Wiki and Forum Policy - General Discussion

It still sounds like they have an agenda, even if they promise to not push it.

Also, since they seemed to be in denial about their grammar issues, pointing out exactly what their issues were would've/could've helped. They got very caught up about the whole "syntax" thing, and were never made to acknowledge their lack of punctuation and capitalization.

From what I saw, their whole bit about incorrect religious information seems like moving the goalposts away from their more random deletions. Plus, they seem to take innocuous religious misinformation (like assuming the Virgin Mary was a young teenager) as some sort of anti-Christian agenda, when it's more likely just a matter of Common Knowledge in this case. A lot of people, Christian and non-Christian alike, misremember things from the Bible, and there's a lot that's not set in stone.

I say, acknowledge that they have the right to correct stuff, but don't let them forget the actual reason they're there is for removing other religious commentary without any explanation, which comes across as a bias. Is Righting Great Wrongs a relevant page here as well?

Edited by mightymewtron on Jun 17th 2021 at 3:00:41 PM

Not to mention that the Bible itself is by no means clear about a lot of small details like that. That's because it is not a book so much as a library of books, written at vastly different times by different people with different agendas who often could not even agree on telling the same story the same way.

As for Mary, the Bible seems to refer to her having been "of child bearing age", which can mean a lot of things, especially in ancient times, so yeah, I can see where that particular controversy came from.

Edited by Redmess on Jun 17th 2021 at 9:28:37 PM

I think we've gotten enough. Thanks, folks. The gist I get is that we're on the right track by being concerned about this user's behavior.

Please decline the cut request for FamousLastWords.Attack On Titan, since while the wicks are being removed, the subpages are not. Link to discussion in the TRS thread.

I'm not happy with/don't agree with the suspension of Imperial Magesty XO from the TRS for their comments on the Some Anvils Need to Be Dropped thread. They were not being rude or violating any forum rules that I'm aware of, and their request to have a slightly longer crowner duration is basically a reasonable ask, though I agree with others that it wouldn't have made a difference. Other threads in the wiki side of the forum have had issues with crowners being closed too frequently and I think it's a relevant on-topic thing to bring up.

At a time when people complain about the TRS being too cut-happy or exclusionary (though I do think this has improved recently), this feels like disproportionate retribution against someone who doesn't fit the subwiki culture.

I want to emphasize that I am not unhappy with or trying to undo the decision of the thread and in fact voted for the winning option, but I don't like the message this suspension sends.

Edited by naturalironist on Jun 18th 2021 at 12:33:14 PM

Also, like they said in EB, the suspension seemed to be on the basis that they didn't speak up until after the crowner was called... which isn't true, as they spoke up at least 24 hours before and I'm pretty sure they were active in the TRS process even before that.

I know there's been an issue lately with people uninvolved with the decision entirely trying to change threads last minute, but I don't think that's the case here. Imperial isn't barging in unannounced and they weren't suggesting anything that would have really changed the course of the thread that much given the intense lead, and they conceded as soon as they were called out. If a suspension is supposed to be a chat with mods, why suspend them after they already conceded to the mod's word? That seems counterproductive... dare I say, obstructive.

Edited by mightymewtron on Jun 17th 2021 at 2:41:58 PM

While I do think it was harsh, I also think that it was more about the overall pattern than this one incident. Imp has had issues with things such as accepting crowner decisions (sometimes claiming the votes to be suspicious or the options to be ambiguous, but only ever if they've disagreed with the outcome) and complaining about the way the crowner got called (slightly hypocritical coming from me if you're following the debate at the RL thread, but it is what it is and I usually only try to debate these things based on objective facts), and also with generally doing everything in their power to prevent a trope from being cut, even if there's no other options presented.

While I don't think there's any malice or intentional disruption going on, repeated behavior like that can be pretty disruptive, especially on threads where the vote was unambiguously conclusive. I agree with them that we need more voices in TRS, but the way they've gone about campaigning for it in the past has come off as a bit sketch to me, with them often posting ATT threads for crowners at times when the crowner already reached definitive consensus (which can easily look more like them attempting to alter the vote, rather than just get more voices heard).

They make good points about TRS culture and how many voices are involved, but I do think that the way they've gone about "fixing" these issues has been generally unhelpful, or at least a bit too pushy. There's been similar instances elsewhere of them insisting upon archiving absolutely everything, which again, is understandable to agree but disruptive in practice.

Anyway, just my 2-cents as someone who's been debating with them for over a year in the TRS now. I hope they appeal and get back into the TRS because I do think that their alternate perspective on things can be really useful, but I also hope that this'll be a growing experience, or that we can come to a stronger understanding of how to handle dissent in TRS discussions. I think that while some of the debates have been really frustrating or tiring (at least for me), I know they're acting with the intent to improve the TRS and help people get their voices heard...which is commendable, but at the same time we need to sometimes just accept that very few people care about TRS, and we can only attract so many people.

Edited by WarJay77 on Jun 17th 2021 at 2:51:01 PM

That's fair. I guess the way Berrenta phrased the suspension call looked like an overreaction without the full context of Imperial's behavior pattern, and thus may have given the wrong impression.

Edited by mightymewtron on Jun 17th 2021 at 2:51:28 PM

I agree with everything War Jay. I think it’s good that Imperial want to bring more eyes on TRS threads which I think is good and we absolutely need more people join but, however, I have noticed that they that they always pushed the most when a trope gets voted to be cut per crowner consensus or some other decision happen that they agree with. While I do see how TRS can be cut happy at time, we do still give people plenty of time to disagree and vote. We have done all we can with what we have to advertise the TRS and it hasn’t done much. There’s nothing we can do about the vast majority of tropers not caring about TRS (nothing on them if they don’t want participate). We tried everything to get their attention and if they still don’t want to join in on the discussion or vote, it is what it is. It’s not the fault of the TRS regulars that people aren’t reluctant to join in.

That being said, I do thing the suspension is a little harsh because I know Imperial had good intentions and tropers that get suspended are usually less civil than them but hopefully they will be able to learn from this either way.

Edited by MacronNotes on Jun 18th 2021 at 3:02:16 PM

And hell, if there were ways to get more people in TRS and projects, you know I'd be all over it. My trope report plugs haven't seem to made any actual impact thus far, which hurts my heart to admit, because I really do agree with them that the TRS needs more people involved. However, at a certain point, there's only so much we can do. The more we advertise TRS threads, eventually we'll just start to become obnoxious, rather than helpful, and there's not much more we can do short of sending PMs to every troper about every open TRS thread in existence.

This thread had over 60 votes, which is more than most TRS threads I've seen in the past year, so I think at that point, complaining about needing more voices just made them seem like they'd never be satisfied with the amount of attention we'd already managed to collect. At some point, we just need to accept our limits and roll with what we got.

Edited by WarJay77 on Jun 18th 2021 at 3:01:05 PM

Imperial Majesty has been on thin ice in TRS for a while now, going by the comments in the moderator forum. I've noticed a pattern of dragging out discussions after crowners were called etc. and there has been previous discussion in the moderator forum about whether they need a break from it.

I will also note that Imperial has a habit of dragging out cut discussions on the Magnificent Bastard and Complete Monster subfora unnecessarily, and while I understand he is trying to be thorough, when I had to cut the Phantom Lord from that Metallica song as a monster, he made what should have been an unceremonious Tuesday for me a slightly longer and frustrating process, mostly because of everything that happened before I could make my cut proposal, but he did make arguments against cutting.

Another incident which sticks out is the evaluation of a candidate from what turned out to be cultist propaganda; we declined the candidate, and Imperial tried to argue against consensus.

Edit: This is nothing personal, by the way. Imperial is regularly an otherwise productive contributor, but like Star said below, this pattern of behaviour is disruptive to the function of the projects.

Edited by SkyCat32 on Jun 18th 2021 at 9:24:47 AM

Agreeing with everything Sky said. When we found some dead Monster redirects (as in they literally redirected to the wrong place), Imp made trying to cut them a five page long discussion single-handedly and no matter how many people voted against him he just kept saying “we need more votes”. Then, when we finally cut them, he made it personal and asked if we thought he was stupid or we just didn’t want him in the thread. This is a pattern of behavior and it’s made relatively simple issues into much bigger things than they needed to be

Would it be alright if I spoke up on this?

I am open to hearing your perspective, but you need to know where we are coming from.

Can confirm Star's and Sky's assessments of this being a pattern of behaviour in the CM and MB threads

Well, I admit I can be stubborn and even hardheaded, but I don't mean to be disruptive. For the recent redirects debate, I genuinely didn't see the point in cutting them and didn't know what it was meant to accomplish. And I do raise good points, like when I brought up the franchise redirects and how they might be useful if we ever have to recreate pages... like we're doing right now, recreating Monster.Berserk.

Now, on to the recent cleanup thread boondoggle. Under different circumstances, I could understand the "pattern of behavior" logic for my suspension. But the thing is, I wasn't following the pattern. I was trying to handle things differently by speaking up earlier, couching my concerns in questions, and doing my best to avoid standing in the way. Not to mention that the previous time I was warned about obstruction was months prior. It honestly feels not only rather disproportionate, but like I'm being punished for trying to improve. I'm sure that's not your intention, but I thought I'd earned the benefit of the doubt with my efforts. And if you were still having problems with my conduct, I feel like you could have tried to approach me about them so we could clear the air and work out a solution.

I guess we might as well try that now. What do you want me to do differently and why? Are there any other recent (in this case, after Berrenta warned me some months ago) cases where you think I acted wrongly in TRS?

I'll grant that the franchise redirects needed not be cut.

That said, the alphabetical redirects had no reason to be saved, since it was not like they were going to be recreated, barring a massive purge and a bunch of effortposts which happened in such a way that formatting those pages became necessary.

The alphabetical redirects have really overshadowed any other mistakes you may have made since, because that was pages of discussion.

Also, there was no purpose to want to save the page history of those redirects, since so many candidates have been approved and cut since, that any information would be outdated at best.

I can't speak on the TRS things, but all I'm gonna say on the redirects is that the franchise redirects were never on the cutting room floor to begin with for the exact reason you just gave. No one ever intended to cut the franchise redirects, we just were cutting the dead subpage ones, so to say you made the point is a bit irrelevant when we weren't talking about it to begin with. And besides, even if you didn't see the point in cutting them, multiple others did, and you single-handedly made the "debate" go on for multiple pages, all while trying to force us to wait for a "consensus" that we had already pretty much achieved.

'd, and Sky echoes my thoughts pretty well

Edited by STARCRUSHER99 on Jun 18th 2021 at 10:36:15 AM

You may not have been considering cutting the franchise redirects, but I know ACW at least was thinking about it. Even if he was the only one, he's still the de facto thread curator.

As for why I was so adamant about waiting, a good chunk of it is because I still feel guilty over my complicity in the Infernal Tales incident, and I can't help but wonder if it might've gone better if I'd spoken up about my reservations.

Edited by ImperialMajestyXO on Jun 18th 2021 at 7:41:58 AM

~Tropers/ACW, do you remember this discussion?

Works without brackets as well.

Edited by SkyCat32 on Jun 18th 2021 at 10:44:34 AM

Curly brackets. You mean ~ACW

Found the start point here