit or shocking content. Spoilers and mildly Not Safe for Work content are allowed, but should be tagged.

Content quality control:

• No advertising. Threads should be made for discussion, not just to bring attention to something that exists, whether commercial or not.
• Communicate clearly. Having fun is allowed, but be courteous and avoid distractions repeating the same joke, misleading links, or links without context.

What I wrote was an example of how the rules could be a lot more tidy. You could argue that I missed some stuff, but right now I'd prefer having something like this over the current do-not list of every single thing you could do wrong.

I have been wondering about that especially after the Yack Fest incident earlier this year, and another incident months ago where one troper went rude because he followed the advice of a long inactive mod where it went "You don't have to follow any of these rules.".

I would say those rules are Clear, Concise, and Witty to understand.

Edited by alnair20aug93 on Dec 13th 2021 at 5:37:24 PM

Agreed, that is very clear and concise, and gets to the core of what we really want to avoid on the forums.

Adding a disclaimer that the rules are subject to mod discretion also gets around any loopholes tropers may find in the rules. It's not a perfect solution, but turning our rules into a law text with provisions for every possible exception and loophole is also not great for clarity and usability..

Edited by Redmess on Dec 13th 2021 at 10:43:55 AM

Administrivia.TV Tropes Forum has a "General Behaviour" segment, perhaps the rules could be mirrored there as well. Also, it may be an idea to have the rules there since updating over-a-decade-old pinned posts made by the old staff may be difficult.

A reboot of the rules thread wouldn't be the worst possible idea, although I should point out that any changes or additions deeper in the thread get edited into the original post. I'm not sure that it makes sense to put the forum rules in a wiki article: we don't put the wiki rules in a forum thread, after all.

The reason for having some very specific rules is that people apparently need to be held by the hand and told very carefully and slowly what is and is not okay to do. "Timmy, when I say you can't play with Dad's table saw, that also means you can't play with his acetylene torch."

We aren't writing these rules for people who understand the purpose of having rules and generally agree with the concept. We're writing them for any or all of the following:

• People who haven't been socialized properly to human interactions. This can include children, but frequently also includes adults.
• People who nitpick every rule so they can find things to get away with and take extra special care to point out when the thing they did isn't specifically covered.
• People who just need a little help understanding everyday concepts.

If you think I'm sounding a bit jaded, you are correct.

Edited by Fighteer on Dec 13th 2021 at 8:12:04 AM

In all fairness, wouldn't eleven years of moderation also play a role in that?

Edited by SilverCrown on Dec 13th 2021 at 6:46:12 PM

Yes, yes it does. That's what a mod looks like after a decade of dealing with people who have trouble understanding simple rules.

I propose then a main section with the general rules (as in the post above), with a more detailed and involved section below for moderation purposes.

We'd also need to make it clear that a lot of forums have their own specific rules. What flies on Forum Games doesn't fly on OTC doesn't fly on TRS.

Several of the "No Recent Examples Please" cleanup crowner items haven't been called despite being on there for a few weeks.

The General Page Quotes thread crowner also needs to be called.

For future reference, please use the holler function to request a crowner to be called instead of using this thread.

Gotcha- does it matter what post in the thread we holler, or are any of them fine as long as we say why we're doing it?

Usually people just holler the post they announced the crowner in. And yes, you can holler your own posts.

Is there a mod available to go to ATT?

Edited by Walkinshadows on Dec 15th 2021 at 6:34:54 AM

Courtesy link to what I think you're referring to: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/query.php?parent_id=106880&type=att

I was trying to avoid causing popcorning.

I've banned that account, obviously. The strange part is that monkey666 appears to be the same person as Shadow8411 because the latter account was deleted immediately before they registered on the same IP address. And no, it doesn't look as if the account was compromised — or if it was, the vandal seems to be in the same household or use the same ISP.

I have no idea why someone would delete their account and make a new one to attack themselves. Whatever, I'll let their therapist deal with it.

Edited by Fighteer on Dec 15th 2021 at 6:58:58 AM

That... would explain this.....

The draft mentions Chadtroper02. Any relations to Chadtroper 02 or it's just random words?

That account was bounced back in 2015, so it would be an extraordinary coincidence for them to be related.

Yeah, some people like causing drama with sockpuppets, enacting elaborate fights between their various accounts. This will be familiar to anyone playing text RP Gs.

Sure, but that rarely extends to deleting your own accounts and getting yourself banned. I can sort of respect someone who takes performance art to such an extreme degree but not when it disrupts the wiki.

Given that Shadow used to be a pretty good troper (I thought) and the title on that TLP draft was complete gibberish, maybe they had a mental breakdown? Whatever the case, I hope they get help.

Edited by Walkinshadows on Dec 15th 2021 at 4:06:17 AM

Related to the above, they also cutlisted pages they worked on with the same listed reason.