All The Tropes Wiki Project, Part XXXIII

[Bob Schroeck]

In the wake of his reviews, we did end up setting an actual rule, which can be the basis of the policy page -- and probably should have gotten one, along with the few other rules we had to set up because of entitled assholes. Anyway, it was proposed and discussed here. The final version approved was:

The purpose of a review is to provide literary criticism, not to rant. When writing reviews of works strong opinions are fine, but they should avoid naked hatred and be rendered in a civil and dispassionate manner. For this rule, "naked hatred" includes, but is not limited to:

1. Overly negative language (the exception is if the work has clear and demonstrable moments of transphobia, homophobia, racism, ableism or sexism that is supported by the text and normalized).
   
2. Name-calling that is abusive, slanderous, or excessive.
   
3. Not using moments in the work to back up your statements.
   
4. Any negativity that does not directly criticize points in the work but exists for the sake of attacking the work.
   
5. Using the review to attack – or praise – someone or something that was not involved in the work.
   

Violations of the rule will be handled on a case-by-case basis, depending on the severity of the violation. In general, a formal warning on the first instance, a temporary ban on the second (and maybe third) instance, followed by a permanent ban for a contributor who cannot keep his reviews from dripping with hatred and vitriol. However, the wiki staff reserves the right to make more dramatic responses in more extreme cases, such as an October 2024 review which stepped right up to the line of libel and spat in the face of the creator on the other side.

Reviews which violate this rule are also subject to deletion at the discretion of the wiki staff.

MilkmanConspiracy added some useful expansions/clarifications of what was acceptable, which I've slightly rephrased:

So long as it is done in a dispassionate manner, it is acceptable to reference other works of the creator of that specific work, outside sources of information, and/or rival works as a point of comparison or to establish repeating themes, issues, or well executed points that relate to the work being reviewed.

Potential examples, using Alan Smithee as an example name.

1. Director Alan Smithee again leans into theme of X, as he has done in the original and the prequel.
   
2. Following rival series Y, this game has added support for crafting mechanics, a popular design choice for games released in that console generation. A lack of N feature hinders the experience, and is a feature I hope they patch in following the example set by the rival series Y.
   
3. In an interview linked here, Director Alan Smithee explains that this artistic choice was done out of respect for their deeply held personal conviction of Z, which gives that moment in the movie greater attention to detail then other scenes, increasing its impact.
   
4. According to this report linked here, ''Example Work'' was riddled with executive meddling, and one can see potential influence from this in example decision which detracts from the work.
   

Anti-Examples (Would not fit):

1. Hack "Director" Alan Smithee resorted to this trope yet again in his movie, yet again proof of his utter incompetence as an artist.
   
2. This game is just a clone of X, because the developers clearly don’t have an original thought in their heads. Rival game Y is better in every conceivable way, and it’s so clear I don’t have to explain why.
   
3. I just couldn’t enjoy the work knowing that director Alan Smithee is a believer in Z. (Where Z isn’t an exemption listed in point 1.)
   
4. Director Alan Smithee is artistically bankrupt and a fraud for allowing executives to call the shots and do ____.
   

Some of the other comments/clarifications/discussion might be useful on the policy page as well.

In any case, since the rule allows us to delete reviews that we feel violate it, deleting Horny's diatribes is perfectly justified.