+- Drunkard's Walk Forums (http://www.accessdenied-rms.net/forums)
+-- Forum: General (http://www.accessdenied-rms.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: General Chatter (http://www.accessdenied-rms.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+---- Forum: All The Tropes Wiki Archive (http://www.accessdenied-rms.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=11)
+---- Thread: I Think It's Time I Walked Quietly Away from TVTropes (/showthread.php?tid=976)
- Bob Schroeck - 06-05-2012
Mm. Reasonable inference, that.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.
- Black Aeronaut - 06-05-2012
Morganni Wrote:Better be careful about this. We wouldn't want the wrong part of that 'community' to be in on our new baby. *Glares in the direction of Fast Eddie and his sycophants.*vorticity Wrote:The hard part would be getting enough of the community to jump ship andYeah, this is really the big thing. A wiki is it's people.
support the new project. It's a large community with a large set of
material to maintain. Unless there is some way to convince editors to
join another project -- and someone willing to spearhead the project --
there's not much point in even attempting a fork of the wiki.
- Labster - 06-05-2012
Dartz Wrote:I'm almost certain they aren't. If they were, anybody posting here would get shitcanned too. I checked, and I haven't.
blackaeronaut Wrote:*Glares in the direction of Fast Eddie and his sycophants.*Nah, see the thing is, they think they're on the right side. They wouldn't ban anyone unless they gave them cause. And the cause I gave them was the worst of all, honestly. I questioned their views of their own actions. As patrons of the arts, they've been taught to believe that censorship is wrong; therefore what they're doing cannot possibly be censorship. Because that would make them the bad guys.
Truly, I just want the TV Tropes cabal to recognize their actions for what they are. Not that I would expect things to change if they did. We all must decide for ourselves how much sin we are willing to bear.
Edit: sorry about the quote attribution, Morganni.
-- ∇×V
- Matrix Dragon - 06-05-2012
Completely off topic Vort, but is there a larger version of your avatar image anywhere?
- Kurisu - 06-05-2012
Matrix Dragon Wrote:Completely off topic Vort, but is there a larger version of your avatar image anywhere?Seconded.
EDIT: Does this count? http://vorticity.drunkard...pid/1873530#.T83PkVKwXm0
_____
DEATH is Certain. The hour, Uncertain...
- robkelk - 06-05-2012
Assuming folks are serious about the "make an alternative" thing... I've put out some feelers for wiki hosting for my own project, and will share the results of the investigation with you. It's then up to you to do something with the data.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
- Morganite - 06-05-2012
Uh, I didn't say that? It doesn't look like anyone in this thread said that, actually. Please do something about that.
vorticity Wrote:Nah, see the thing is, they think they're on the right side. They wouldn't ban anyone unless they gave them cause. And the cause I gave them was the worst of all, honestly. I questioned their views of their own actions. As patrons of the arts, they've been taught to believe that censorship is wrong; therefore what they're doing cannot possibly be censorship. Because that would make them the bad guys.
Truly, I just want the TV Tropes cabal to recognize their actions for what they are. Not that I would expect things to change if they did. We all must decide for ourselves how much sin we are willing to bear.
See, I'm not convinced that declining to loan someone your megaphone is censorship. It's not like they are going around other sites removing references to Lotte no Omocha*.
*I still don't get why this series is such a big deal...
-Morgan.
- Jinx999 - 06-05-2012
Morganni Wrote:See, I'm not convinced that declining to loan someone your megaphone is censorship. It's not like they are going around other sites removing references to Lotte no Omocha*.I think it's because TVTropes is such a big important site and is the go to location for a certain type of analysis of media. Only a wonk get's that worked up if some minor blog claims that Obama is really a Muslim or Bush was responsible for 9/11, but if someone puts that in their Wikipedia page, it's significant.
Oh - if you edit a TVTropes page now - you get a warning to keep it family friendly - with the suggestion that it's people posting rude words they're worried about.
RE: I Think It's Time I Walked Quietly Away from TVTropes - Rpg1 - 06-05-2012
I read this page, trying to understand the objections:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwik...7puhulc24sje&page=37
My rebuttals are in italics
When challenged on the point of censorship, moderator Fighteer says:
"Also, I challenge whether we are engaging in censorship. We've decided that we don't want certain types of content on the wiki, but we aren't preventing people from seeing that content. We just don't want to be a part of it."
You decided you don't want certain types of content on the wiki, yet you don't ban people from seeing it.
Logicale ne c'est pas. Those two statements contradict and invalidate each other.
Besides, we both know you have no power outside TV Tropes, so saying you don't is just insulting our intelligence.
Finally, if you don't like certain content, then DON'T join in troping or cataloging it. If you have no plans to bar people from seeing certain things, why do this?
Also, removal of content due to a change in your site policy is censorship. Censorship is the removal or toning down of content due to content deemed objectionable by the censors, which what is being done qualifies as.
That is not provocative, it's objective fact.
Now, later down the page is moderator Deadbeatloser 22's comments:
"I'm not entirely sure you're grasping what Tropes Are Not Bad means. It doesn't mean that some tropes can have positive connotations despite being negative on paper. It means their use doesn't ruin a work. You also described them as Moral Guardians, implying it's a group that has taken it upon themselves to force their views on others."
Yes, they ARE Moral Guardians. If they don't want to see what they consider perversion, pornography and pedophilia (real or perceived), ban it's presence and tell everyone to like it or leave, that is imposition of their views on others regardless of their consent.
Yes, you have that power, but when the views of another are imposed against the will of the majority, especially on issues directly connected to morally charged subjects, THAT IS MORAL GUARDIANSHIP.
And now, let's address moderator lu 127's objections to the usage of Censorship Bureau to describe the P5.
"Also, the P5 are real people in this very wiki. Do you really think applying such tropes to them is appropriate? That's almost a Stealth Insult against other tropers."
Again, they are passing judgment on what is considered perverse, pornographic, or pedophilic, with the quasi-legal consent of the body that governs the website and sets the rules and guidelines.
The P5 are an adjunct body elected by said website administrators to perform the task of censoring this content on the behalf of the legitimate website authority, with their support and consent, much like how the FCC answers to the executive branch of the American government.
In short, calling them a Censorship Bureau is no insult, it is again objective fact, and the P5 being real people only makes that point even more valid.
- Labster - 06-05-2012
I fixed the quote, Morganni.
Morganni Wrote:See, I'm not convinced that declining to loan someone your megaphone is censorship.Thank you so much for posting that. My first thoughts on reading that were "chigau yo!" but I couldn't identify why right away. Which means that I've started my argument on assumptions that we don't have in common, and therefore we'll never agree. Vorticity: Bad philosopher. After a few minutes of thought, I discovered the deeper problem.
So first, we have go back and define what TV Tropes actually is. And therein lies the problem. I hear phrases passed around on the forums like "It's Fast Eddie's playground, and he lets us play in it." In contrast, other wikis like Wikipedia refer to themselves as a commons, and I tend to think of all large wikis in this way. If you look at it from the former perspective, as only a piece of private property, then what Fast Eddie -- and by extension, the admins and moderators -- say is always appropriate, because Fast Eddie is the Giant in the Playground.
But if the latter is true, then the wiki is a quasi-public space, which retains private ownership -- but due to the contributions of thousands of others is also property of the community. And if it is a public space, then Fast Eddie is only the caretaker of the space. He derives income from being the head caretaker of the public space, which is completely okay, since I would expect the groundskeeper of the Boston Common gets paid too. But any attempt to regulate the messages that appear in a public space is a form of censorship. It's not about loaning the megaphone so much as telling you what kind of messages you can put on a bulletin board.
So there are those of us debating whether it's too much censorship, and the rest don't see it as being related to censorship at all. Looking at it through that lens, a lot of the actions of Fast Eddie and the admin staff make a lot more sense now. You don't have to inform the community of your actions if the wiki is your property, after all. And the P5 wasn't an attempt to make the censorship regime look more legitimate, but just a way to parcel out the work. And a ban for making the mods angry is just fine, even if I was violating no written policy.
However, I feel that this is still wrong, and that the weight of all of the thousands of contributors makes it a digital commons. And that people who wrote all of the trope and work pages submitted their work on the assumption that they were helping to build a public resource. And if they don't believe that they're building a public resource, a fork probably is in order.
-- ∇×V
- Morganite - 06-06-2012
Thanks. Now I don't have to bite you. ^.^
And I see blackaeronaut did say that. Wonder why I didn't find it before. Did I accidentally turn cases sensitivity for find on again? I hate it when that happens.
vorticity Wrote:So first, we have go back and define what TV Tropes actually is. And therein lies the problem. I hear phrases passed around on the forums like "It's Fast Eddie's playground, and he lets us play in it." In contrast, other wikis like Wikipedia refer to themselves as a commons, and I tend to think of all large wikis in this way. If you look at it from the former perspective, as only a piece of private property, then what Fast Eddie -- and by extension, the admins and moderators -- say is always appropriate, because Fast Eddie is the Giant in the Playground.
I think this really may be the fundamental issue. And it's one where I find myself kind of agreeing with both positions. (Score another "living up to my title" point, maybe.)
Essentially, I see the former as the ideal state. And I think it's enough like that for certain things to not be a major issue, and have posted in the TV Tropes forum to that effect.
But I also think the wiki is non-transparent enough that I don't think it's actually irrational for Fast Eddie, the moderators, and so forth to be believe that they could at some point be held responsible for anything and everything on the wiki at some point. So, while I don't necessarily *like* some of what's happened, or think it all that necesary, I just can't perceive them all as the mustache-twirling villains that some people paint a picture of.
Quote:And the P5 wasn't an attempt to make the censorship regime look more legitimate, but just a way to parcel out the work.
I think it's safe to say there's quite a lot of work involved.
Quote:And a ban for making the mods angry is just fine, even if I was violating no written policy.
Actually, I'm pretty sure if pressed on it they'd say you were banned for being a dick. I don't think you were necessarily *trying* to do so, but those edits really come across as more of a Take That than an actual attempt to express concerns or to actually document anything.
-Morgan.
- Labster - 06-06-2012
Well, I was unbanned, though the answer Fighteer gave to my question wasn't what I was hoping for. If it's not a commons, I no longer feel like editing there anyway. :/
I'm not sure his decision makes a lot of sense without having read this thread first, so I've arranged a test: Zero wicks, 9 inbounds.
-- ∇×V
- Morganite - 06-06-2012
How did you even find that? o.O
- Labster - 06-06-2012
It's actually because of this discussion that I found it. I was curious about whether the Portland Pattern Repository, the very first wiki, considers itself a commons too. It turns out that it does, so much that it has a page about whether it is exempt from some problems that affect physical commons. It doesn't really come as a surprise to me, given the fact that it was built by pre-Eternal September hackers.
The Portland Pattern Repository is also called WardsWiki, after its founder, Ward Cunningham. So I decided to see if TV Tropes had a page on Ward's Wiki, and found that page in the search instead. (By the way, the page I was looking for was at PortlandPatternRepository.)
-- ∇×V
- Rpg1 - 06-06-2012
@vorticity
I just read the answer you were given, and to be honest, it reads like an attempt to not sound dictatorial and a lame dodge at the same time.
True, as webmaster, Fast Eddie does exercise final authority, but at the same time the very raison d'etre (reason for being) of a wiki means it's ownership is a collective one in that no one "owns" the articles per se, they are a mass donation to be caretaken by the site webmaster to further to spread of whatever knowledge the wiki is supposed to promulgate.
In this case, you actually caught the moderator with a trick question. He couldn't outright say "if you don't follow the rules , you're banned", because you had a totally valid point concerning the very point to hosting a wiki, but at the same time he refused to implicate FE's decisions as wrong, for reasons that should be obvious.
Honestly, I already feel the answer is obvious. A commons takes too much authority away from the moderators and especially the site admin, hence they don't want to admit TV Tropes is exactly that, despite its licensing.
- robkelk - 06-06-2012
robkelk Wrote:Assuming folks are serious about the "make an alternative" thing... I've put out some feelers for wiki hosting for my own project, and will share the results of the investigation with you. It's then up to you to do something with the data.Only reply so far is to consult Comparison of wiki farms ...
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
- Rpg1 - 06-06-2012
@robkelk
I'd personally be all for helping with a TV Tropes alternative.
- Black Aeronaut - 06-06-2012
hmmmm..... Okay, I'm just a noob when it comes to this sort of thing, but at first glance I'd say that Ourproject.org might be the best way for us to go, because it's free, ad-free, and allows for customization, among other nice goodies.
- Morganite - 06-06-2012
Okay, things have taken a sudden left turn.
All rape tropes have gone byebye.
Needless to say, there's a lot of people going "Wait, what?" on this. Including a 5P member and a mod, or at least that's what it looks like to me.
This changes things significantly.
-Morgan.
- Sofaspud - 06-06-2012
Your link is either a recursive reference that I don't quite grok, or, broken, Morganni. It points back to the first post in this same thread.
The gist I think was communicated; I'm just confused on what you're trying to link to.
--sofaspud
--"Listening to your kid is the audio equivalent of a Salvador Dali painting, Spud." --OpMegs
- Rpg1 - 06-06-2012
Oh, that tears it.
Just when I think it can't get worse, it did.
In fact, just to give an example, how is ANYONE supposed to talk about Law and Order Special Victims Unit based on the hosing of the Rape tropes? How can most classic fairytales (the ORIGINAL versions that weren't watered down with rape themes) going to be discussed now?
Why was MIND RAPE (which is totally unrelated to the physical version) hosed.
Rape is a word for "violation", and it doesn't have to be referring to sex.
Example - "The Rape Of The Lock" has nothing to do with actual sexual assault.
If this isn't proof TV Tropes needs an alternative, I don't know what is.
- Ankhani - 06-06-2012
Fixed linkage
Pointed quote from the Man himself (i.e. Fast Eddie)
Quote:There is no explanation needed beyond the fact that the topic is a pain in the ass to keep clean and it endangers the wiki's revenues. We just won't have articles about rape. Super easy. No big loss.---
The Master said: "It is all in vain! I have never yet seen a man who can perceive his own faults and bring the charge home against himself."
>Analects: Book V, Chaper XXVI
- LynnInDenver - 06-06-2012
Ankhani Wrote:Fixed linkageI read "endangers the wiki's revenues" as "what was once a hobby has now become my paying job, and I can't jeopardize it for any reason."
Pointed quote from the Man himself (i.e. Fast Eddie)Quote:There is no explanation needed beyond the fact that the topic is a pain in the ass to keep clean and it endangers the wiki's revenues. We just won't have articles about rape. Super easy. No big loss.
--
"You know how parents tell you everything's going to fine, but you know they're lying to make you feel better? Everything's going to be fine." - The Doctor
- Dartz - 06-06-2012
So there is a temperature at which data burns...
it's kT.ln2 per bit
It's not quite as hot as paper when you work it out. Not quite as hot at all. Doesn't seem like a very hot fire google have to light under him to make him flinch, does it?
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
- LynnInDenver - 06-06-2012
Dartz Wrote:It's not quite as hot as paper when you work it out. Not quite as hot at all. Doesn't seem like a very hot fire google have to light under him to make him flinch, does it?No, it doesn't. If it takes this level of fire to make me flinch with regards to something, I'm more apt to review whether I should be doing that thing, not attempting to salvage the moneymaking portion of it.
--
"You know how parents tell you everything's going to fine, but you know they're lying to make you feel better? Everything's going to be fine." - The Doctor