To be clear, I was referring to "EP" as the vetting process in general and not the format. Lighty is right about that.
But as I've already clarified I'm not opposed to it, I was just asking a question and finding the arguments in favor of the status quo kinda weak mostly because they relied on wiki history. But if the issue still exists then I get it.
Edited by WarJay77 on Oct 7th 2022 at 8:29:05 AM
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallWe have users who "curate" certain sections of the trope to ensure we're on top of them—ACW for instance. This won't be a huge problem if someone continues to curate that sandbox.
I continue to opine involving ATT in anything but contentious cases is unnecessary unless we find out a way to make a perma-link.
Edited by Scraggle on Oct 7th 2022 at 6:30:51 AM
Uh I dunno. The whole forum posts as votes alwas done specifically to avoid issues of ban evaders or vote manipulation. As it would be easier to spot than in say corWners.
Edited by miraculous on Oct 7th 2022 at 5:31:15 AM
"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."I'm digging most of the suggestions, but am personally not comfortable with the "no voting" time period and ATT bumping thing except for controversial characters...the thread is open at all times to anyone who wants to participate and draws dozens of users as it is, and I don't think a period for "ruminating" with no votes is necessary, myself.
Edited by Ravok on Oct 7th 2022 at 5:31:25 AM
No! That is NOT Solid Snake! Stop impersonating him!do you have a counter to the point about a pre-existing vote, particularly a one-sided one, inhibiting further discussion on that candidate? e: also applies to
willing to table this one for now pending further input.
Edited by ChloeJessica on Oct 7th 2022 at 5:31:45 AM
Yeah, there's just nothing to discuss in most cases.
And yes, people have given counters plenty of times and then new information comes, etc etc. Most candidates, though, are not controversial and are dealt with accordingly. This is where us being more familiar is to something of a benefit witht he process.
Edited by Lightysnake on Oct 7th 2022 at 5:32:34 AM
Yeah most villains that come in here are pretty unsubtle and don't require a long rumination period. It should be reserved for legit disvive guys.
Edited by miraculous on Oct 7th 2022 at 5:33:23 AM
"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."how much of that is because it's all regulars who have had every discussion under the sun already, though? it may well be that there are things to discuss, they just don't get discussed because of the thread culture.
however, i concede that it could equally be that it's an unnecessary delay. there's really no way to know which without trying it; can we agree to give it a trial period and revisit it in two weeks or a month to see which it turned out to be?
One thing everyone needs to keep in mind, again, is thread speed and who is voting on every candidate. I can fully believe that in most cases it just starts and ends with "yeah they fit" or "no they don't fit". I think a lot of people are glossing over the issue of it only being the same people in every discussion, which is one of the issues some of us want to resolve.
And yeah there doesn't seem to be any easy solution to encouraging new people to pitch in... but that doesn't mean the current system is perfect. It mostly just means that there's so many regulars that the discussion will almost always be resolved by the time anyone else shows up anyway.
Is this a legit issue or just speculation? Who knows? Chloe's right — it can go either way.
Edited by WarJay77 on Oct 7th 2022 at 8:35:53 AM
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wallhow much of that is because it's all regulars who have had every discussion under the sun already, though? it may well be that there are things to discuss, they just don't get discussed because of the thread culture.
however, i concede that it could equally be that it's an unnecessary delay. there's really no way to know which without trying it; can we agree to give it a trial period and revisit it in two weeks or a month to see which it turned out to be?
Chloe...when we're getting somewhere, this comes off as honestly a step back. How much of this is an awareness with the issue? Because that is not usually what happens at all. We've taken a lot of steps to meet you more than halfway here, asking for a little reciprocity on that. "They don't get discussed because of thread culture"...is there an example you have there?
I don't really agree with this being necessary at all. It's not thread culture, it's just that most candidates don't have a lot of nuance.
We've agreed with the vast majority of your solutions. Disagreeing on a couple and compromising shouldn't be an issue.
Edited by Lightysnake on Oct 7th 2022 at 5:37:26 AM
I'm fine with a trial period if it helps gauge both the pace and the overall culture of the voting system. This seems like a small step toward a bigger solution but anything is better than nothing right now.
If I have a Marvel villain named Hate-Monger who wants to kill all the minorities in the world, that shouldn't need a long table for discussion. I think this is a decent idea that needs to be focused on and developed more so it's actually a fix to the prevalent issue.
Edited by Scraggle on Oct 7th 2022 at 6:39:20 AM
Here's the thing. This isn't the first time issues like this have been discussed. It's happened at the TRS multiple times, where people admit that they'd have disagreed with thread discussion if they only knew about it, and more recently on the NRLEP thread.
It's not entirely baseless to say that people are turned off by insular communities, nor that these sort of communities might fall into patterns knowingly or not. That's not to say the thread would be inherently bad or something, just that when there's no new blood the people who are there tend to not even consider the chance for someone else to disagree.
Again it might not actually be the case, but I think Chloe's talking from experience here.
Edited by WarJay77 on Oct 7th 2022 at 8:40:01 AM
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallCertain discussions where a candidate—my candidate in a couple notable cases—nearly got cut were pretty contentious. Agent Gibbs was not too bad actually, but Grigori Rasputin was VERY intense—and everyone was exhausted when that particular discussion was finally over. So yeah, having a sandbox that constantly counts votes would be a very good thing.
I think someone at some point suggested wiping out all examples of both tropes I'm totally NOT okay with that.
x4While I do think you are trying to maintain good faith, posts like that aren't helpful.
It is a well documented fact that groups develop tunnel vision over time, this is an issue in many real world disciplines. No one is saying that there is nefarious intent, but perhaps realize that there is some bias going on.
Edited by laserviking42 on Oct 7th 2022 at 8:39:53 AM
I didn't choose the troping life, the troping life chose me

This is sounding like we're starting to get somewhere workable.