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 am still also in favour of cut, and will do another headcount when I can be bothered because I'm pretty sure the vote count for cutting has only increased.
![]()
I always half-rolled my eyes when other people brought up how clever the devs had been in order to hide/obscure their intentions to make it hard to objectively outline the bigotry, because the combination of circumstances makes it seem very clear to me, but in terms of definitive, decisive evidence, I can admit that there's no single smoking gun, which is only another reason why a neutral and accurate page would be so difficult to create and maintain.
Edited by Elmo3000 on Oct 19th 2023 at 3:08:04 PM
While cutting would be the simple option, I simply feel like it could set a precedent for other drama-producing works to get cut which I don't think would be good for the wiki. In a worst-case scenario, (though hopefully no one would actually try this) I could even see someone deliberately trying to start arguments about a work to get it cut, and that would not be a good thing.
Again, still noting that SG's message is one that I do not agree with. I'm just vouching for what I feel is best on a wiki-wide scale, even if it means I have to defend a work I'd otherwise refuse to interact with at all.
Welcome To Ideals' WorldFor me, the actual "worth" of a given work isn't really a factor, because I feel like what's more important is the precedent that this would set for works being removed due to high levels of controversy, which as I said earlier could be itself controversial at best, and outright exploitable at the worst.
I feel like at the very worst, a "cut and lock until someone comes up with a description and trope list that is considered accurate by most people's definition of the term" would handle the game's... unpleasant aspects without setting this precedent.
Welcome To Ideals' WorldYeah, the issue here isn't just "people are fighting over it". Otherwise every work under the sun could be on the chopping block. The issue is that the controversy is very real and very serious outside of the site and we don't want those issues to carry over onto the wiki.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallI'm fine with the precedent of "works may be cut if the fans/creators are on an organised campaign to change the article for propaganda ends against the wishes of other editors". However my favoured solution would be to lock it as a work page giving context to its making without trope examples, to explain things to anyone curious about the matter. We did something similar with a few pornographic works that were judged too influential to cut.
Interestingly, this campaign doesn't seem to have extended to the several TVTropes forks. They may move there if we ban them here.
Hopefully in time we can trope this without trouble, like we can with Gods and Generals.
Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.![]()
I'm pretty sure that practice is no longer allowed on TV Tropes, according to this post
.
Edited by callmeamuffin on Oct 21st 2023 at 6:37:27 PM
Working on Sandbox.The Amazing Race TV Tropes Edition.![]()
![]()
![]()
I haven't seen any indication that there's an "organized campaign to change the article for propaganda ends". Some people evidently talked about the discussions on the Tv Tropes forums on 4chan, but they don't seem to be actually interfering with the site, aside from one new account that only made one post before being banned.
If anything, the screenshot Nanaki provided shows a poster encouraging others to leave it alone so people will take notice of the extremely negative tone.
Edited by Boredman on Oct 24th 2023 at 12:32:57 PM
If we're to make a crowner the options would be
- Lock and clean the page
- Cut the page until a better writeup is made
- Cut and put it in the Permanent Red Link Club
I'm unhappy with consigning a work to the Permanent Red Link Club just because it's controversial in the moment. Given it's a discrete one-and-done piece of media rather than something like Stonetoss that updates continuously to keep the mob riled up, I think it's best to temporarily lock or cut it until the stink dies down, then recreate it with standard monitoring protocols for works that promote bigotry.
Speaking of which: Homophobia definitely motivated Snoot Game's creation, but just how blatant IS it in the work itself?
Snoot Game's content (the An Aesop example on the page sounds like it's the main issuse) would likely be up to this thread
after this part is done.
The stated problem here is 4chan targeting people (how many?) in the discussion forum and not the page edits. Which is also a mod said can always happen for any reason as the site is public.
TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup
Oh, geez, I certainly hope it wouldn't; discussion of Snoot Game has gone from Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment to Troping Works That Promote Bigotry to its own cleanup thread, back to Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment and now here. If the topic needs to be moved to another thread for the sixth time then that just reflects badly on us.
I get that theoretically, a user of the site being targeted and/or doxxed by 4chan is something that could happen on any page for any work, but Snoot Game being an openly bigoted work designed by people on 4chan certainly makes it considerably more likely.
Crown Description:
Action for Snoot Game

I'd like to note before any misunderstandings that this isn't me accusing you of not having proof, because I agree that SG's message is ...troubling at best. I'm just floating this as a way to put the constant arguments about the creator's intentions to rest by effectively saying "We have evidence to back up our statement, please don't try to argue about it unless you have something even more damning in the opposite direction."
Welcome To Ideals' World