All The Tropes Wiki Project, Part XXVI

[GethN7]

We got an update on the current forum breakage. The WikiForum extension apparently had a recently discovered security hole, and to prevent it being exploited for malicious purposes, it was disabled until it's fixed. I know who the developer is, they are assiduous in maintaining it and likely will patch it out ASAP, but until then, we will likely want to fall back to our older forums until that is fixed.

[Umbire]

...
He's back. And the tone of his latest post is remarkably similar to Usenet posts back in the day from single-issue posters or trolls.

I suggest that those of us who have identified ourselves as mods not reply directly to that post, since doing so would provide the attention that the poster wants.

Oh, and Max Sinister has fired his latest salvo.  I am firmly convinced that the only reason he joined the wiki is to cause trouble.
...

Posts that pass in the night... I've had my say on the matter by replying to Umbrie.

Why does everyone misspell it like that...

Oops. Sorry about that.

It's no big deal.

I'm more concerned about the tack being taken regarding Max as it concerns a potential block, but LT's raised that concern already so I'll leave it be.

[GethN7]

Trying to find a trope similar to this:

https://allthetropes.org/wiki/Could_Have..._This_Plot

In Star Ocean 4, there is one entire plot arc the heroes need not ever pursue, but the writers essentially force the characters to go ahead with it despite numerous perfectly logical reasons and possibilities to ever avoid getting involved for entirely sensible precedent. The above trope is close but not the reason I'm looking for, it's more a trope about bad writing, can't remember what it would go under better at the moment.

[Bob Schroeck]

Sounds like you might want Railroading. It's written as a gaming trope, but the examples include films, literature and animation.

[GethN7]

Sounds like you might want Railroading.  It's written as a gaming trope, but the examples include films, literature and animation.

Much obliged.

Edit: Bob, Rob, as I said before, I'm leaving further dealing of the guy I replied to you for any mod action:

https://allthetropes.org/w/index.php?tit...bwp2tfj7r9

I tire of explaining how we decided, by mutual consent, to allow discussion of certain works, regardless of moral offense or not, so long as it was possible to do so without breaking laws simply due to its mere existence, insofar as the laws in force where our servers reside allow. I'd rather die than censor due to mere moral vileness, and I'm getting very weary of explaining that over and over again.

https://allthetropes.org/w/index.php?tit...sdg1erj2yu

At this point, I'm not even going to bother replying anymore, just to avoid letting my emotion get the better of me.

[robkelk]

Somebody remind me on January 1 to revisit this, please.

[Umbire]

Took a swing at one of the Trope Workshop candidates - focusing a bit of energy tonight on the older candidates that have plenty of examples but questions of quality in regards to the trope's description and the like.

[robkelk]

Took a swing at one of the Trope Workshop candidates - focusing a bit of energy tonight on the older candidates that have plenty of examples but questions of quality in regards to the trope's description and the like.

I now begin to understand what that trope is all about. Thanks, Umbire!

[robkelk]

I'm not going to approve this entry in the moderation queue, but I'm not going to reject it, either.

Horny wants to undo Carlb's edit because "I feel this paragraph makes the page very dated. These days can quickly change, and in the moment I write it I see several jokes on clean internet about 9/11, so not"

The thing is, I happen to think that the trope is dated, for the reasons that Carlb added to the page. But I'm only one mod.

A week later, and nobody else has approved or rejected it, either.

Shall we ask the tropers their opinions (and risk another argument)?

[GethN7]

I'm not going to approve this entry in the moderation queue, but I'm not going to reject it, either.

Horny wants to undo Carlb's edit because "I feel this paragraph makes the page very dated. These days can quickly change, and in the moment I write it I see several jokes on clean internet about 9/11, so not"

The thing is, I happen to think that the trope is dated, for the reasons that Carlb added to the page. But I'm only one mod.

A week later, and nobody else has approved or rejected it, either.

Shall we ask the tropers their opinions (and risk another argument)?

I commented on this earlier in this thread that I believed we should retain information on if a trope is dated and why provided we have ample precedent to make that claim. Otherwise, it should be removed. 

I do see Horny's perspective on this, things that were off the table at one point can become acceptable again later, but in this case, I do believe the prevailing logic for its current unsuitability isn't without merit.

Ergo, if you want to put this to a vote, fine by me, but I admittedly lean in favor of keeping Carib's edit.

[Bob Schroeck]

I have not acted on this edit but I am leaning toward rejecting it and retaining the information that would be deleted.

On another (possibly tired) topic, is it just me or does Max Sinister seem to be going out of his way to use the term "pedoshit" despite knowing how some of us view it?

[Umbire]

Took a swing at one of the Trope Workshop candidates - focusing a bit of energy tonight on the older candidates that have plenty of examples but questions of quality in regards to the trope's description and the like.

I now begin to understand what that trope is all about. Thanks, Umbire!

Happy to help - Kuma's got the spirit, but definitely needs help in writing trope descriptions.

[robkelk]

On another (possibly tired) topic, is it just me or does Max Sinister seem to be going out of his way to use the term "pedoshit" despite knowing how some of us view it?

He hasn't used it since I referred him to the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment, but he hasn't posted anything in that time, either.

Let's see what the future brings.

[robkelk]

Interesting... we have useful notes or the equivalent for asexuality, polyamoury, bisexuality, homosexuality, and transgender... but we don't have one for heterosexuality. Category:Useful Notes/Sexuality is incomplete without it.

[Umbire]

Do we have a trope for characters with crackly, static-filled voices?

[GethN7]

I see the guy whining about "pedoshit" finally took his ball and went home:

https://allthetropes.org/w/index.php?tit...z75mpu8jwm

Good. Hope he's happier elsewhere, glad he's taking his arrogant moral guardian attitude with him.

[robkelk]

Well, he announced that he's leaving. Trolls often do, sometimes a dozen times or more, so I take any such announcement with a grain of salt.

He's still On Notice for refusing to stop applying that label to people he doesn't agree with, as per ATT:1WAY (which we can tempban on because it's a documented policy).

[Umbire]

Well, he announced that he's leaving. Trolls often do, sometimes a dozen times or more, so I take any such announcement with a grain of salt.

He's still On Notice for refusing to stop applying that label to people he doesn't agree with, as per ATT:1WAY (which we can tempban on because it's a documented policy).

Quelle surprise. I personally doubt he's a troll proper, as opposed to someone with highly unrealistic expectations and aforementioned plank on the shoulder.

I do have to wonder, though: a significant amount of the site reads as though former TVT users with a chip on their shoulder are not only expected (which is reasonable) but welcomed. Perhaps an adjustment on that to discourage new users carrying over grudges is worth discussing?

I think I've also sufficiently touched on the old fork-era grudges against particular TVT admins as well, so I'll leave that horse to decompose.

[Bob Schroeck]

Guys, I need a bit of a judgment call on this edit by Puterboy1. His edit reads

* [[Hate Sink]]: The audience can't hate Fiona and the stepsisters due to their comedic quirks, but we can hate Shelby and her clique for being twice as worse.

The first sentence of the corresponding trope entry over on TVT reads

We can’t really hate Fiona and the stepsisters due to their comedic quirks, but we can hate Shelby and her Girl Posse.

I can't decide if that's close enough to call copyright infringement on it, and I'm soliciting the opinions of other mods.

EDIT: In the past I've called infringement on as little as six words, and I've made ex cathedra pronouncements a couple times that there is no identifiable amount of text too small to count as infringement. We've fifteen or so words in a row here that are copied directly from TVT, so by that guideline and precedent it should count... but I still want other opinions. Thanks.

[Bob Schroeck]

I see the guy whining about "pedoshit" finally took his ball and went home:

https://allthetropes.org/w/index.php?tit...z75mpu8jwm

Good. Hope he's happier elsewhere, glad he's taking his arrogant moral guardian attitude with him.

I just noticed he has two real edits in the mod queue (here and here), both made early yesterday. I haven't looked at them yet, and I can't help wondering if he actually put his money where his mouth was, or just flung a couple trash edits at us. As I'm catching the mod queue up from four or so days of neglect, I'll be reviewing them shortly, and if they're anything worth mentioning I'll post something about it.

EDIT: Nope, no trash edits: both good edits, and I approved them.

[robkelk]

Guys, I need a bit of a judgment call on this edit by Puterboy1.  His edit reads

* [[Hate Sink]]: The audience can't hate Fiona and the stepsisters due to their comedic quirks, but we can hate Shelby and her clique for being twice as worse.

The first sentence of the corresponding trope entry over on TVT reads

We can’t really hate Fiona and the stepsisters due to their comedic quirks, but we can hate Shelby and her Girl Posse.

I can't decide if that's close enough to call copyright infringement on it, and I'm soliciting the opinions of other mods.

EDIT:  In the past I've called infringement on as little as six words, and I've made ex cathedra pronouncements a couple times that there is no identifiable amount of text too small to count as infringement.  We've fifteen or so words in a row here that are copied directly from TVT, so by that guideline and precedent it should count... but I still want other opinions.  Thanks.

You've already set the precedent. Reject for copyright violation.

[Bob Schroeck]

Thanks. And done.

[GethN7]

Thanks.  And done.

Glad it was done. Legally, I'd rather be overly paranoid than not paranoid enough, we do not have the money or time to risk being foolish over possible copyright issues.

[robkelk]

I just undid this edit in order to protect the wiki from a lawsuit

[Bob Schroeck]

Has anyone followed the link in the original edit to find out if the accusation has any merit? Just curious; I wouldn't advocate restoring the edit even if it did.