Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
I find the phrasing to be mildly condescending, but I agree with the concept and the pothole.
Some people push boundaries, and there's going to be an overlap of such with tropers. There's also people who don't easily see where the boundary is. Drawing clear bright lines helps with both.
Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry PratchettCondescenscion focuses the reader's mind. It's like a light slap to the face. If they don't like it, too bad.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Condescending to me comes across as "you're so juvenile that we can't trust you to show the correct judgment for the situation at all, even with a specific warning spelled out".
Warning is needed, but time is important.
Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry PratchettAnother benefit to using that sort of pothole is that if another troper comes in and puts something that breaks ROCEJ before that line, then you can report them for knowingly adding ROCEJ-breaking material. There's no guessing as to whether they knew it was bad or not; it was right there on the page. (Or you can more silently delete it with a polite edit reason if you don't want to go to the trouble of reporting them.)
Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they prettyPersonally I don't find it condescending at all.
But anyway, how would you change that phrasing? "Saying any more may veer into Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgement territory"?
Yeah, I'm not entirely sure why that actually needs to be on the page proper instead of commented out. I guess the idea is to prevent people from even thinking "hey, this needs some of my political (or whatever) opinions for 'accuracy'", but I'm not really sure how intercepting them on the main page is better than intercepting them in the editing box, especially if it's done in a taunting fashion.
Commented-out instructions are incredibly easy to miss in the article source. And frankly, if someone takes the message as a dare, we're more than happy to ban them for it — think of it as a smartass filter.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Complete agreement with the OP here.
A phrase like "and that's all were going to say about that" is bad writing, because it strongly suggests that "there IS more to say, but 'we' don't because we are afraid we might get in trouble". You are signalling you are trying to cover something up, and that in itself begs the question of the reader, "what is it they do not want to talk about?“
A phrase that can also be easily used to insinuate "we could say more, but we aren't allowed to", which is actually a passive-aggressive way of weaseling around the Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgement. Like fanning a fire while pretending to extinguish it.
Whether a Ro CEJ warning is needed is also entirely dependent on what the topic at hand is, and whether there is really a persistent probability of edit wars. Because often, the invocation of the Ro CEJ is merely a lazy shortcut to "wrap up" a topic, without having said anything substantial about it in the first place. It smacks of balance fallacy
.
Having potholed a few of these myself I can say that I try and write them in the context of the discussion. For example on Australialian Aboriginies I brought up the sabre rattling on both sides and how the issue of reconciliation is a contentious enough issue as it is, or on Not in My Backyard! how the pulp mill in Tasmania was a topic our site is not the right place to discuss. That's not to say one side or the other is wrong but even in moderated discussion these get really heated and trying to force one side over the other is not what we are about.
Currently reading up My Rule Fu Is Stronger Than YoursI second Lord Gro.
It's often invoked way to liberally without backing WHY it applies, like on page for The Lost Prophets where it's used to skirt mentioning the ex-lead singer is child molester by saying "he pleaded guilty to serious charges and that's all we'll say about that!"
That's not flamebait, he did a horrible thing and no-one is going to contest it was horrible or that it's a vital part of the bands history as a the reason for the break-up and re-forming under a new name. Since he came up with the name and they felt they couldn't keep on making content under his band name after what he had done.
Which might also be a problem with the rule itself being to broad and easy to apply to about anything.
Edited by shoboni"That's not flamebait, he did a horrible thing and no-one is going to contest it was horrible or that it's a vital part of the bands history as a the reason for the break-up and re-forming under a new name. Since he came up with the name and they felt they couldn't keep on making content under his band name after what he had done."
So, are you arguing that saying pleaded guilty to "serious charges" isn't enough to justify why the band was no longer willing to continue working under his band name without specific details of what the charges were?...Why? Would you be surprised if his bandmates wanted to disassociate themselves from him because he pled guilty to murder or bank robbery or swindling people out of their life savings? Why do you need to know that it was child molestation specifically? Or, more relevantly, how is it relevant to the wiki's purpose for you to know his specific crime?
The relevant context for the band as musicians and their music is that they broke up and reformed under another name to disassociate them from a crime committed (and admitted to) by the member who came up with the band name. Saying more about that is just diverging further and further from the purpose of the wiki by discussing criminal actions that have nothing to do with the music. The purpose of the wiki isn't to shame people who do "horrible things" or to spread the word that they did them—the purpose of having a page about the band is to discuss and give context for the media they create.
Why shouldn't it?
The editor is invoking a rule to not mention it, therefor burden of proof is the editor to have a valid reason not to elaborate and why the rule should be invoked., especially if they're going to be condescending and basically say "there' more but I'm not telling you!"
Just like people can't randomly add things to the Flamebait or No Real Life Examples index without a reason, they should also need a reason to invoke ROCEJ
Especially when they're going to have that condescending logic that comes off as"I know more but I don't feel like telling you!" about it.
Edited by shoboni^^It's the "Rule of Cautious Editing Judgement," not the "List of Banned Subjects." The point isn't for someone to come down on high and make a judgement about each and every topic that will result in a Flamewar, it's for people to be cautious and circumspect about what they put on the wiki to avoid dragging in a bunch of trouble/controversy/nastiness/etc. that has no place here. If, like your band example, the information in question is about Real Life rather than media, i.e., not directly relevant to TV Tropes' purpose, then the "burden of proof" really belongs on the person arguing that it should be on the wiki.
If you were writing a trope example where a character committing a specific crime was relevant (e.g., Rape Is a Special Kind of Evil), then that does have inherent relevance to the wiki and someone removing an objectively written explanation of how the trope occurred should be prepared to explain why that particular trope example shouldn't be permitted. That logic does not apply to discussing the crimes of Real Life people, which are not media tropes. Even for a trope example, tropers moralizing about the in-work example (e.g., going on about the crime's horribleness) beyond describing how it fits the trope is not within the wiki's mission scope, and may violate the ROCEJ.
Listing what he did isn't moralizing about it (though, I don't if anyone whose opinion we should care about would object to "molesting kids is bad"), it's merely an objective statement stating what the crime was.
It also explains why it was so terrible it lead his bandmates to cut all ties and remove the band name he came up with.
It's also used to add examples that could be contentious among the fanbase — you only want to add an example, not start a flamewar or provoke endless justifying edits. Example is the band Journey's page: their various lead singers have resulted in a Broken Base among the band's fandom, and despite the whole matter being well over fifteen years old, there's fans that still start arguments and flamewars over the matter. So...I added the example with the singers listed, and then that pothole to the ROCEJ. It's not a taunt; it's a warning to the more contentious fans to not get into the fights again.
Edited by FranksGirl

Does anyone else find the trend of putting things on pages like "and that's all were going to day about that" potholed to Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgement instead of just not mentioning it at all really condescending and obnoxious?
Almost seems like a dare to start a flamewar in and of itself.
Edited by shoboni