A cleanup thread
for Snoot Game was recently closed as it was getting off-topic, here is a brief rundown of the game and the thread.
Goodbye Volcano High was announced in 2020 and released in 2023. The game features a Non-Binary protagonist, Fang, and other LGBTQ characters. In 2021, a group of 4channers under the name 'Cavemanon' who strongly disliked the look of GVH released an anti-fangame named Snoot Game, involving characters from Goodbye Volcano High but in a more anti-LGBT and alt-right adjacent narrative. Snoot Game has two good endings and two bad endings; a mandatory part of both good endings is Fang rejecting being Non-Binary, and in the bad endings, where Fang remains Non-Binary, they either commit a school-shooting and then kill themselves, or they became a washed-up failure who is implied to be addicted to drugs.
Needless to say, with this is mind - as well as the fact that the game was created when all that was known about Goodbye Volcano High is that 'it will be a video game with a Non-Binary protagonist', Snoot Game is pretty openly a project borne out of spite and anti-LGBT sentiment. The cleanup thread was distracted by some back and forth over this, and got more heated when someone in the thread who had been critical of Snoot Game revealed that they had recently been doxxed
by irate fans; in addition, it turned out that some people on 4chan were actively monitoring
the thread. So as not to scare-monger, the troper in question had been vocally critical of Snoot Game off-site, so this wasn't a case of someone being doxxed solely for being critical of a work in a TVTropes cleanup thread, but it still underlies that this is a rather contentious and unpleasant work to cover.
So the question now is, what is to be done with the pages for Snoot Game? They require a cleanup, but the cleanup thread was just locked. It's gotten the attention of people off-site who we absolutely do not want the attention of, and we especially don't want to invite any edits from them; while this is not our fault or responsibility, it's still something to take into account. For these reasons I would suggest just cutting it. Also, not trying to solidify my position as the objectively correct one but I feel it is relevant to the discussion; before the cleanup thread was locked then we had seven tropers in agreement - including two who were previously defending the work - that a cut was the best course of action, given the difficulty of covering the work neutrally, the impossibility of agreeing how to 'neutrally' cover a work which is simultaneously explicit and coy about its degree of anti-LGBT-ness, and the fact that a troper - albeit not due to their participation on the thread - had been doxxed by fans of the game.
Obviously any final decision ultimately comes down to the moderation team and we will all respect that, but also a final reason why I would favour a cut is that this work has been discussed in the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment thread, then Troping Works That Promote Bigotry, then it's own cleanup thread, then back to Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment thread, and now I have been told that it should be brought to its own thread on Wiki Talk, so... if it was cut then we could at least all put this behind us.
Please discuss! I mean, if you feel like it.
I mean, yeah I'm not opposed to just nipping it in the bud since it's attracting so much controversy and potential danger.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallGive the page a full cut topped with salt. Otherwise, a lock and full clean can do.
Edited by callmeamuffin on Oct 13th 2023 at 9:43:48 PM
Working on Sandbox.The Amazing Race TV Tropes Edition.I'm fine with either a cut or a lock. If it's cut, then IMO it would be safe to put it on Permanent Red Link Club as a precaution in case people try to remake the page for whatever reason.
CG for shortYeah it's one thing for the game to be actively promoting edgy anti-queer ideology in a pointed effort to subvert a piece of queer media, but if the page and discussions about it are actively being used to justify targeted harassment and harm beyond the site, that's a super easy cut and permanent red-linking. Risk of harm from keeping it around FAR exceeds its value.
Thanks for playing King's Quest V!I think that locking and cleaning, or a temp cut to make a properly representative page, should be able to suffice- PRLC feels excessive, since it's likely that at some future most of the people causing all the ruckus will either be banned or moved on to something else.
Welcome To Ideals' WorldA lot of the ruckus is occurring offsite, from what I understand. There's nothing we can do about people mocking us from afar, but they may encourage raids, doxing, and similar malicious behavior, and that puts us in the quandary of maintaining our standards vs. protecting our members.
At the end of the day, I don't feel like anything of value is lost by cutting this thing, and that by itself may be enough to tip the scales.
Edited by Fighteer on Oct 13th 2023 at 12:29:38 PM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Since the work is near impossible to trope neutrally and is attracting extremely bad attention, I don't think the page is worth keeping just because it isn't technically banworthy (discounting the lewd scene involving high school characters).
Edited by TheLivingDrawing on Oct 13th 2023 at 1:17:47 PM
Once Upon A Time.I mean aside from the heated argument in the previous thread, and one single brand new forum poster joining the thread to defend it, I didn't see much disruption caused by Snoot Game on this site. Granted, I haven't been active on this site in a very long time, but on a cursory look around the wiki and forums I didn't see much else.
The biggest development was Nanaki being doxxed and harassed off-site, but as I understand it that was largely unrelated to Tvtropes, and she was targeted instead for being a friend of the Goodbye Volcano High devs and a vocal critic of Snoot Game on various other sites. Obviously concerning though, and not something that could be excused or justified. I just wonder where the line is drawn between importing drama, letting other sites influence wiki decisions, and being proactive against harassment and brigading.
The wiki page itself seems mostly straightforward, even with regard to the controversial and bigoted themes recognized in the game.
There were only like three people in the thread actually arguing any points in defense of the game, myself included. I agree that it's problematic, but the "cleanup" thread seemed like it was actually making the page worse by adding incorrect information and misrepresenting the work, to try and counter the anti-trans sentiment and the overly-positive slant of the original page.
Nanaki brought the most in-depth and cogent arguments against Snoot Game in the thread, and she gave me a lot to think about. The rest of the thread seemed to be focusing on the basic plot synopsis and the perceived context behind the game, which I still say is shallow and reductive. And it seemed like a lot of the users in the thread hadn't actually explored the work itself, with some outright stating they didn't and wouldn't play/read it. Going from Complaining About Shows You Don't Like to Complaining About Shows You Don't Watch . Now, I don't think you have to have consumed a work to comment on it, but it sure helps to have a more complete understanding of it.
I'll state again that I think the transphobia of the game is being blown out of proportion. I don't think the devs nor the game itself actually put much importance on gender identity. It's mainly an issue of subtext and implications. But I have no issue with the page mentioning issues in a critical manner, as long as it's not something straight-up false.
However I know I'm in the vast minority on this issue so I won't die on the hill of keeping it, especially since I'm not very involved in the site.
(And I don't know exactly what went down with the Stonetoss situation, but given that it's a political/social commentary strip made by a straight-up neo-nazi, I can probably guess.)
Edited by Boredman on Oct 14th 2023 at 2:56:51 PM
From what I recall, the issue with ST was that the author denied his views while still expressing them in the comic, leading to it being near-impossible to trope neutrally and accurately.
Trivia. Yeah, Trivia. Specifically, Snoot Game must have been an anti-LGBT Shallow Parody of sorts.
Yeah that's an aspect often forgotten with the Stonetoss situation; he was actively aware of the page about his comics and the conundrum that was presented for the wiki from his behavior, including the "my content isn't edgy at all so either trope bigotry without treating it as bigotry or be considered liars" claims. Again, if the page is actively being sussed out to pose a safety threat to people (and the content itself is actively built on bigotry and being really nasty to other people), the risk far exceeds the value.
![]()
Yeah, his comics speak for themselves. They're extremely blatant and direct in how they espouse white supremacist and extremely anti-LGBTQ rhetoric, and no amount of dishonest denial from the author can change that.
But that's a drastic contrast versus what I see from Snoot Game.
Snoot Game only occasionally touches on gender identity at all, at least in its actual plot and story themes. The biggest and most explicit messages of the story are about having empathy for others and allowing them to be in charge of their own actions.
If the message of the transphobic game is "trans people are delusional, but they'll snap out of it if you give them support and respect their personhood", then that's probably the most benign transphobic message I've ever seen.
And when it comes to monitoring/manipulating the wiki, all I've seen is that some people on 4chan were talking about the Snoot Game cleanup thread. There was only one suspicious new account that was banned in the thread, and I'm unaware of any recent edits involving anything contentious in the article. I made a couple recent edits to correct some misinformed points, but I tried to leave in the parts that were critical of the game since I don't want to just edit-war over subjective opinions.
Edited by Boredman on Oct 14th 2023 at 7:47:43 AM
Crown Description:
Action for Snoot Game

A cleanup thread
for Snoot Game was recently closed as it was getting off-topic, here is a brief rundown of the game and the thread.
Goodbye Volcano High was announced in 2020 and released in 2023. The game features a Non-Binary protagonist, Fang, and other LGBTQ characters. In 2021, a group of 4channers under the name 'Cavemanon' who strongly disliked the look of GVH released an anti-fangame named Snoot Game, involving characters from Goodbye Volcano High but in a more anti-LGBT and alt-right adjacent narrative. Snoot Game has two good endings and two bad endings; a mandatory part of both good endings is Fang rejecting being Non-Binary, and in the bad endings, where Fang remains Non-Binary, they either commit a school-shooting and then kill themselves, or they became a washed-up failure who is implied to be addicted to drugs.
Needless to say, with this is mind - as well as the fact that the game was created when all that was known about Goodbye Volcano High is that 'it will be a video game with a Non-Binary protagonist', Snoot Game is pretty openly a project borne out of spite and anti-LGBT sentiment. The cleanup thread was distracted by some back and forth over this, and got more heated when someone in the thread who had been critical of Snoot Game revealed that they had recently been doxxed
by irate fans; in addition, it turned out that some people on 4chan were actively monitoring
the thread. So as not to scare-monger, the troper in question had been vocally critical of Snoot Game off-site, so this wasn't a case of someone being doxxed solely for being critical of a work in a TVTropes cleanup thread, but it still underlies that this is a rather contentious and unpleasant work to cover.
So the question now is, what is to be done with the pages for Snoot Game? They require a cleanup, but the cleanup thread was just locked. It's gotten the attention of people off-site who we absolutely do not want the attention of, and we especially don't want to invite any edits from them; while this is not our fault or responsibility, it's still something to take into account. For these reasons I would suggest just cutting it. Also, not trying to solidify my position as the objectively correct one but I feel it is relevant to the discussion; before the cleanup thread was locked then we had seven tropers in agreement - including two who were previously defending the work - that a cut was the best course of action, given the difficulty of covering the work neutrally, the impossibility of agreeing how to 'neutrally' cover a work which is simultaneously explicit and coy about its degree of anti-LGBT-ness, and the fact that a troper - albeit not due to their participation on the thread - had been doxxed by fans of the game.
Obviously any final decision ultimately comes down to the moderation team and we will all respect that, but also a final reason why I would favour a cut is that this work has been discussed in the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment thread, then Troping Works That Promote Bigotry, then it's own cleanup thread, then back to Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment thread, and now I have been told that it should be brought to its own thread on Wiki Talk, so... if it was cut then we could at least all put this behind us.
Please discuss! I mean, if you feel like it.