Note: The thread currently has a limit of one post every two hours for non-mod users. Currently, this is hard-coded by the admins, but there are plans to give mods the ability to toggle it without admin intervention. After mods are given the ability to do that, the time limit may be further reduced or removed entirely.
This thread is for discussing the following topics:
- Questions and clarifications about the site's rules and policies pertaining to wiki editing, forum posting, trope launching, and so on.
- If you have an idea for a thread on another part of the forums but aren't sure if creating it would be allowed, feel free to ask here.
This thread is not for any of the following:
- Reporting complaints or concerns about specific moderation decisions (e.g. suspensions and thumps). Report these directly to the admins via the contact form
. Selecting "The Staff" sends your message to the admins only, without making it visible to moderators.
- Queries about thumps applied to your own forum posts, including contesting the validity of a thump. Reply to the relevant moderator via PM for these matters.
- Ban appeals (use the "Edit Banned" thread
in this forum).
- Reporting problems or requesting moderator action in the wiki or forums (use Ask The Tropers or Hollersnote or specialized threads such as "Locked Pages"
).
- Queries about locked On-Topic Conversations (OTC) threads or banned discussion topics. OTC has its own moderation discussion thread here
, and the latest statement on the locked US Politics thread
and other banned OTC topics is here
. Bluntly, when certain OTC threads and topics have repeatedly caused problems, we're not going to provide forum space to discuss them again until the moderation toolkit is equipped to handle those conversations.
- Cut List challenges and queries (they have their own thread here
).
- Requests for changes to the site's code or discussion about such changes, as mods cannot change the code; only the admins can do that. Please direct tech requests to Query Bugs or Tech Wishlist (for bug reports and suggestions for feature additions/changes, respectively), and take other tech-related discussion to the Changelog thread
.
- Crowner actions. Please use the holler function instead.
- Discussion about changing or implementing policies. Please use Wiki Talk for that. (Asking whether it's OK to make a specific thread is acceptable; using this thread in place of such a thread is not.)
- Asking about the whereabouts of inactive mods (or other inactive users) before they return, if they return at all. Use the Absent people thread
for discussing inactive users.
Posts that use this thread in place of the sections listed in the bulleted list above are off-topic.
We're aware that the Edit Banned thread has a Non-Indicative Name, due to it also covering non-editing suspensions. We're not sure whether the name for that thread can even be edited without breaking the special coding that keeps posting restricted to mods and suspended users, so we're leaving it alone for now, because better safe than sorry.
(Edited Mar 28 2024, adding bullet about OTC and amending layout a little)
Edited by GastonRabbit on Oct 11th 2024 at 3:20:25 AM
I remember during the 5T thing we all got a 3 day ban, and some of us were released without going to EB because we'd participated in the thread exercises during those three days. There's definitely no consistent time period aside from whatever works best.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallI’m strongly in favour of keeping the current ban system, where the focus is on changing and learning, rather than serving out an arbitrary sentence before going back to what got them in trouble in the first place. Likewise, having Edit Banned be a thread everyone can view provides both a learning space and much needed transparency on how the mod team are acting.
I wasn’t under the impression that the team didn’t know who added it, just that a couple mods had specifically said it wasn’t them. I personally don’t feel we need to know the specific person, because all the (available at the time) mods signed off on it, so they all carry the responsibility for it between them.
Edited by Silasw on Jan 10th 2023 at 10:29:03 AM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranSpeaking for myself I've learned a lot about the rules by lurking and following edit banned. I think more then I have through Administrivia.
There's something in EB not covered by an Admin/?
TroperWall / WikiMagic CleanupCurrent EB system shouldn't be changed much, if at all. It's great at rehabilitating those willing to take the time to do so, and even users that aren't suspended can learn a lot by lurking there a bit. I know I have.
![]()
Less that and more seeing the rules enforced gives me a clearer idea of the intent behind them vs simply reading them
Just gonna briefly jump in and say I'm also not a fan of "time-limited suspensions".
While we aren't Wikipedia and shouldn't just blindly copy them, I've observed that (Outside of outright site blocks) their administrators/arbitrators have generally moved away from time-limited sanctions (Primarily topic bans/page blocks), for exactly the reasons people here have expressed concern—instead of going elsewhere on the site and proving they can contribute positively in those areas and maybe prove the sanction isn't or was never needed, the person just waits out the time and then goes right back to doing whatever got them sanctioned in the first place. This is a lesson Wikipedia has learned from hard experience, and it's a lesson we should not have to re-learn ourselves.
RE: Mod voting and dissent: The closest thing I can think of here on Wikipedia is their Arbitration Committee, which votes on various remedies and has a record of that vote in various arbitration cases (Wikipedia/the Arbitration Committee hates this analogy, and I admit it's an imperfect one, but for those in the U.S. think of the Arbitration Committee as like the Wikipedia Supreme Court and you have the basic idea). I don't think we need that here for every single mod post (Or even most of them), but the suggestion elsewhere about "If a moderator disagrees with an action or posting, they should not be the ones to post about it" seems reasonable to me, and I'm surprised it wasn't already being followed.
Also, I'd like to sincerely thank Septimus and the other mods who have engaged here for doing so. While, again, I haven't always liked what they've said, I do appreciate they're at least trying to address concerns instead of ignoring them and hoping everything blows over (That ship, frankly, sailed a long time ago. I would hope the rest of the mods have taken notice that, while it hasn't necessarily gone anywhere, people have suggested pinging the Admin team despite not knowing what their reaction would be. If some are willing to gamble with the Devil We Don't Know over the Devil We Do, well, that should be a huge wake-up call that something needs to change.).
And once again, I yield the floor.
I'd also continue to say that it's bad in and of itself for the admins to continue to be the Devil We Don't Know, and I'd prefer them to put more effort into being part of the community they run on principle. If they genuinely can't, then it would be nice to have folks with admin authority who can.
Edited by Iaculus on Jan 10th 2023 at 11:34:21 AM
What's precedent ever done for us?Unfortunately, that’s out of our hands. That takes money and I far prefer this hands off approach to Eddie’s egotism
I mainly just want them to give us more QOL updates, but it would feel weird if they started imposing rules and stuff since they're so uninvolved it barely feels like they exist.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallThe Admins are technical level only. They don't really visit or get involved. It's kind of pointless to ask for it as they'll be confused and overloaded with stuff they have no clue about.
While it'd be nice if that changes, that's not the current situation. We don't have an Admin for Moderation-related stuff in any way. I would like another one, yes. But so far our only one has been less than spectacular.
Shadow?As someone who worked with (and butted heads with) Eddie in the past, the views expressed about him strike me as being mostly through some very tinted lenses.
The thing about Eddie that needs to be established that his job wasn't just the site admin, but for most of his time here he was the sole programmer and webmaster for TVTropes. That's a huge amount of work that he had to put in, that extends well beyond public relations and wiki maintenance. A lot of decisions that he made do need to be looked at with the detail that he would have to be the one writing the code to make them stick, and it's not fair to ignore that.
That said, he was not without faults. From my experience, the biggest wasn't really stubbornness or abrasiveness, but instead a really bad case of something we have a page for (because of course we do): Small Reference Pools. For someone who ran a wiki that catalogues every type of fiction, Eddie genuinely wasn't aware of the conventions of a number of mediums or their fanbases, and he clashed with people who were in the know. One illustrative anecdote is the time he raised the issue of too many page images being Animesque note , and to prove his point, he posted some art of Elric of Melnibone. Multiple people, including myself, called him out on that, and he was persuaded to back down. And that's the thing - Eddie could be talked out of decisions. He wasn't dictatorial.
Now obviously, any new "admin" (I suspect the position will require a different title) would not have the first issue any longer, with the website having dedicated programmers maintaining it. The second one is still a valid concern - if you put someone in charge to run the public facing side of TVTropes, how can you be sure they won't have hangups or blindspots of their own in regards to certain genres or mediums? Coupled with peoples' own hangups with Eddie, valid or not, I'd say having a single person in that position would not be regarded well. So where do you go from there?
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)People aren't really asking for someone as involved as Eddie, they're just asking for people who aren't a total enigma. There's a midground between "constantly involved Admin who gets into fights and has biases" and "a shadowy council that never talks to us".
I don't see why an admin would have to give a shit about what sort of images we post or what sort of tropes we have or anything like that. Such biases should have no impact on their ability to do their job.
Edited by WarJay77 on Jan 10th 2023 at 7:39:56 AM
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallWanted to update this thread about my resignation as Herald.
Would have done it yesterday, but I had to find the actual thread and have been kind of busy playing FFXIV.
It seems to me quite the impasse here then, because the main purpose of a moderation-focused admin is to kick the metaphorical machinery when it jams. When consensus deadlocks for too long or bad editing habits get enshrined due to too many new tropers copying old, that's when that admin should step in and say, "Executive decision time, we're fixing X this way now.".
This was part of Eddie's role. Did he always do a good job? One hundred percent no, for the reasons I outlined above. Is doing so necessary? That's the point of contention. If an admin were to take this approach, their job would look more like Eddie's modus operandi then it seems some people here are comfortable with, but that would be their job.
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)Yeah, it would be nice to have at least some admins that have some involvement with the site and its community aside from doing technical stuff when they feel like it/have time and corporately owning it. Not saying the current admins should have to switch over to this, just that it may be good to also have someone as a more site-involved admin(s) (which I know, much easier said than done), or heck, even just someone who has more time to spare for TVT in particular (with the current admins owning several sites and, from how it seems like, TVT stuff often being less prioritized)
Edited by Zanreo on Jan 10th 2023 at 2:29:31 PM
My favorite failed console tbhThis is where we disagree Totemic. He could be quite dictatorial. One notable instance that comes to my mind is when he unilaterally decided to essentially reedit a sandbox that many tropers had been working on redefining The Dragon back to it's old definition which had long due to Trope Decay come to mean the Big Bads second in command (as opposed to the penultimate threat, which is what he reedited it to). What stuck out in my mind is he did this after he had resigned as a mod. There are several other examples that people brought up, such as banning people for simply being on the other side of an argument. The point is, I don't want someone like that as an Admin.
Edited by jjjj2 on Jan 10th 2023 at 10:02:22 AM
You can only write so much in your forum signature. It's not fair that I want to write a piece of writing yet it will cut me off in the midAlso that. He was also the one who declared Five-Man Band would not drop the gender rule back in 2012, even after TRS decided it. His decision fucked up the trope for a decade and he refused to let anyone argue. Eddie could sometimes be reasoned with but it's wrong to say that he was always that way.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallYeah, there are multiple TRS threads I've seen where it turns out the trope's definition makes no sense because Eddie fiat made it so (the last Five-Man Band TRS is a big one)
edit:
'd by Warjay
Edited by Libraryseraph on Jan 10th 2023 at 9:07:44 AM
HAPPY HALLOWEEN FOR MARIAHe was also responsible for several page images being unchangeable for a long time—only recently was the unclear one he forced on A.I. Is a Crapshoot finally removed.
Works That Require Cleanup of Complaining | Troper Wall
The big problem with that image is that it wasn't future-proof. Many tropers nowadays have no idea what it was referencing.
To be fair, I did say it was in my experience - I wasn't involved with every single discussion ever. But I do stand corrected - it seems Eddie was a lot more stubborn on certain pet issues than I thought.
That said, my other point still stands - there will be times a new admin handling the moderation side will inevitably have to make some fiat decisions. Some of the points people had brought up did read more as criticism of Eddie being able to make fiat decisions and less as criticism of the specific decisions Eddie made, so I'm not sure what people exactly want out of a new admin. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)i think having an admin whose specific job is to liaise with the moderation and community would be a good solution.
![]()
![]()
For the record, I understood the reference—I remember seeing the Intel Inside ads on TV as a kid—but I don't think it was particularly demonstrative of the trope.
But that isn't especially relevant to this discussion. I agree that having an admin for the community like what Chloe is describing is a good idea.
Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Jan 10th 2023 at 9:45:53 AM
Works That Require Cleanup of Complaining | Troper Wall

I think sometimes they’ll say a cooldown period is needed but no rule