I'm of two minds on this. One one hand repeat proposals takes up time that could be spent on new candidates (especially given the limits on how many active proposals a troper can have and how many can be posted within and hour and on a page). On the other hand the policy for ban evaders is to remove their edits which, imo, kind of extends to edits done through a thread.
I think I’ve figured out where I want to lie on this question. I’ve seen some mods go back and forth over whether or not proposals from ban evaders get thumped on sight - sometimes it has, others it hasn’t. Is there a consistent policy there? If a ban evaders proposals get thumped, then we should probably repropose, but if they don’t, then I’m cool with someone just vouching for it and rewriting.
None of us follow the CM/MB threads closely and I don't recall seeing any hollers about proposals from banned users. I don't see anything inconsistent personally as I don't know if this something that has been discussed or not. I don't recall thumping a ban evaders proposal.
Edited by MacronNotes on Aug 25th 2023 at 7:11:55 AM
Macron's notesIt’s admittedly been a while since I’ve seen it happen but I have seen it happen before. Do mods have any input on if that’s something worth hollering or if we should just leave it alone? I’m not trying to imply anything here or say that things have been inconsistent, I’m genuinely curious cause it changes my stance on the ban evader rewrite issue
![]()
Got it. In that case, I’ll go ahead and vote that they should be re-proposed. Thanks so much for the input!
Edited by STARCRUSHER99 on Aug 25th 2023 at 7:15:57 AM
I am ambivalent about ban evader proposals being thumped. I think people can just disregard the proposals and if the proposal is still being talked about, mod action might be warranted.
Edited by MacronNotes on Aug 25th 2023 at 7:14:45 AM
Macron's notesTechnically with other edits if the example is accurate we just rewrite it. I don't see a need to go through the whole process unless there are factual concerns with the characters. You may be able to get away with just redoing the entries themselves.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallI think the logic here is that a ban evader isn’t somebody to be trusted on the facts - and for the ban evaders we tend to deal with, I’m kinda inclined to agree. After thinking it over more I think it probably just makes sense to repropose (keeping in mind that it no longer means the person has to remake the EP - it can be an informal proposal)
I have no issues with that really, especially if accuracy is a concern. It just feels like in some cases you don't need to bother, if you can garuantee it to be accurate already. Whatever works best though.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallTechnically speaking, entry approval is considered a collaborative effort (which is why edit-banned users can still propose candidates afaik), so simply rewriting entries that someone can vouch for is consistent with that policy and generally time efficient.
That said, whoever does the vouching should be responsible for the rewrite and put their name on the "by user" sandbox. Said voucher should also speak with certainty, and not just "been a while, but pretty sure they count".
If this proves to cause problems, then obviously reassess lol.
Without contextualizing anything on the threads related to specific candidates by name, I think Tropers who've seen/read the work rewriting a ban evader's entries is probably the preferable option to doing another EP and vote. It'd probably be a case-by-case basis either way. In some cases, an EP may be warranted anyway—though probably in the case of a potentially contentious candidate regardless of how strong/weak the vote was.
Okay so I've seen that one of our goers was a ban evaders and we are discussing what to do about the candidates that ban invaders have gotten approved and written up.
My opinion and this is only my opinion regarding Agent's options, I think I'd chose be to chose option two "someone else who watched the work vouch for it and just do a rewrite instead" as it may cause more unnecessary work especially since the if the new EP may read similar to the old one.
Of course as I mentioned this is simply my opinion on it should be entirely up to the troopers themselves who've seen the work that the ban evader had proposed and approved their candidates from on if the want to do an EP or just vouch for the candidate and go straight to a rewrite.
Edited by G-Editor on Aug 25th 2023 at 9:27:04 AM
My sandbox of EPs and other stuffI mean, sure, makes sense. I just think that if another troper is familiar with the work, they can either do an informal proposal, or simply edit the entry in their own words. My only issue is when remade EPs take full priority when there would be other candidates to discuss. Like some are obsessed with CM and MB, that is to be expected, but I am sure we would find that the troper who verifies the information the ban evader provided would be more trustworthy ergo that lessens some tension.
I do think there’s a bit of a difference between an insular culture that considers outsiders untrustworthy vs. agreeing that someone willing to pathologically fuck us over in the way ban evaders always seem to do doesn’t deserve any inherent trust
Edited by STARCRUSHER99 on Aug 25th 2023 at 11:33:35 AM
Well, if ban evader additions (besides TLP drafts and tropes) on the wiki are generally considered invalid or at the very least subject to heavy scrutiny, disregarding ban evader proposals is just an extension of that.
Macron's notes

As I said there, I’m cool either way as long as someone can vouch for it and do the write up. I know that while proposals are fun, they can be a hassle if we’re just doing them to rewrite something, so if someone wants to just rewrite it as long as they can vouch for it I’m cool with that