Wiki and Forum Policy - General Discussion

This has changed. Unless the "official" server set up in that thread isn't... actually an official server.

EDIT: Huh? So how come now an admin approving of something (i.e. an official site Discord, which Macron created and Kory approved) can be so quickly and easily undone? Given this only followed people using the server to discuss the issue, and none of the other social media sites were declared "unofficial," this feels suspect. What does "our decision" versus "their [decision]" mean here? Who's "them"?

EDIT-2: A "return to pre-2014 practice" is... the exact opposite of what we've been pushing for for the past several years. That's the format of the site that still gets mocked to this day. If you want to bring in new members and make money, this sounds like the exact wrong way to do it.

Edited by mightymewtron on Sep 18th 2023 at 5:03:11 AM

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

That is a good point and I will bring it up.

Edit: looks like it's gone now.

Edited by Fighteer on Sep 18th 2023 at 1:04:22 PM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

So, since policy questions are still fine to ask, what about these policy questions that hadn't yet been addressed despite people asking them throughout this discussion?

• Do hollers have to be discussed over PM with the thumping mod, or could we try to talk to another mod if we feel like the first mod is being unreasonable?
• If we do notice another error in Edit Banned (such as the pronoun stuff), where can we report it? Are we still allowed to report it?
• Kory also ruled that ATT posts must be done in a specific way now; users must have their names kept out of reports, but must also be notified of said report (ban evaders aside). Supposedly we're allowed to ping them, but you can't ping someone without mentioning their name (something Kory may not have realized at the time). Are these rules actually sticking around?
• If we see that a thread got locked and we want to dispute this, is that possible anymore?
• If we have a cutlist request that needs to be removed, where can we go now that this thread has been retooled?

I'll admit, it's kind of frustrating to have the insistence that policy questions and the like are just fine while me and others have been attempting to ask questions the entire time while being mostly ignored. My concern has always been making sure users have a good enough understanding of the new rules to not set off another minefield while making otherwise innocent and constructive posts, and while I was waiting to be able to post again I saw... Well, sort of the same thing go down. The conversation being spontaneously declared to have "run in circles" and then the threat of thumps and bounces if people kept talking about the thing that until that specific point, people were allowed to talk to because... let's be honest, if this conversation wasn't about addressing the new moderation and our issues with the new state of things, then what was it supposed to be about?

Feedback is fine, until it's not, and so far that line has only been being enforced despite the fact that users don't know where it is anymore since the responses have been vague and limited at best.

This is ominous. What's gone?

Edited by WarJay77 on Sep 18th 2023 at 1:08:34 PM

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Isn't this a bad idea. We've had several flame outs when people went on their own Ask The Tropers thread.

"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."

The statement that we have an official TVT Discord.

I don't know that there has ever been an alternative way of doing this, at least not formally. I suppose that you can use the contact form if you disagree with how a specific moderator handles a Holler, but the process is visible to all of us and we're perfectly capable of discussing them amongst ourselves.

A Holler is inherently private; that's the whole point. If we wanted the reporting process to be public, we'd make it public.

As already happens today, you can send a Holler for the offending post. The point is that suspension proceedings are not to be discussed publicly outside of the direct conversation between the mods and the suspended user.

We will try to clarify this. Seems contradictory.

If it's a technical issue, like reopening a TRS that wasn't fully resolved, sure. If it's a complaint about how the thread was moderated, it goes to the contact form.

This thread can still be used for cutlist matters, although we've considered forking off one just for that purpose, like we do with a lot of other wiki-side matters. Stay tuned.

The reference to the Discord server as an "official" TV Tropes affiliate. This wasn't our decision; it was theirs.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Clarification on Kory's ruling. It does not apply until we hook up the paging system to Ask The Tropers. I think what he meant is that we shouldn't talk about people without giving them a chance to respond. If that descends into incivility, a moderator will step in.

For now, carry on with the current policy.

Edited by Fighteer on Sep 18th 2023 at 1:34:06 PM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Disboard still lists the server as officially affiliated with the site. Could we get some clarification (preferably from ~MacronNotes, whose link to the server is still up) on why the Disboard invitation no longer functions? Was it intentionally disabled, or did it just expire?

I apologize if this is the wrong place to ask. Could we get clarification on this change in the affiliated sites policy?

There is no war in Ba Sing Se.

The server unaffiliated itself, and since nobody who is a current wiki moderator is an admin there, there's nothing we can do about it. The matter should be resolved by its members/owners.

As far as I know, there is no change in policy overall, just a change in the affiliation of this one particular place.

Edited by Fighteer on Sep 18th 2023 at 2:51:04 PM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Disboard is its own service not related to Tv Tropes and the server was never connected to the site. It was created by Macron in spare time and nobody has requested it yet.

While the plan was to make it "official", now it sure seems difficult. Still, as an option, Discord has a neat feature to clone the server infrastructure, so if there's a need to link to something when new "tv tropes on social media" buttons arrive, things can be arranged.

TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup

So, I've been a lurker on this wiki for over a decade, not sticking my nose anywhere. I'd just like to say I sincerely appreciate what Fighteer said here about not giving a fake and insincere apology.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16037500180A26540800&page=369

It's honestly a relief to see someone who understands and appreciates the value of an apology and doesn't just give them out because others demand it.

Edited by SlenderMansDaughter on Sep 18th 2023 at 12:13:17 PM

Um, the policy change is mostly a return to pre-2014 (or more bluntly, pre-2020) practice where moderation policy isn't a matter for the public to decide. I remember that Eddie kept the reins pretty tight.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

And we all know Eddie was definitely the kind of person whose example you want to follow.

Edited by Perseus on Sep 18th 2023 at 6:02:54 PM

Trans rights are human rights.

Yeah, returning to pre-2014 practice is not a statement that fills me with any sort of reassurance

Absolute destiny... apeachalypse?

Tonight I dine on monkey soup.

The policy changes that have been made this week are not up for [public] debate. That has been made clear to us by the administrators/owners.

We don't make anyone sign terms of service to use TV Tropes, but we as moderators will be acting in accordance with the owners' wishes.

Edit: I would like to offer reassurance that we will continue to be as fair and reasonable as possible. It's to everyone's benefit to have moderators who will advocate on behalf of the site to the admins than to have us all replaced by people who have no accountability whatsoever.

Edit 2: To clarify, this in the hypothetical case that we all resign in protest.

Edited by Fighteer on Sep 18th 2023 at 5:52:20 AM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

People are asking for details because what occurred involved 1) a shift (or reversion, however you want to frame it) in policy that wasn't discussed until it was suddenly implemented and 2) it covers an area that doesn't have a laid out policy, i.e. what happens to a mod with conduct violations?

It's clear that the admins/mod want to transition the site away from an informal community and treat it more like a business/corporate structure. But even businesses outline to its workers (very weird using that to describe the userbase made of volunteers, which includes mods, but I digress) what kind of punitive action all workers can expect to face in the case of failing to adhere to the code of conduct. We already do this for non-mod users (in great detail) and given that mods are seemingly not going through that same process, it's necessary to lay out the same re:mods so everyone understands what to expect moving forward and there won't ned to be a kick-up the next time the admins choose this over other options.

So again, I'm asking to have my questions about the policy regarding mod violations of the code of conduct outlined and whether or not what happened here should be understood to be setting precedent or a special case. If the issue is that it was written specifying a particular mod, I'll generalize it:

• if a mod is determined to have violated site policy, will that always lead to a probationary period where they have access to some mod tools/actions but not others ("limited to wiki and support mod roles") or is that on a case-by-case basis?
• Are the activities mods are limited to while on probation standardized or will they be tailored to the specific mod and the nature of their infraction? How long will the probationary period last until a mod is determined to be in good standing and be allowed to have full mod privileges?
• Are probation and demodding the two outcomes users can reasonably expect if their report is found to have merit?
• Will admins announce / inform the reporter when they are looking into a situation and/or when they've decided no admin action worthy violation occurred? (Because so far, a report gets no update at all, so people don't know if their report was even given a review.)
• And given that this time, the mod under scrutiny announcing their own probation was met with suspicion, distrust, and frankly outrage, will admins publicly announce the probation themselves moving forward? Will another mod do it on behalf of them?

These are all policy clarification questions that AFAIK don't fit any of the disallowed topics, though I'm assuming "general" means "questions that other users who've read Administrivia could reasonably answer and doesn't necessarily require mod, let alone admin input." The only people capable of answering these questions are the admins and the mods as proxies for the admins.

Edited by amathieu13 on Sep 18th 2023 at 1:32:37 AM

I think this is key. Vague rules work when the moderators are essentially members of the community like everyone else, but not when the moderators can't be publicly questioned about a decision and the style of moderation is perceived to lean towards the draconian, if not power-tripping. One encourages free-flowing, natural conversation with curbs being brought in based on the general sense of the community that someone is "being an ass"; the other comes off as creating cover for arbitrary and capricious decisions and ends up having the opposite effect of chilling conversation.

Now, it's entirely possible that the community has grown large enough that the former approach no longer works or takes up too much of the moderators' effort, but if so the rules need to be brought up to match; after all, Eddie isn't in charge anymore. The bigger problem, though, is as I said earlier: ideally, even if the admins are coming in saying "your fun is over", the community should have some say in what it'll look like going forward, on a macro level as well as in terms of the details, especially given the sense that the admins (and possibly some of the mods) don't quite understand why things worked the way they did before. (At the very least, I'm not sure I trust Fighteer to have more of a say in what the rules say than most ordinary tropers.) Not sure if it's too late for that, though.

Basically, if the admins still believe in The Troping Code, they should recognize that what it really means is that the standards that exist are effectively defined by the community and the moderators are there to act as extensions of the community will, not to impose standards on the community when they aren't stated anywhere. That's why public accountability like what this thread used to provide is so important. If they don't - if they consider the Code to be an outdated relic of the Eddie era - they should say so and update the publicly-stated rules to match.

Yes, "pre-2014/20 practice" also meant no public accountability for mods, but Eddie and the mods he appointed were sufficiently embedded in the community that they had enough trust that it wasn't an issue. The admins in this affair have spoken entirely through their preferred mods and have no confidence from the troper base, and the non-Fighteer mods that have spoken on their behalf have lost what confidence they had (Fighteer not having any to begin with).

The problem is, what we've seen so far is much more the former than the latter. If I were to take the second quoted paragraph seriously, it would mean that moderators have attempted to explain to the admins how and why the site works the way it does, and for the moderators to be defending the administration's actions the way they have indicates that they're sufficiently satisfied by the "owners' wishes" to remain on board and serve as their mouthpieces. But as with Ag Prov's private appeal, we don't know what those wishes are, and all we've gotten from the mods is relaying the owners' dictates without any indication that any of them (that are left) are genuinely advocating for the community beyond just relaying our concerns. As far as we can tell, you might as well have been "replaced by people who have no accountability whatsoever", pod person-style, certainly because as far as we're concerned, there might as well be no accountability.

It's clear that there's a tension between what the community wants to be and what the admins want it to be, and there needs to be some sort of effort to reconcile those visions. Right now, though, we don't know what the admins' vision even is. It's one thing to say that these "policy changes...are not up for debate", but that doesn't mean we can't ask why they've been imposed, why "top-down management" was thought to be needed, why the admins felt the need to bulldoze in and impose their will without even understanding why the community is the way it is. Without a clear statement of what the admins' top-level goals are, people will continue to assume the worst about those goals. We need to know what the "owners' wishes" are in order to make an informed decision about whether we're willing to continue contributing to this community. Even with that, this would be concerning, and without it, it's downright alarming:

I can, on paper, accept that the administration intends for moderator discipline to be a private matter and that the administration should have the flexibility to make the disciplinary decisions they deem appropriate... but I hope they realize that the way this affair has played out, this comes across as "the administration will make whatever decision they want about moderator behavior, letting mods they like get away with murder while demodding anyone that crosses them." This is what I mean when I say that the Troper Code only works if the administration has the appropriate attitude towards the community. We're a lot more willing to accept this sort of informal approach if we had enough of a grasp of the administration's philosophy that we could be sure they had the best interest of the community at heart.

Misgivings about trust aside, I agree that the admins should clarify what their vision for running the site is, and what aspects of policy they wish to maintain themselves, and what they want to leave to the community to decide.

Since the administration wants to keep moderation tighter in hand now, it makes sense that they take the lead in policies for moderation. To make this acceptable to the community, they need to have transparency about what those rules are and how they are applied, which will generate trust as the community can see for themselves whether the rules are fair and fairly applied. The community will also need to accept that some of this is behind closed doors; I should note that this is the norm in companies, and that it has worked this way on this site before.

As for wiki policy, I think it makes sense to have the community be guiding in this, since they have the required knowledge and expertise to know what policies are needed and effective. For the forum, I'm not sure, but I would lean more towards mods deciding what is needed there.

I also think we shouldn't overregulate (see my post about double posts as an example), as this can put too much of a strain on users, and increases the workload of the mods. I'm also not convinced stricter rules as a replacement of trust is a good idea. Trust should come from how the rules are applied, not from how complex they are.

As for double posting, I think it makes most sense to keep that as a guideline. That covers edge cases well enough, without creating a situation where users are constantly needlessly hollering double posts because they are "breaking" a rule.

Optimism is a duty.

i had asked earlier about the ATT policy and whether it included requiring a ping when we report someone— i understand you are clarifying with them, thank you.

regarding the actual policy: I can see why, in the current (previous?) rule, this isn't done— ive seen some people go nuts about it and throw a tantrum on the way out. however in my personal opinion i actually find "never call someone in" to be as restrictive as "always call people in".

It just seems like there are some cases with very simple issues and low odds of flameout (like, say, someone with a nannybot on who doesn't realize it's a problem), that if the person could notice the issue and say "i fixed it!", would save both them and mods time in EB. And ideally imo, it could be left up to the discretion of the person reporting (im sure people would get it wrong occasionally, but i mean, its an anonymous account on the internet. their flameout options are pretty much limited to "writing rude messages")

yknow, as if i have any influence over this :P

Edited by Tremmor19 on Sep 19th 2023 at 12:09:41 PM