This has been a hot-button topic for a little while now and I think it's high-time we finally have an actual discussion about it; the topic being, should we default to summoning tropers to ATT discussions about them?

I for one think that in a lot of cases, doing so can be extremely harmful. Plenty of ATT discussions derailed into toxicity and a public meltdown because the person who was summoned couldn't handle the public criticism or felt personally attacked. I feel that while it's good to send notifiers and summon tropers if it's just a simple matter of disagreement (like an Edit War), it shouldn't be the default because, well, simply put, not every discussion is one that necessitates inviting the troper being discussed.

But this is just my take. I don't think it's a bad thing in every case and we really should be going case-by-case, but we have to be careful and we shouldn't just default to "let's summon them" unless the discussion actually needs them to be present.

If they have a meltdown because someone is talking about them then they probably aren't a good fit for the wiki,just saying

Well, yeah, it's definitely a sign of serious instability. But we also want to avoid public ATT meltdowns where people can respond and unwillingly keep the fire going.

On the contrary, having public AT Ts without summoning the person feels like trash-talking them behind their back. I think part of the reason people melt down is when they're summoned late in the process they see what's already a long thread criticizing them without them being given the chance to share their side of the story. That's certainly how I would feel if I was in that situation.

Plus, from reading edit banned the most common complaint is "why am I suspended without anybody warning me first", and a lot of people who do edit wars don't know they're supposed to discuss things in ATT. I feel like always summoning people to ATT right away would help with those issues and is the better way to go.

In a lot of cases, the person has been warned before. Off the top of my head, three tropers who had public meltdowns were repeatedly told, before the ATT report, about their behavior. At least one of them was a ban evader who was already informed of the problem while on their original account.

Then you get issues that are just things like people not using correct grammar or formatting, and those things are very often addressed over notifiers, which again, is a warning.

So it's honestly pretty rare for these tropers to not have been warned before. A lot of time, the response in Edit Banned is that they were warned through notifiers or thumps, and I think that's also the case with ATT reports.

A lot of them are also not intended to be full-on discussions about their behavior. I know that when I make a report it's because I have tried to warn the person, I have tried to settle things elsewhere, and I'm at the end of my rope and so I make the report, in part, to get mod attention- not to have a full gossip session. I don't do it to argue with or about the troper in question, I do it to resolve the issue I couldn't resolve through other means, and very rarely are these issues things that get resolved through ATT discussion if they couldn't get resolved through direct contact.

Edited by WarJay77 on Jun 15th 2021 at 5:18:18 AM

Me, I worry that inviting tropers like that will turn Ask The Tropers threads into fights between the reporting troper and the reported troper. And the "talking behind backs" thing has never been considered a problem, I think.

I'd like treat it like a private report,ergo the people who can chiefly see it are the reporters and the mods,but thats it harder to enlist other tropers to mend whatever damage they've done

I'd like to able to restrict troper reports so the troper can't see them somehow but other people besides mods can

Also, I agree that a lot of times people did get warnings and disregarded them. Sometimes the issue is something that warnings don't help with (grammar issues, mainly), too.

In short, I think the advantages of of notifying people do not outweigh the disadvantages.

I see it as advantageous to have a venue where we can discuss problematic editing before moderators have to step in. A user who is causing problems may not be aware of what they are doing, and making them aware is a necessary first step that doesn't have to occur in the Edit Banned thread. Optimistically, we've failed if it gets that far.

However, this conflicts slightly with the use of ATT for reporting problems to moderation, since users "summoned" to such threads may feel that they are being ganged up on or gossiped about. I would like to cut down on the popcorning and backseat modding that occurs in ATT, but not at the expense of the ability to work out editing problems before mod involvement is needed.

Consider the various venues for handling problems:

• Report Page. This functionality sends a Holler directly from a wiki article. It's the fastest way to call moderator attention to something and should be used if there is an urgent problem or blatant rules violation.
• Edit reasons. These can serve as a quick reminder but are not a feasible venue for conversation. They can and should direct conversation to a Discussion, ATT, or forum thread if needed.
• Notifiers / PMs. These should be used if edit reasons are insufficient and/or as canned responses when something is being done incorrectly. The user may or may not choose to engage with them. If not, escalation is needed.
• Discussion pages. These can serve as a venue for short conversations between users, but because of their relative obscurity are not good for engaging the community. Hollers can be sent from Discussions.
• Ask The Tropers. This seems to have become the de facto chatroom for wiki regulars, but has disadvantages. There's no automatic paging feature, no notification/watchlist system, and no direct way to report a post or thread to the moderators.
• Forums. Opening a new forum thread to discuss problems with specific users/articles is discouraged because of clutter. We direct those to ATT. However, articles that are under specific or general repair/cleanup actions should be discussed in those threads, and users running afoul of such efforts should be directed there.

Edited by Fighteer on Jun 16th 2021 at 8:17:11 AM

I'd like to amend that the report page function should only be used if a problem has to be reported confidentially (e.g a sockpuppeteer with a habit of going to ATT). For I see the fact that folks know how reports are handled and what we issue suspensions for as a big advantage of Ask The Tropers over the private or more off-the-beaten-path venues.

Your point reminds me of another point a mod (I believe you, actually) raised in the past—ATT allows for users to essentially do the investigative work for the mods, reporting other areas where problematic tropers have created problems and thereby highlighting more issues with said tropers. I obviously can't speak for you, but I can imagine that's a plus.

On the other hand, I am aware of at least two cases where reported tropers starting issuing suicide threats to the other tropers in ATT threads, which I think is at least something to consider.

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Jun 16th 2021 at 2:59:18 PM

It certainly helps draw out people who are not healthy or stable enough to participate here. To me that's mostly a plus.

We should not succumb to those plays for sympathy/guilt or feel responsible when they happen. TV Tropes is intended for people who are capable of being responsible for their well-being or are under responsible supervision.

Edited by Fighteer on Jun 16th 2021 at 4:48:39 AM

Nobody is saying we should give into them, however if they meltdown I'd rather they do it somewhere mods can thump them. A lot of these meltdowns occur when no mods are online, allowing things to get out of control while ordinary tropers try in vain to put out the flames.