TV Tropes jumps the shark

[Tengu_temp]

Does one of the stories you like happen to have a sex scene in it? Well, it won't be listen on TV Tropes anymore! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TheSecondGoogleIncident)

I find it really ironic that, even though they were bashing moral guardians at every opportunity, once these moral guardians actually look at them, they bow down without even a fight.

[Seraph]

TVTropes started going to hell when they started renaming tropes because some of the mods weren't clever enough to get the references. Am I irritated? yes, because Fast Eddie and his little squad of sychophants have their heads so far up their backsides that they are looking out from between their own teeth, and they have been going for years trying to turn the site into a haven for anal-retentive rules lawyers who were too tight-assed for wikipedia. This is the point where it becomes too obvious to ignore.

I mean, come on. they blanked the fate/stay night page. It does not matter if they bring it back, the damage is done.

This is just the point where tropers begin to realize what the rest of the internet already knew.

[Tavar]

I find it really ironic that, even though they were bashing moral guardians at every opportunity, once these moral guardians actually look at them, they bow down without even a fight.

I'd point out that, in this case, the alternative seems to be to shut the site down completely. So, big case of lack of options.

[Tengu_temp]

@Seraph

I completely agree. TV Tropes had many problems for years (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100041), but for a longer while it's been going really downhill. It's only a matter of time before they rename MacGuffin to Object That Has No Significance Other Than Moving The Plot Forward, and Large Ham to Amusingly Overacting Character.

And now they're playing culture police on top of that. The Fate/Stay Night example really annoys me, and I'm not even a big fan of Nasuverse. So much for No Such Thing As Notability.

@Tavar

Actually, I'm not so sure. The stupidest thing among all this? Instead of relying on Google's ads, they could've just started a kickstarter, or other group funding project, and avoid all the censorship problems. I'm sure they'd gather more than enough money. But apparently Fast Eddie endorses unreasonable censorship wholeheartedly now.

[Seraph]

I'd point out that, in this case, the alternative seems to be to shut the site down completely. So, big case of lack of options.

false dichotomy. They could pursue advertising options other than Low Hanging Fruit like google, they could do a support kickstarter, there are other options.

I mean, for ****s sake. If 4chan can support itself with advertising, there's nothing stopping them.

TVTropes has taken an option analogous to chopping your feet up with a butcher's cleaver because your shoes no longer fit.

[tensai_oni]

Fast Eddie should try to leave his comfort zone for once and try to find funding other than desperately trying to placate Google with any means possible. Because it's already been proved that Google will pull its adds on flimsiest pretense. The current situation started BECAUSE they did it.

[Tavar]

Huh. Not really up on all the details, especially regarding how difficult/easy it is to get adds.

I agree that this is a bad sign, though some of the previous changes I can't say I dislike. When the name of the article comes from a minor injoke regarding a minor character when the movie was shown on MST3k, you've gone a bit too far.

[Tengu_temp]

Some trope name changes were for the better, yes. A lot of them weren't.

[Pokonic]

false dichotomy. They could pursue advertising options other than Low Hanging Fruit like google, they could do a support kickstarter, there are other options.

I mean, for ****s sake. If 4chan can support itself with advertising, there's nothing stopping them.

TVTropes has taken an option analogous to chopping your feet up with a butcher's cleaver because your shoes no longer fit.

Indeed. Shame that for all the genuinely smart people on there they could not come up with a better solution.

[Ravens_cry]

While I dislike censorship, I disagree about changing names being necessarily a bad thing.
As fun as it is to treat TV Tropes as a geeky, cliquey little clubhouse, it's meant as a kind of service slash database to help categorize elements in various media.
Trope Names that derive solely from knowledge of certain media unless one can be very sure of it's near universal understand, are frustrating to search for when not 'in the know'.
One might think "well everyone knows that" much of the time, but chances are, you are wrong.
I grew up in a home without television (we had a TV, but it was hooked up to the VCR) or video games.
A lot of 'standard' geek references just fly over my head, and I self-identify as a geek.
When I think Tom Baker, I think 'Puddleglum', not the Doctor.
So while I sympathize with the anger at censorship, I have far less sympathy for anger that " some of the mods weren't clever enough to get the references."

[Seraph]

I agree that this is a bad sign, though some of the previous changes I can't say I dislike. When the name of the article comes from a minor injoke regarding a minor character when the movie was shown on MST3k, you've gone a bit too far.

Its not so much a matter of clarity as it is a matter of hypocrisy. The people who argued for renaming, say, Sasami Syndrome, are the exact same people who would flip their lid and get into a massive argument with you if you suggested renaming Xanatos Gambit.

[kpenguin]

And the names are no more in-jokey than many standard names for describing media. I mean, who really knows what Red Herring is a reference to? Certainly a small percentage of the people who use the term. However, the story behind it is a clever, if apocryphal one, and the term, to me, is evocative.

[Anarion]

Not to mention that you can fix the problems of people finding obscure tropes by linking to the page for common search terms. I would think one of the advantages of the geeky names was that if you set it up correctly, you could actually spread those terms and get them into common usage.

[Ravens_cry]

And the names are no more in-jokey than many standard names for describing media. I mean, who really knows what Red Herring is a reference to? Certainly a small percentage of the people who use the term. However, the story behind it is a clever, if apocryphal one, and the term, to me, is evocative.
Red Herring is an actual idiom of English in general. That makes it a pretty good trope name, even if you don't use the term often yourself.

[Lord Seth]

TVTropes started going to hell when they started renaming tropes because some of the mods weren't clever enough to get the references.I see nothing wrong with that and am in fact completely in favor of that decision.
Its not so much a matter of clarity as it is a matter of hypocrisy. The people who argued for renaming, say, Sasami Syndrome, are the exact same people who would flip their lid and get into a massive argument with you if you suggested renaming Xanatos Gambit.Not hypocritical. Lots of people were using the term Xanatos Gambit outside of the site (ditto with Flanderization) so it makes perfect sense to keep it; it'd be like trying to rename Deus Ex Machina. However, outside of TV Tropes, I never saw a single person use terms like "The Daisuke" or "Spikeification" or "The Paolo."

I don't even see a big issue with this change. Oh no, they're not talking about porn anymore! Oh the humanity!

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Red Herring is an actual idiom of English in general. That makes it a pretty good trope name, even if you don't use the term often yourself.
It's an analogy. What's being noted is that there's no good reason why, say, "Xanatos Gambit" shouldn't become a similar sort of literary idiom. Personally, I love it, even if I haven't seen so much as five minutes of Gargoyles.

At any rate, this seems utterly ridiculous. And I'm sad. Why, TV Tropes?

[McStabbington]

Red Herring is an actual idiom of English in general. That makes it a pretty good trope name, even if you don't use the term often yourself.

Well, that's just it: TVTropes was helping to spread new idioms. Once upon a time, you had to be a regular theatergoer at The Globe in London to know what Alas Poor Yorick meant; now it's an idiom and a trope that has universal recognition. Had they stuck to their guns, a hundred years from now people might have been referencing George Lucas mostly in terms of the George Lucas Love Story. Alas poor term, while creative, it is not meant to be.

[tensai_oni]

I don't even see a big issue with this change. Oh no, they're not talking about porn anymore! Oh the humanity!

It's not just porn. Everything that had sexual content has been stripped from the site. They cleared the Fate/Stay Night page for crying out loud.

[Anarion]

To be fair, the OP grossly overstates the extent of their current policy change (I assume for dramatic effect). Many works with sex scenes will remain untouched and they have a group of tropers reviewing all removals as to whether or not they qualify as pornography. You may disagree with the particular membership of that group of tropers (I know nothing about any of them), but the system sounds reasonable.

[Ravens_cry]

There is a line between 'spreading new idioms' and 'unhelpful confusion'.
'Xantos Gambit' is not the greatest, but explaining it can be done in sentence, like, 'Xantos was a villain known for truly excellent plan making'.

[tensai_oni]

The change is pointless. Did everyone forget the first Situation already? After it has been "resolved", some pages were locked and available for view only for adults who had their own accounts and acknowledged that they could see NSFW material. These pages had no google adds on them.

Now, Google pulls adds because someone reported a page - one of these adult-only, no-add pages. Something they were okay with before, but now they backed up on their word. So this change to placate Google will do nothing, because as soon as another flimsy complaint comes, they will just pull their adds off the site again.

EDIT: @Anarion
This is what Fast Eddie's team promises for the future, but promises are cheap and cost nothing. For now all I can see is that a large portion of works presented on the site has been removed.

[kpenguin]

There is a line between 'spreading new idioms' and 'unhelpful confusion'.
'Xantos Gambit' is not the greatest, but explaining it can be done in sentence, like, 'Xantos was a villain known for truly excellent plan making'.

Perhaps, but by that reasoning Red Herring is a much poorer name. I can't explain the reasoning behind Red Herring within one sentence... well, not a good sentence that is at all concise or that would explain the story comprehensibly anyway. Perhaps someone would like to take up that challenge?

[Anarion]

Perhaps, but by that reasoning Red Herring is a much poorer name. I can't explain the reasoning behind Red Herring within one sentence... well, not a good sentence that is at all concise or that would explain the story comprehensibly anyway. Perhaps someone would like to take up that challenge?

It was a strong scent that would throw off tracking dogs in some manner or other. The etymology isn't in agreement, but it definitely had to do with dogs.

[Seraph]

I see nothing wrong with that and am in fact completely in favor of that decision.Not hypocritical. Lots of people were using the term Xanatos Gambit outside of the site (ditto with Flanderization) so it makes perfect sense to keep it; it'd be like trying to rename Deus Ex Machina. However, outside of TV Tropes, I never saw a single person use terms like "The Daisuke" or "Spikeification" or "The Paolo."

its not the site's fault you have poor pools of reference. For Instance, Sasami Syndrome was used in quite a few anime circles for years before tvtropes came about. Its not hard to explain, either: "When a minor character is commonly seen as a better romantic match for the protagonist than the actual Love Interest, such as Sasami from Tenchi Muyo."


I don't even see a big issue with this change. Oh no, they're not talking about porn anymore! Oh the humanity!


To be fair, the OP grossly overstates the extent of their current policy change (I assume for dramatic effect).

No he isn't.

They deleted as much as they could that made mention of sex. not porn, anything that involves sex. The cross-section of works imply that the stuff not deleted yet is a matter of oversight, rather than classification. For instance, they deleted the page for Lolita.

no, not the genre. The book.

[Anarion]

No he isn't.

They deleted as much as they could that made mention of sex. not porn, anything that involves sex. The cross-section of works imply that the stuff not deleted yet is a matter of oversight, rather than classification. For instance, they deleted the page for Lolita.

no, not the genre. The book.

They explicitly noted the deletion of Lolita (the book) in their new policy explanation and explained that they went on a deleting rampage before they got a new policy in place and that everything deleted is being reviewed now and some of it will be restored. I don't know any of those people, so if you tell me they're lying through their teeth, I'll take your word for it, but as presented I still don't see anything unreasonable.

[Seraph]

They explicitly noted the deletion of Lolita (the book) in their new policy explanation and explained that they went on a deleting rampage before they got a new policy in place and that everything deleted is being reviewed now and some of it will be restored. I don't know any of those people, so if you tell me they're lying through their teeth, I'll take your word for it, but as presented I still don't see anything unreasonable.

the fact that "deleting rampage" enters into it at all is evidence that the people doing this have no place doing anything related to this bull**** new policy. they crossed a line, they clearly have no idea what they are doing.

I wouldn't hold my breath about "some of them being replaced," either. Considering how they've been deleting mentions of the whole thing left-and-right is pretty good evidence that they just want it all to blow over without having to answer for their stupidity.

[Anarion]

the fact that "deleting rampage" enters into it at all is evidence that the people doing this have no place doing anything related to this bull**** new policy. they crossed a line, they clearly have no idea what they are doing.

I wouldn't hold my breath about "some of them being replaced," either. Considering how they've been deleting mentions of the whole thing left-and-right is pretty good evidence that they just want it all to blow over without having to answer for their stupidity.

That was my word, not theirs. Here's what they said.


"I heard some works were cut before the council was established. What's up with that?"

Where the administration was given strong reason to believe that works were not appropriate for this site, they have been cut on a "better safe than sorry" principle. Yes, this includes Lolita, which was cut when it was reported as being in violation of the new content policy; this happened prior to the establishment of 5P and should not be taken as representative of the new policy. We understand that a lot of people are unhappy about this, but before you get up in arms, relax - 5P will be reviewing contested works to decide whether they get to stay, and that includes Lolita.

Again, I'm taking them at face value for the moment when perhaps I should not be doing that, but you're not convincing me they're wrong by jumping to conclusions either.

[Yora]

The moment I noticed there's something wrong was, when the term Nakama had been purged from the site. It now is something completely generic. But that was the fun with TVtropes, it's unique terminology! Since then, many other common and popular terms have disappeared. But when they started silently remove things and not allowing it to come back, even while stating that everyone can edit and there are no rules what things belong there and what don't, it really just isn't fun anymore.

I can't say I do completely blame them: They have insane amounts of trafic, and being completely free they need advertisers to stay online. And advertiserers have certain standards with whom they want to work and with whom they rather don't want to be associated.
So yeah, whoever is running the site probably doesn't has much of a choice and I am not angry with them.

But since the slight but mostly polite anarchy is one of the defining traits of what is TVtropes, I am mostly done with it. As I said in the TVtropes forum, it has become too big to continue, and there needs to be an entirely new thing to be started which is small enough to be afordable. Until in some 5 years or so, it also becomes too big, and the whole thing begins again.

[Axolotl]

Well good riddance is all I can say. I'll admitt I was a fan of the site once, but it's long since decayed into a celebration of doublethink, artistic bankruptcy and just creepy behavior. Anything that hastens the site towards deletion is a good thing in my book if it means I'll never meet another person who thinks one link is a valid argument or that the site itself was some kind or irrefutable proof that originality in art is impossible.

[Gnoman]

Reading through the discussions, it's pretty obvious that a number of tropers have used this as an excuse to launch an all-out crusade against whatever their man fixation is. This seems to have resulted in the inital purge (which, admittedly, should never have happened) to be much broader and more sweeping than it should have been. The consensuses I've seen on what the actual results will probably be are not too unreasonable.

[Scowling Dragon]

Thing is: TV tropes promotes (Or used to) words to become their own definitions:

Mary sue? Thats a name that has long outgrown its original intent yet its very catchy and nice to pronounce.

Tsanadre? Same thing. Just because thier backstories not that many people know, they created terms that sound great and are easy to remember.

Boiling it down to "Perfectly annoying character" or "Character that varies between being very cold and rarely nice" is just not the same.

[Gnoman]

Not sure about the second one, but Mary Sue not only predates the Wiki, but had degraded to it's present state before the wiki.

[Anarion]

Not sure about the second one, but Mary Sue not only predates the Wiki, but had degraded to it's present state before the wiki.

Mary Sue is also on tvtropes still, as is tsundere. I wasn't aware there had even been an attempt to remove either of those terms, as they're much more well known and did not originate on tvtropes.

[Yora]

Does anyone know and has experience with a good software to emulate the functions of the TVtropes software?
I think it shouldn't be a problem to get a kickstarter going to fund a server for a database with a more clearly defined mission statement. A directory of plot devices, archetypes, symbols, and characterization motives with an educational aim would seem quite nice. For example, lists of strange haircolors, scientific inaccuracies, or use of Stock Phrases really wouldn't be neccessary. As coincidentaly also wouldn't be debtes about whether or not a show became less popular after this season or that season. :smallbiggrin:

[tensai_oni]

Tsanadre? Same thing. Just because thier backstories not that many people know, they created terms that sound great and are easy to remember.

Uh, no. Tsundere (spelling) as a term has been used in anime fandoms since the 90s, with characters of this archetype popping up even earlier.

[Lord Seth]

its not the site's fault you have poor pools of reference.Okay then. Where did you see people, outside of TV Tropes, often using terms like "The Paolo" or "The Daisuke"? Because I saw "Xanatos Gambit" and "Flanderization" a lot (especially flanderization, that's a term that's really caught on), but never terms like those.

The outcry here about this change surprises me, really. At worst it seems to me a "okay, this is a change for the worse" but not "oh no TV Tropes is now and forever ruined" as some people seem to be claiming.

[Solaris]

While I dislike censorship, I disagree about changing names being necessarily a bad thing.
As fun as it is to treat TV Tropes as a geeky, cliquey little clubhouse, it's meant as a kind of service slash database to help categorize elements in various media.
Trope Names that derive solely from knowledge of certain media unless one can be very sure of it's near universal understand, are frustrating to search for when not 'in the know'.
One might think "well everyone knows that" much of the time, but chances are, you are wrong.
I grew up in a home without television (we had a TV, but it was hooked up to the VCR) or video games.
A lot of 'standard' geek references just fly over my head, and I self-identify as a geek.
When I think Tom Baker, I think 'Puddleglum', not the Doctor.
So while I sympathize with the anger at censorship, I have far less sympathy for anger that " some of the mods weren't clever enough to get the references."

But you acknowledge that you're somewhat unusual in that regard. Hell, I don't get all of them - but I didn't object to the trope names. They usually have some manner of explanation in there, and that's usually at least a little entertaining. Like Yora said, they went from taking away the strange and obscure like The Toblerone and went on to take out things like Nakama. Given the choice, I'll keep the names I don't get. They existed in the time before, back when TVTropes wasn't trying to turn itself into the Entertainment Portal for Wikipedia.

[Androgeus]

its not the site's fault you have poor pools of reference. For Instance, Sasami Syndrome was used in quite a few anime circles for years before tvtropes came about. Its not hard to explain, either: "When a minor character is commonly seen as a better romantic match for the protagonist than the actual Love Interest, such as Sasami from Tenchi Muyo."

The way I see it is that with no knowledge of the reference I should be able to get a general idea of what a trope is about just from the name.
With Xanatos Gambit, one could hazard a guess that it's about making plans, probably ingenious plans with high reward and risk, which is pretty much correct apart from the risk part.
Sasami Syndrome doesn't really have that in my eyes, personally I thought the trope was going to be some kind of personality trope rather than a shipping trope.
A trope's name should at least give me a stab in the dark at knowing what genre(?) of trope it belongs to.

[NNescio]

Not sure about the second one, but Mary Sue not only predates the Wiki, but had degraded to it's present state before the wiki.

As someone who frequents Japanese forums, I can vouch similarly for the second one as well. That is, it predates Tvtropes,　and its meaning has "degraded" over time (see the Lucky Star rant, which is actually a rather accurate description),


Uh, no. Tsundere (spelling) as a term has been used in anime fandoms since the 90s, with characters of this archetype popping up even earlier.

I... doubt that. My sources (in Japanese (http://www.ic.daito.ac.jp/~jtogashi/articles/togashi2009a.pdf)) tells me that the first recorded use (see Page 13) was in 2002. I highly doubt that the term would be in use by anime fandoms in the West before it was even coined in Japan.

'though, yes, in any case, the character archetype does predate the term, with Takahashi Rumiko's heroines being prominent examples.

Edit: Formatting errors.

[Seraph]

The way I see it is that with no knowledge of the reference I should be able to get a general idea of what a trope is about just from the name.

except that's wrong. its a wiki; the idea is, if you see a trope you don't know, you click the link and find out. You don't use trope names in common parlance and discussion, they're there as a memetic for remembering what does what.

the problem with your argument is that it puts far, far too much stake in the idea of intrinsic meaning of words; when you get deep down enough, absolutely no part of any language makes any sense in relation to its supposed meaning. Most "rename" movements are done in such a way that either saps any cleverness out of the title in exchange for blandness, or replaces the existing reference with one that is in the whiner's comfort zone.

[tensai_oni]

My sources ([url=http://www.ic.daito.ac.jp/~jtogashi/articles/togashi2009a.pdf]in Japanese) tells me that the first recorded use (see Page 13) was in 2002. I highly doubt that the term would be in use by anime fandoms in the West before it was even coined in Japan.

I never said anything about the West.
Also, was not Asuka called a tsundere when Evangelion was already airing? At the very least the archetype was so popular that she could be its deconstruction.



The outcry here about this change surprises me, really. At worst it seems to me a "okay, this is a change for the worse" but not "oh no TV Tropes is now and forever ruined" as some people seem to be claiming.

This is the straw that broke the camel's back. Both Google's action and TVTropes' reaction to it.

It sets up a precedent. Even if Google strikes a deal with TVTropes, later it can always go back on its word and just pull the adds down again, forcing more and more change whenever they feel like it. Because FastEddie is not going to complain or look for alternatives, no - he will always bend over to accomodate them.

[Scowling Dragon]

Thats not the point I was making. Mary Sue? Does it give any indication what it means? No. But after existing I know what it entails.

We can't just curb language to the lowest common denominator.

Red herring? It indicates red fish yet its still allowed to exist.

[Man on Fire]

Tvtropes jumped the shark long time ago, when they stopped having fun with their wiki and started being so terribly strick about their rules. Rules ae important but they're sticking to them to the level of official speak - they're killing the unique language they created and turning it into official language. Real language grows naturally by participation of people, tvtropes managed to recreate that on the internet and then threw it out in favor of language created artifical way by few people ordering everybody around - i's artifical language, boring and overcomplicated language that exist only in public offices. They had something beautiful and they kill it.

[Lord Raziere]

:smallannoyed:

I do not approve of any of this.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Okay then. Where did you see people, outside of TV Tropes, often using terms like "The Paolo" or "The Daisuke"? Because I saw "Xanatos Gambit" and "Flanderization" a lot (especially flanderization, that's a term that's really caught on), but never terms like those.

The outcry here about this change surprises me, really. At worst it seems to me a "okay, this is a change for the worse" but not "oh no TV Tropes is now and forever ruined" as some people seem to be claiming.

I don't think anyone believes every trope name is so clever that it should stand forever once created.

The problem is that 95% of the of the replacements are Political Correctness Gone Mad lacking anything resembling wit. I don't care for the term "The Paolo" but "Romantic False Lead" doesn't make me want to find out what it means because I can god damn tell. The name changes kill the true charm of the site... Wiki Walking until three in the morning.

Xanatos Gambit could not be created on the current site, it is only protected by Grandfather Clause. It would be thrown into the trope repair shop and be killed by a handful of busybodies for something like "No Loss Plan"

[Teln]

From this thread, I'm getting the feeling that Fast Eddie is the Louie XVI to Jimmy Wales' Elizabeth II. One is an autocratic despot, and the other is a figurehead respected by all. Would you say this is a fair comparison?

[Ravens_cry]

But you acknowledge that you're somewhat unusual in that regard. Hell, I don't get all of them - but I didn't object to the trope names. They usually have some manner of explanation in there, and that's usually at least a little entertaining. Like Yora said, they went from taking away the strange and obscure like The Toblerone and went on to take out things like Nakama. Given the choice, I'll keep the names I don't get. They existed in the time before, back when TVTropes wasn't trying to turn itself into the Entertainment Portal for Wikipedia.

Oh, I admit I am a bit of an edge case, but when the explanation requires half the trope description and/or further WikiWalking, then you have a problem in my opinion.

[Solaris]

Oh, I admit I am a bit of an edge case, but when the explanation requires half the trope description and/or further WikiWalking, then you have a problem in my opinion.

That used to be a lot of what I liked about the site. I've found a lot less interest in it now than I used to, in part because they decided to change things to suit the lowest common denominator. It's like saying poetry can't have metaphor because someone might not get it.

[Ravens_cry]

That used to be a lot of what I liked about the site. I've found a lot less interest in it now than I used to, in part because they decided to change things to suit the lowest common denominator. It's like saying poetry can't have metaphor because someone might not get it.
Bad example, poetry is not meant to be an informative tool, it is a form of expression. That being said, an overly torturous metaphor can be a sign of bad poetry, but that is another discussion.

[Seraph]

Bad example, poetry is not meant to be an informative tool, it is a form of expression.

Tvtropes was never meant to be an "informative tool," and anyone who thinks otherwise has been thoroughly misled. Its a repository for recurring themes and metafictional injokes. It is not meant to teach you how to write and it is not meant to teach you how to analyze, a fact that far too many people have failed to understand.

[Anarion]

Tvtropes was never meant to be an "informative tool," and anyone who thinks otherwise has been thoroughly misled. Its a repository for recurring themes and metafictional injokes. It is not meant to teach you how to write and it is not meant to teach you how to analyze, a fact that far too many people have failed to understand.

It's because it became good for doing those things despite itself. It classified a lot of common literary techniques in a witty and memorable way that, quite frankly, did a better job of teaching those techniques than most high school English teachers. Yes, it needed to be taken with a grain of salt, but if you're trying to get someone interested in analyzing literature and introduced to basic concepts, TVtropes was and probably still is great for that.

Ironically though, I agree with you even though I think it was good for teaching. It has become less good now that it isn't as catchy because it was the witty titles and explanations that made people want to read it. All those metafictional in-jokes were what gave it value.

[Lord Raziere]

Yet another example of popularity killing what made the thing great in the first place. Why can't people leave well enough alone and not be intolerant jerks?

[Tvtyrant]

Offtopic: This thread keeps making me think it is about me, because I see TVT all over the place. :C

Ontopic: I don't find the changes irritating or annoying so much as sad. Sad that attempts to create "professionalism" consistently absorb websites that they have no real place in.

[Luka]

Tvtropes was never meant to be an "informative tool," and anyone who thinks otherwise has been thoroughly misled. Its a repository for recurring themes and metafictional injokes. It is not meant to teach you how to write and it is not meant to teach you how to analyze, a fact that far too many people have failed to understand.


odd. It has actually worked for me in what you said it doesn't :smallbiggrin:

[Grinner]

Does anyone know and has experience with a good software to emulate the functions of the TVtropes software?
I think it shouldn't be a problem to get a kickstarter going to fund a server for a database with a more clearly defined mission statement. A directory of plot devices, archetypes, symbols, and characterization motives with an educational aim would seem quite nice. For example, lists of strange haircolors, scientific inaccuracies, or use of Stock Phrases really wouldn't be neccessary. As coincidentaly also wouldn't be debtes about whether or not a show became less popular after this season or that season. :smallbiggrin:

That's an ambitious goal.

To my knowledge, TVTropes is just a modified wiki. Wikipedia has a list of wiki hosting software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wiki_software).

[Tiki Snakes]

Yet another example of popularity killing what made the thing great in the first place. Why can't people leave well enough alone and not be intolerant jerks?

Because you can't exercise control by allowing things. Therefor, to feel in control, you have to limit things.

[Lord Raziere]

Yea, people place too much emphasis on controlling the world. They should place more emphasis on accepting, particularly on accepting harmless things rather than being alarmed that they aren't what they consider "normal" and try to suppress them because they don't want any weirdness or whatever. :smallsigh:

[Man on Fire]

I jsut deleted my tvtropes account. Feels good man.

[Lord Seth]

Oh, I admit I am a bit of an edge case, but when the explanation requires half the trope description and/or further WikiWalking, then you have a problem in my opinion.No, I agree with you. Too many of the old trope names were way too vague or obscure. I still don't get the outcry against most of those name changes.

[KnightDisciple]

People are sad that flame and blade have been taken to the over-bloated wreck that was TVTropes?

You're telling me you're upset stuff like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feFHnIhJtG4) (NSFW really, despite probably not being labeled NSFW when it actually existed) being gone makes you mad? The world is a better place now that that trope page is gone. Panty shot itself needs not have examples.

Really, I think there are 2 things that killed TVTropes (it's undead at this point).

1.)Over trope-ificiation. That site has basically troped everything. It grew from being a fan catalog of themes, genres, archetypes, and a few fun things that pop up everywhere, to 50 kinds of slightly different angry female protagonists, all of them named wacky Japanese names I still don't know how to pronounce. This also bled over into people quoting and linking TVTropes all the time.
2.)Too many examples. Putting aside some stuff (like, say, Panty Shots, or the above trope that no longer exists on the site, hooray) that's kind of skeezy to list a billion examples of, trying to find a billion examples of every single trope made all the pages really loaded down.
This is exemplified in the fact that some shows/books/whatever had several sub-divided sets of tropes! I mean, seriously, the trope pages were longer than wiki articles (and probably still are for pet projects).


TVTropes was, and really likely still is, bloated and weighed down. It's outgrown what it was.

Add to that the horrifically inane nature of 99.9% of examples of "Troper Tales", and it really lowered the value of the site. I'm sorry, but stuff like Troper Tales for Moment of "Awesome" was just silly.


I'm not saying the site was a bad idea. But it's gotten caught up in its own importance. As if it was some serious contribution to the world, and not a silly collection of humorous examples of themes and archetypes stapled to a bunch of memes and fed necromantic steroids.

Also, I love the irony of people crying about "censorship" while posting on this site, which has much stricter content standards, and for a non-monetary reason. The Giant wants the forums to keep a certain tone, and so there are rules. Whereas TVTropes needs ad revenue. Unless everyone badmouthing Google is willing to right now set up a Kickstarter to donate money preemptively to Fast Eddie. Money where your mouth is and all.


TLDR: This should have happened a while ago, though in a more orderly fashion. Also known as "They Changed It, Now It Sucks". :smallwink::smalltongue:

[Seraph]

I should preface this by pointing out that I find lolicon very disturbing, but holy hell (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Lolicon?from=Main.LolitaComplex).

There is literally no way that could be any more condescending, and the racist undertone isn't helping it either.

[Ravens_cry]

No, I agree with you. Too many of the old trope names were way too vague or obscure. I still don't get the outcry against most of those name changes.
Because TV Tropes is run by and enjoyed mostly by geek fans of all description, and there is a whole host of tropes, interestingly enough, about how fans, or at least the loudest ones, are often quite conservative about change.
I know I can be.

[Tavar]

Ah, I wasn't aware how far the name-culling had gotten. Don't really go there too much unless I'm looking up some new work.


I should preface this by pointing out that I find lolicon very disturbing, but holy hell (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Lolicon?from=Main.LolitaComplex).

There is literally no way that could be any more condescending, and the racist undertone isn't helping it either.
True. Also...eh. It's complicated by several factors.

[Loki_42]

It seems I came into TVtropes at it's dying end, having discovered the sight just a few years ago. Nonetheless, I was still on there before many of the trope names began being changed. Honestly, I can probably deal with a bit of trope name changes. I wish they retained some of their wit, but it's not the biggest deal I have. What I can't deal with, is the censorship. Somebody here said they deleted the page for Lolita, the novel. I checked, and it's true. When a wiki who has a stated purpose of celebrating fiction blocks the page for a classic novel, for whatever reason, something has gone wrong. I keep finding more and more pages that are blocked, and every one of them I have agreed with so far. I can understand getting rid of the tropes that may be offensive and don't exactly fit the definition of "trope" anyway, but when you actually block off a page for a work of fiction? That's pure evil.

[KnightDisciple]

It seems I came into TVtropes at it's dying end, having discovered the sight just a few years ago. Nonetheless, I was still on there before many of the trope names began being changed. Honestly, I can probably deal with a bit of trope name changes. I wish they retained some of their wit, but it's not the biggest deal I have. What I can't deal with, is the censorship. Somebody here said they deleted the page for Lolita, the novel. I checked, and it's true. When a wiki who has a stated purpose of celebrating fiction blocks the page for a classic novel, for whatever reason, something has gone wrong. I keep finding more and more pages that are blocked, and every one of them I have agreed with so far. I can understand getting rid of the tropes that may be offensive and don't exactly fit the definition of "trope" anyway, but when you actually block off a page for a work of fiction? That's pure evil.

No, it's not. Please don't use that phrase to describe a decision made on a free site (to the public, it's free) that can be edited by anyone who bothers making an account.

Call it disagreeable, cowardly, disgusting, sure.

But "pure evil"? No. No sir, there are far far too many things in this world that are actually "pure evil" for you to rightfully dilute that phrase by using it in so petty a manner.

[Pokonic]

It seems I came into TVtropes at it's dying end, having discovered the sight just a few years ago. Nonetheless, I was still on there before many of the trope names began being changed. Honestly, I can probably deal with a bit of trope name changes. I wish they retained some of their wit, but it's not the biggest deal I have. What I can't deal with, is the censorship. Somebody here said they deleted the page for Lolita, the novel. I checked, and it's true. When a wiki who has a stated purpose of celebrating fiction blocks the page for a classic novel, for whatever reason, something has gone wrong. I keep finding more and more pages that are blocked, and every one of them I have agreed with so far. I can understand getting rid of the tropes that may be offensive and don't exactly fit the definition of "trope" anyway, but when you actually block off a page for a work of fiction? That's pure evil.

Yep. Also, I dont think that "This Index Is Full of Perverts" existed last time I logged in, and I sure as heck did not expect so many things reduced to stubs or to have the Real Life examples cut out. I mean realy, you cannot say how much money you had to spend on card games or such in Crack Is Cheaper?

[Marnath]

Well good riddance is all I can say. I'll admit I was a fan of the site once, but it's long since decayed into a celebration of doublethink, artistic bankruptcy and just creepy behavior. Anything that hastens the site towards deletion is a good thing in my book if it means I'll never meet another person who thinks one link is a valid argument or that the site itself was some kind or irrefutable proof that originality in art is impossible.

I agree. A link to Tv Tropes is not an argument. Just because a story uses tropes doesn't make it unoriginal. Also, many tropes predate the site and I'm tired of people acting like they all originated there, or that they're doing us a favor by pointing out how everything we like is unimaginative drivel.

Not to imply that such attitudes are common here, of course.

[TheLaughingMan]

Yep. Also, I dont think that "This Index Is Full of Perverts" existed last time I logged in, and I sure as heck did not expect so many things reduced to stubs or to have the Real Life examples cut out. I mean realy, you cannot say how much money you had to spend on card games or such in Crack Is Cheaper?

Ah, but examples cause differences of opinion, and that is simply not a part of the new world order. That is why we can not note that any piece of fiction is anything less than a perfect work of art unless it has no fans.

[Teln]

People are sad that flame and blade have been taken to the over-bloated wreck that was TVTropes?

You're telling me you're upset stuff like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feFHnIhJtG4) (NSFW really, despite probably not being labeled NSFW when it actually existed) being gone makes you mad? The world is a better place now that that trope page is gone. Panty shot itself needs not have examples. There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. Notability. That alone is reason enough to keep those pages, IMHO. As long as that policy stands, there is absolutely no justifiable reason for this. Did Fast Eddie and company stick to their stated policies? No! At the first sign of disapproval, they folded like a house of cards! No attempt to find alternate sources of revenue was made, no community input was requested or even desired! Fast Eddie had an excuse to go on a deletion spree, and he grabbed it with both hands!

Seriously, putting all the NSFW tropes behind a bare-bones age-verification system would have probably worked--make it so you can't see questionable tropes unless you're logged in, and make it so you have to check a box in your profile to turn off the filter. This is the exact same way DeviantArt handles things, and they don't seem to have any problems getting ad revenue!

Also, I love the irony of people crying about "censorship" while posting on this site, which has much stricter content standards, and for a non-monetary reason. The Giant wants the forums to keep a certain tone, and so there are rules. Whereas TVTropes needs ad revenue. Unless everyone badmouthing Google is willing to right now set up a Kickstarter to donate money preemptively to Fast Eddie. Money where your mouth is and all. TV Tropes made a very big deal about their lack of content standards, which is why they've kept There Is No Such Thing As Notability on the front page for as long as I've been going to that site, which I found before I found Giant in the Playground and Order of the Stick. TV Tropes led me here, and it's quite a shame that it'll never be leading me to any other entertaining shows. I'm done with it. I even cleared my browser history to get rid of that site. I never clear my browser history.

[Trazoi]

That is why we can not note that any piece of fiction is anything less than a perfect work of art unless it has no fans.
When TV Tropes internalised the "All Criticism is Evil" mindset was, to me, the defining point where the rot became terminal. "There is No Such Thing as Notability" meant that a crossover fanfic about two webcomics had to be treated as important as Shakespeare. And since you can't analyse what a work does wrong (because how dare you insult that work) all analysis is limited to 'here are the things that happens in X". Which, this being the internet, means an awful lot of TV Tropes are fetish lists.


From this thread, I'm getting the feeling that Fast Eddie is the Louie XVI to Jimmy Wales' Elizabeth II. One is an autocratic despot, and the other is a figurehead respected by all. Would you say this is a fair comparison?
A lot of the problems with TV Tropes are due to Fast Eddie treating this as a kind of side project and not wanting to spend too much time on site administration, while also simultaneously wanting complete control over everything. The site has grown too big for him or his small team of moderators to handle. I also don't think TV Tropes has done a good job of putting its foot down about exactly what it wants to be, which is why it's rotting away to obsolescence.

[Wiwaxia]

Man, I don't know. A lot of this seems a bit extreme. TvTropes has always had its flaws, more so as of late, but it has accomplished some really cool and good things, and will probably continue to do so for at least a little longer.

This isn't the end yet, although it may very well be the beginning of the end.

[KnightDisciple]

There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. Notability.
You use those words like they're supposed to mean something.

I seriously don't understand what you're even trying to say with that.


That alone is reason enough to keep those pages, IMHO. ...You're trying to defend the idea of keeping a detailed list of underage panty shots? How is that even a thing? :smalleek:


As long as that policy stands, there is absolutely no justifiable reason for this. Maybe the policy shouldn't stand any more?

I mean, there's "we're not a super-formal site like wikipedia" and then there's "basic standards, what are those, let's have more fetishes and meme lists!".


Did Fast Eddie and company stick to their stated policies? No! At the first sign of disapproval, they folded like a house of cards! No attempt to find alternate sources of revenue was made, no community input was requested or even desired! Fast Eddie had an excuse to go on a deletion spree, and he grabbed it with both hands! TVTropes has been in need of a deletion spree for a good long while.


Seriously, putting all the NSFW tropes behind a bare-bones age-verification system would have probably worked--make it so you can't see questionable tropes unless you're logged in, and make it so you have to check a box in your profile to turn off the filter. This is the exact same way DeviantArt handles things, and they don't seem to have any problems getting ad revenue! Didn't they already do that?
Beyond that, there's a difference between "NSFW tropes" and "creepy skeezy tropes". My example above is one of the 2nd, and I'm pretty sure it's not the only one.

More than that, I don't think every single trope needs a billion categorized examples. A middle ground is saying such a thing exists, without meticulously detailing every time it happens (the Panty Shot page is apparently an example of this, and the site is better for that).



TV Tropes made a very big deal about their lack of content standards, which is why they've kept There Is No Such Thing As Notability on the front page for as long as I've been going to that site, which I found before I found Giant in the Playground and Order of the Stick. I'm still not convinced "having no content standards" is indisputably a good thing.



TV Tropes led me here, and it's quite a shame that it'll never be leading me to any other entertaining shows. I'm done with it. I even cleared my browser history to get rid of that site. I never clear my browser history. Good for you, I guess? :smallconfused:

Seriously dude, you act like that's some big thing. The site's going to get traffic for better or worse.

Again, people are acting like books are being burned or something. They're giving the site a much-needed cleaning, though admittedly it sounds like things have been taken too far in a few specific instances.

[Tengu_temp]

You're telling me you're upset stuff like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feFHnIhJtG4) (NSFW really, despite probably not being labeled NSFW when it actually existed) being gone makes you mad? The world is a better place now that that trope page is gone. Panty shot itself needs not have examples.

No, we're upset because TV Tropes is deleting trope pages for works that dare to have sexual elements in them, while calling these works pornography as justification and waving their "let's clean our wiki of perversion" banner in the most passive-aggressive and condescending manner at the same time. They stop just one step ahead of personally calling you a disgusting pervert for enjoying Fate/Stay Night or any other thing that was cut from the wiki.


Also, I love the irony of people crying about "censorship" while posting on this site, which has much stricter content standards, and for a non-monetary reason.

This is Giant's forum, he can put whatever rules he wants. TV Tropes wants to catalogue all kinds of tropes and works. Pretending the ones with sexual elements in them just don't exist goes against the sole essence of what it's intended to do.



This isn't the end yet, although it may very well be the beginning of the end.

Well, that's pretty much what jumping the shark means, no? Some event happens that might not be a huge catastrophe on its own, but you know that from that point on things can only go downhill.

[Avilan the Grey]

The moment I noticed there's something wrong was, when the term Nakama had been purged from the site. It now is something completely generic.

I applauded that change. I have never liked the Nakama term.


Tvtropes was never meant to be an "informative tool," and anyone who thinks otherwise has been thoroughly misled. Its a repository for recurring themes and metafictional injokes. It is not meant to teach you how to write and it is not meant to teach you how to analyze, a fact that far too many people have failed to understand.

Really? I have always used it for what you say it's not, and it has worked fine for me...

[Man on Fire]

You use those words like they're supposed to mean something.

I seriously don't understand what you're even trying to say with that.

This is their motto, something they were proud of once, something they stood for. If they have it written on their front page then they should stick to it.

[Turcano]

When TV Tropes internalised the "All Criticism is Evil" mindset was, to me, the defining point where the rot became terminal. "There is No Such Thing as Notability" meant that a crossover fanfic about two webcomics had to be treated as important as Shakespeare. And since you can't analyse what a work does wrong (because how dare you insult that work) all analysis is limited to 'here are the things that happens in X". Which, this being the internet, means an awful lot of TV Tropes are fetish lists.

Pretty much. The spirit of TVTropes died when the people who run it broke the rule of "We're not Wikipedia." That happened around two years ago, as far as I can remember.

[Loki_42]

No, it's not. Please don't use that phrase to describe a decision made on a free site (to the public, it's free) that can be edited by anyone who bothers making an account.

Call it disagreeable, cowardly, disgusting, sure.

But "pure evil"? No. No sir, there are far far too many things in this world that are actually "pure evil" for you to rightfully dilute that phrase by using it in so petty a manner.
Honestly, censorship of information is one of the few things that I do consider evil, almost to the point of an absolute. We're allowed to disagree, but I stand by my beliefs.

[Frozen_Feet]

I disagree with people who conflate "No such thing as notability" with "post everything you want". That is not the essence of either the phrase or the policy.

What the policy means is that a work doesn't have to be notable to be a good example of something. It still needs to be a good example, though. And it does not break this policy to say "we don't want examples of these things". "Censorship" of porn tropes is not any different from removing examples from a trope page when those examples clearly aren't an example of the trope in question.

If anything, precluding famous works such as Lolita is in line with "no such thing as notability" - it matters not if a work is notable, if it falls to the category of unwanted examples, it is removed.

Never mind that I feel people are understating the fact that they're still re-evaluating what content will and will not be preserved. It reads right there in the links given: just because something is blocked now, doesn't mean it's necessarily gone forever.

From this thread, I gather some people have had a massive beef with the administration of the site prior to this event, for largely inconsequential reasons. (Such as renaming the tropes so that the names are actually descriptive... come on.) Many of the complaints against this decision go to a far more personal level than I think would be appropriate.

For the record, despite having read TV Tropes for about five years nad having contributed in some minor ways, I never got involved in the forums and have little idea of what the current admins are like. Which I suppose is just a good thing, because it means I can review this situation from a detached enough viewpoint to not get personal in my complaints. :smalltongue:

EDIT: also, anyone claiming "censorship is EVIL" has poor grasp of the functions of censoring. Depending on context, omitting or banning pieces of information can be perfectly justified.

For example, on these sites, censorship of obsceneties and inflammatory posts is to keep athmosphere on these boards civil and family-friendly. And it is working.

Censorship is a tool. It can be used badly or harmfully, no doubt. But a priori stance against censorship is thoughtless.

[_Zoot_]

While I must admit I was never really been involved in the sites politics, (for instance I don't know who the Hell this Fast Eddy person is) I did spend many an hour wandering from one page to the next and I did rather enjoy it.

And as such I think I have some right to say: Don't we feel we are over reacting a bit? :smallconfused:

I mean, sure, you may not like some of the changes, I must say that from the sound of it some of the witty titles of tropes (always my favourite bit about trope surfing) may have gone. But then again, I can't think of any of them off the top of my head, so obviously they didn't bother me that much, if you can list some of the better names they've changed, I'd appreciate it.

And I must admit, while it does sound like the way they've gone about it lacks finesse in that they do seem to have implied that anyone that liked these tropes was a bit of a weirdo, you do kind of have to admit that a list of under-age panty shots is... well a little weird...

My final two points, if Fast Eddy is the site admin (which is what I gather) doesn't that kind of make it his choice what stays and what goes? If you don't like it that's fine, but it's not like it matters what the majority like. Take this site for instance, though we might all have a burning desire to talk about Politics, The Giant doesn't care. He doesn't want the site to dissolve into a flame war, so we can't talk about politics.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the same with TVtropes?

And my final point, while I do see that it is a personal definition, there must be things more deserving of the title of Pure Evil than removing some stuff from a website. With all of humanity at your fingertips you go for censoring information as Pure Evil? That's why I'm saying that we are over reacting...

[Tiki Snakes]

My final two points, if Fast Eddy is the site admin (which is what I gather) doesn't that kind of make it his choice what stays and what goes? If you don't like it that's fine, but it's not like it matters what the majority like. Take this site for instance, though we might all have a burning desire to talk about Politics, The Giant doesn't care. He doesn't want the site to dissolve into a flame war, so we can't talk about politics.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the same with TVtropes?


Well, not being someone who is particularly involved in all this, I'd like to chime in and say I think it might not be the same. After all, the GITP site is Rich's labor, his comic is the core of it and the forum is merely there as an addition.
TVTropes may have been founded by this Fast Eddie guy (or not, I know nothing about the site's history after all) but it was created by the userbase. In such a case you really should expect them to feel that they have more of a stake in the site than you would expect of people who frequent the OoTS site and playground.

But then, that's kind of a similar conflict to the whole Encyclopedia Dramatica thing, I guess.

[Trazoi]

I disagree with people who conflate "No such thing as notability" with "post everything you want". That is not the essence of either the phrase or the policy.
While I agree that the way you use that rule is the way it should work, in practice it appeared "post everything you want" was how it actually worked. Together with the "no criticism whatsoever" rule, it meant that TV Tropes pages gushed over all works, no matter how vile.

The other way that rule was used which annoyed me in my brief stint helping out finding suitable page images was that you couldn't use any measure of credibility of a work in the outside community as a justification. So a still from an obscure anime or a webcomic from Drunk Duck is on equal footing for the image for Oedipus Complex than an image from Oedipus Rex.

[_Zoot_]

Well, not being someone who is particularly involved in all this, I'd like to chime in and say I think it might not be the same. After all, the GITP site is Rich's labor, his comic is the core of it and the forum is merely there as an addition.
TVTropes may have been founded by this Fast Eddie guy (or not, I know nothing about the site's history after all) but it was created by the userbase. In such a case you really should expect them to feel that they have more of a stake in the site than you would expect of people who frequent the OoTS site and playground.

But then, that's kind of a similar conflict to the whole Encyclopedia Dramatica thing, I guess.

That's a good point, one that I hadn't considered, but still at the end of the day it would still be his site... Even if you did have a little more control over what was there.

But I, like you, don't really know the sites history, so I may be way off.

[DigoDragon]

Xanatos Gambit could not be created on the current site, it is only protected by Grandfather Clause. It would be thrown into the trope repair shop and be killed by a handful of busybodies for something like "No Loss Plan"

And you make a good point with this example. "No Loss Plan" sounds undescriptive, like a corporate term for cutting costs. You'd have to explain it to someone anyway because the term is too generic sounding.
But "Xanatos Gambit" does invoke something in your mind if you at least know what a gambit is. The name Xanatos is pretty unique, thus it'll come to mind exactly for what it is when you hear it again.

[Lord Raziere]

This is Giant's forum, he can put whatever rules he wants. TV Tropes wants to catalogue all kinds of tropes and works. Pretending the ones with sexual elements in them just don't exist goes against the sole essence of what it's intended to do.


Ding ding ding ding ding!

Correct! Correct! That is so correct! If a meteor of WRONG was heading to crash into the earth RIGHT NOW, it would burn up into to NOTHING from the pure correctness that has been dumped into the atmosphere!

No matter how professional/amateur you like it or which side of the stupid censorship debate your are on, works with sexual elements exist. They are just as much a part of fiction as everything else is. I mean, we have violence, genocide, disease and other bad things in fiction as well, yet we aren't denying their existence and deleting every single thing relating to the subject.

Really. It boggles my mind of how humanity can be so disgusted with its own natural reproductive cycle, when it is vital to life and is pleasurable at the same time. It is welcomed for the happiness it gives in of itself and for its effects. Yet it is treated like its evil for no reason (at least in certain cultures). Logic, humanity, why you no have it?

This is "censorship" in the same way that everything in 1984 is censorship: outright orwellian editing so that it can't possibly exist. It is a violation of Tvtrope's principle of acceptance.

[KnightDisciple]

Ding ding ding ding ding!

Correct! Correct! That is so correct! If a meteor of WRONG was heading to crash into the earth RIGHT NOW, it would burn up into to NOTHING from the pure correctness that has been dumped into the atmosphere!

No matter how professional/amateur you like it or which side of the stupid censorship debate your are on, works with sexual elements exist. They are just as much a part of fiction as everything else is. I mean, we have violence, genocide, disease and other bad things in fiction as well, yet we aren't denying their existence and deleting every single thing relating to the subject. I repeat the point others have made in that this issue is apparently still being examined, so some of these pages may well come back.


Really. It boggles my mind of how humanity can be so disgusted with its own natural reproductive cycle, when it is vital to life and is pleasurable at the same time. It is welcomed for the happiness it gives in of itself and for its effects. Yet it is treated like its evil for no reason (at least in certain cultures). Logic, humanity, why you no have it? Or, and stick with my train of thought for a second here, or, maybe, just maybe, some people have a different view of when it's acceptable to bring that subject up, how private it should be, what context is appropriate for it, and so forth.

Shockingly, perfectly reasonable, logical people will have notably different opinions than you on the whole matter of sex. This does not invalidate their opinion. :smallwink:


This is "censorship" in the same way that everything in 1984 is censorship: outright orwellian editing so that it can't possibly exist. It is a violation of Tvtrope's principle of acceptance....Really? Orwellian? :smallsigh:

You folks should try going someplace that actually engages in Orwellian censorship, then come back here and complain about how TVTropes is trying to change itself up.

[Soras Teva Gee]

And you make a good point with this example. "No Loss Plan" sounds undescriptive, like a corporate term for cutting costs. You'd have to explain it to someone anyway because the term is too generic sounding.
But "Xanatos Gambit" does invoke something in your mind if you at least know what a gambit is. The name Xanatos is pretty unique, thus it'll come to mind exactly for what it is when you hear it again.

Yet at the same time once you know what the trope is it makes "perfect sense" but not in a way that seems clever.

Xanatos remains in the grand scheme of things pretty damn obscure. He doesn't even nessecarily have the best examples though he does have at least one quintessential one. Yet it remains a unique name for a unique idea, and know what it means let you make inside jokes with other tropers.

Rather like the Macguffin or Chekov's Gun which long predate the sight. I'm literally waiting for someone to try and can the Chekov's series for something like "Significant Object"

[Mewtarthio]

Rather like the Macguffin or Chekov's Gun which long predate the sight. I'm literally waiting for someone to try and can the Chekov's series for something like "Significant Object"

Pretty sure any rename attempt has to Google the phrase to see if it's used outside TV Tropes. "Chekov's Gun" wouldn't get cut because it's widely used by non-tropers (same with other trope names like "Red Herring" or the more recent "Jump the Shark"). "Xanatos Gambit" is probably safe via Grandfather Clause: The name is referenced often enough within the wiki that changing it would be too much trouble.

[TheLaughingMan]

"Xanatos Gambit" is probably safe via Grandfather Clause: The name is referenced often enough within the wiki that changing it would be too much trouble.

Tell that to Crowning Moment of Awesome.

In a sense, I think Grandfather Clause is part of the reason why tropes keep getting renamed. Tropers want to hold on to all their favorite trope names, even if they were terrible. This seems to have created an attitude amongst the staff/more uptight tropers that a name that is old and popular must be changed because it is certainly uninformative and wrong.

[Elm11]

I think this whole thing has been blown absurdly out of proportion. What is happening here is a glorified house-cleaning. The TVtropes admin needs to keep the place sparkling to maintain his funding, and if that means being overzelous, then so be it. He's far, far better off removing some panty lists that subjectively might not deserve being removed than he is leaving them on and having the gents over at Google Advertising go 'uhhhh... Well, that's a tad creepy'.

I've never been big on the idea of universal application of freedom of speech anyway, but in this case that's not the problem. It's the 'making a mountain out of a mole-hill' scenario. FastEddy isn't an evil emperor destroying pages that dare to have sexual content to make us all cry ourselves to sleep, he's a bloke like you and I who needs to pay for his site like anyone would. Perhaps once you and I start contributing funds to the site we should start having a say in whether or not a list of under-aged panty shots or well endowed anime women should exist.

In the meantime, I'm perfectly happy for people to search out those same lists in darker corners of the internet, and I will happily enjoy my TVtropes, sans panties.

[Scowling Dragon]

The question is: Are the sexual stuff really that hard to avoid? Unless you INTENTIONALLY go looking for a sexual show or weird fetish stuff I never found one.


BLEEUGH. I just defended fetish pages. Whats wrong with me?:smallfrown:

[Elm11]

The question is: Are the sexual stuff really that hard to avoid? Unless you INTENTIONALLY go looking for a sexual show or weird fetish stuff I never found one.


BLEEUGH. I just defended fetish pages. Whats wrong with me?:smallfrown:

Expanding on that theme: Do we really want the kind of people who are searching up fetish material on TVtropes to be hanging around? Perhaps I'm being presumptuous, and people who enjoy reading up on underaged panty shots are perfectly respectable and friendly, but frankly? I'm happy to take that risk.

[KnightDisciple]

Expanding on that theme: Do we really want the kind of people who are searching up fetish material on TVtropes to be hanging around? Perhaps I'm being presumptuous, and people who enjoy reading up on underaged panty shots are perfectly respectable and friendly, but frankly? I'm happy to take that risk.

I would generally agree.

I would also note that I think the current status of the Panty Shot trope (as an example) is a good middle ground for the people wailing about "censorship" and the folks who are concerned about skeezy lists. That is, the trope says "this is a thing that exists in media", but doesn't give a list of "here are all the individual works it appears in, here's the episode, and if you go to youtube and slowmo this segment, you'll get the full benefit of it".


Incidentally, I think "Crowning" Moment of Awesome had the "crowning" dropped for a good reason: it went from "here are perhaps a half-dozen peak moments in this work" to "here's a catalog of every moment that's even slightly nifty in this work".

[Jaros]

Wait, have there been some more developments? The Fate Stay Night page is back (don't know how much it's changed) and pages such as Shortbus, Plot with Porn and It's Not Porn, It's Art appear intact (don't know if any of them had been removed though)

[TheLaughingMan]

Incidentally, I think "Crowning" Moment of Awesome had the "crowning" dropped for a good reason: it went from "here are perhaps a half-dozen peak moments in this work" to "here's a catalog of every moment that's even slightly nifty in this work".

They really could have

1. Cleaned up the trope, setting new guidelines.

2. Renamed the trope to Crowning Moments of Awesome, thus justifying multiple usage.

3. Gotten reliable moderators for subjective tropes instead of expecting the constantly growing user-base to know everything.

But you know, take the path of least work/most annoyance. See what happens.

[Reverent-One]

Fate/stay night's back? You mean the claims that anything with any sexual content in it was being labeled as porn and kept off the site were wild exaggerations?

I'm so surprised by this turn of events.

[Traab]

Personally, I think a fair compromise would be to take the fetish tropes and just not provide links to images or film clips. Take an easy one for example, fanservice. Its enough to tell us that in full metal alchemists closing credits you get to see winry in a fairly sexy outfit bending down to give us an extreme cleavage shot, we dont need the film clip link for it. Same for manga with hot spring scenes. Its enough to let us know that in naruto we get male and female fanservice in the hot springs once in awhile, you dont have to detail every time it happens and provide links to show it. Similar things can apply to all the fetish stuff as well. Clothing damage, side cleavage, femslash, whatever, links arent needed. If I want to find the scene in one piece where I get to see upskirts on nami, I can go google search for it, there is no need to provide me with a ready made link.

[willpell]

Crap. Well, I guess I won't have to worry about losing any more weekends down that lovable time sink.

[Elm11]

They really could have

1. Cleaned up the trope, setting new guidelines.

2. Renamed the trope to Crowning Moments of Awesome, thus justifying multiple usage.

3. Gotten reliable moderators for subjective tropes instead of expecting the constantly growing user-base to know everything.

But you know, take the path of least work/most annoyance. See what happens.

Isn't that within their right, though? It's not like we're paying them to do that job. We're not entitled to have them painlessly and effortlessly fix things to appease everyone at once - They don't get paid to clean the place up, and, just like Rich, they don't owe us a thing to do it. I think we ought to be more patient and more constructive in the way we discuss the changes: Instead of Complaining about how we think the changes made it worse (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks), let's consider What we can do to improve the site ourselves, or how we could help in cleaning it up (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ConstructiveCriticism).

@Willpell: So because they're cleaning out some of/most of the explicit sexual content, it is now dead to you? If that is the case for anyone here, I'm not sure that they're visiting the site for the right reasons.

[Tengu_temp]

The question is: Are the sexual stuff really that hard to avoid? Unless you INTENTIONALLY go looking for a sexual show or weird fetish stuff I never found one.

The problem is not porn. The problem is that there's a lot of stories that just happen to have sexual elements in them, but TV Tropes considers them to be porn and cuts them - heck, Sailor Moon was on the list of works for review to check if it's porn or not. Something tells me the anti-anime lobby on TV Tropes grows in power again.

Though luckily, Fate/Stay Night is back, so maybe the results of this won't be as ridiculous as they initially appeared. But that doesn't change the fact that this is still a jumping the shark moment for TV Tropes.

[Reverent-One]

But that doesn't change the fact that this is still a jumping the shark moment for TV Tropes.

Meh, I don't read many pages about porn tropes/media, so it won't change much for me.

[Maxios]

From what I understand, it was either make some changes or shut the site down. Now, would you rather have TvTropes minus a few fetish pages and with some trope names changed, or would you rather have no TvTropes?

[Nerd-o-rama]

Fate/stay night's back? You mean the claims that anything with any sexual content in it was being labeled as porn and kept off the site were wild exaggerations?

I'm so surprised by this turn of events.

It was labelled as porn and kicked off the site. The fact that it's back doesn't change the fact that there was a knee-jerk Fahrenheit 451 reaction initially, which is what's got me both concerned and incredibly disappointed. The fact that they're fixing the ****-up doesn't change the fact that there was a ****-up.

[Matar]

This really sucks eggs.

Although I honestly don't think it's a huge deal for a really simple reason: TVtropes has been a really horrible website for a long, long time now. A quick look at the Nightmare Fuel page would prove that to just about anyone.

Seriously, it wasn't the porn tropes that was making the site bad =/.

[Elm11]

The problem is not porn. The problem is that there's a lot of stories that just happen to have sexual elements in them, but TV Tropes considers them to be porn and cuts them - heck, Sailor Moon was on the list of works for review to check if it's porn or not. Something tells me the anti-anime lobby on TV Tropes grows in power again.

Though luckily, Fate/Stay Night is back, so maybe the results of this won't be as ridiculous as they initially appeared. But that doesn't change the fact that this is still a jumping the shark moment for TV Tropes.

Granted, they're being overzealous in their attempt to clean the place up, but that goes back to my earlier point - they're normal people who effectively need to be overzealous to make sure the site keeps running. That or switch to new (and probably seedier) advertisers. I can understand it's probably infuriating if the page for an anime you love is reviewed because some people in it have sex and that's mentioned, but at the end of the day it's one page among thousands. If deleting that one page makes some people unhappy, it's unfortunate but unavoidable.

It's simple utilitarianism. The admin has to inconvenience some to ensure the best for all - deleting some pages which probably don't deserve it to make sure the vast majority keep running. I'm sure he'd be happy to leave them all if we started donating all the revenue he'll lose if Google-Ads pulls out.

[Teln]

Come on people, you make it sound like the only choice is Google Ads or "Make Your **** 4 Inches Longer" ads. What's wrong with using say, DeviantArt's advertisers? I've never had a problem with tasteless/obscene ads there.

[Elm11]

It was labelled as porn and kicked off the site. The fact that it's back doesn't change the fact that there was a knee-jerk Fahrenheit 451 reaction initially, which is what's got me both concerned and incredibly disappointed. The fact that they're fixing the ****-up doesn't change the fact that there was a ****-up.

Uhm... You're upset because they made a mistake, recognised the mistake and fixed it? As I said - one page among thousands. Also: page with arguably explicit content being removed temporarily in a purge of explicit content does not equal a 'knee-jerk Fahrenheit 451 reaction'. It equals a mistake. One I'm sure they probably regret, for what it matters. I don't think it's even the tiniest bit fair to compare a site cleanup that doesn't run perfectly smoothly with a totalitarian book-burning society simply because we found our freedom of press threatened for a short period of time. At the end of the day, it's the admin's site, and he's paying for it. Not us. If we don't like the conditions he sets and believe it to be totalitarian and, as one person said earlier, 'pure evil', then we're perfectly welcome to take our business elsewhere. In the meantime, we put up with it.

EDIT:


Come on people, you make it sound like the only choice is Google Ads or "Make Your **** 4 Inches Longer" ads. What's wrong with using say, DeviantArt's advertisers? I've never had a problem with tasteless/obscene ads there.

While I'm sure there are other viable options, as someone said earlier, the site has been long overdue for a clean-up anyway, and there are probably a myriad of other problems with switching advertisers. They may not cover the costs, may have their own requirements, may not be held in high regard... hell, the admin may just not want to. It still boils down to the fact that he pays for the site, thus we use it by his grace. We need to respect that right.

[Matar]

the site has been long overdue for a clean-up anyway,

Getting rid of the porn tropes won't help with that in the slightest though. It's not certain pages that suck and are over bloated, it's -all- of them. Again, look at the nightmare fuel pages or Crowning Moment pages.


It still boils down to the fact that he pays for the site, thus we use it by his grace. We need to respect that right.

Or just don't go to the site anymore.

Honestly, I don't see why someone just doesn't copy the entire site and make a new website called "RealTVTropes" or something. Without the bad rules. That way TVtropes can keep the porn tropes off and anyone who wants old-school tvtropes can just go to the new site.

TVtropes is a wiki, after all. Making a copy of all the tropes pages should be perfectly legal.

Or maybe not. Either way, that's just about the only way to get a good website back.

[Tiki Snakes]

Honestly, I don't see why someone just doesn't copy the entire site and make a new website called "RealTVTropes" or something. Without the bad rules. That way TVtropes can keep the porn tropes off and anyone who wants old-school tvtropes can just go to the new site.

TVtropes is a wiki, after all. Making a copy of all the tropes pages should be perfectly legal.

Or maybe not. Either way, that's just about the only way to get a good website back.

Well, that's basically what happened with Encyclopedia Dramatica. Though, the situation was much more extreme given that the owner pulled the plug altogether. The simple fact that no-one has probably suggests that this isn't that serious an issue, in comparison.

[Teln]

Uhm... You're upset because they made a mistake, recognised the mistake and fixed it? As I said - one page among thousands. Also: page with arguably explicit content being removed temporarily in a purge of explicit content does not equal a 'knee-jerk Fahrenheit 451 reaction'. It equals a mistake. One I'm sure they probably regret, for what it matters. I don't think it's even the tiniest bit fair to compare a site cleanup that doesn't run perfectly smoothly with a totalitarian book-burning society simply because we found our freedom of press threatened for a short period of time. At the end of the day, it's the admin's site, and he's paying for it. Not us. If we don't like the conditions he sets and believe it to be totalitarian and, as one person said earlier, 'pure evil', then we're perfectly welcome to take our business elsewhere. In the meantime, we put up with it.

As others have said, nobody is complaining about the mistake getting fixed. We're complaining about the utter collapse in standards that permitted the mistake to be made in the first place. Removing legitimate content is simply inexcusable.


While I'm sure there are other viable options, as someone said earlier, the site has been long overdue for a clean-up anyway, and there are probably a myriad of other problems with switching advertisers. They may not cover the costs, may have their own requirements, may not be held in high regard... hell, the admin may just not want to. It still boils down to the fact that he pays for the site, thus we use it by his grace. We need to respect that right.

If TV Tropes was a forum, I'd agree with you. But it's not, it's a wiki with a forum attached. Wikis are communal beasts by their very nature. Saying that every user should shut up and bend over every time Louis XVI Fast Eddie gets in a huff about something is a surefire recipe for drama, arguments and dissension. Heck, just look at what's going on in this thread!

Also, I've heard a nasty rumor that Fast Eddie is banning people from the TV Tropes forums because they disagree with the way he's handled things so far. Does anybody know if this is true or not?

[Elm11]

-Snip-

Fine by me. Hell, probably fine be the admin. Perhaps I should reword that to say 'If we want to use the site, we need to respect those rights'. The thing about free speech is that if you don't like what the site proposes, you're under absolutely no obligation to use it. That's part of what separates it from a 'Fahrenheit-451 reaction'. I just don't believe it is either fair or worthwhile for people to call out these changes as totalitarian/communist/fascist/evil/jaywalking when they don't need to hang around to put up with them. I'll admit freely that I completely disagree with the notion that they're a bad thing, so of course that will influence my opinion, but I just don't understand how TVtropes will be RUINED FOREVAH Because they're cleaning out some sexual references and making the odd mistake (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuinedFOREVER). Which harks back nicely to my original statement in this thread - the entire thing seems like one great big overreaction as a result of 'They're changing/threatening to change/delete something that I know about! How dare they!'. I never even knew any of the animes listed in this thread existed. To me it seems like the concerns of the minority that must be inconvenienced so that the majority can still enjoy the site. While it doesn't make your complaints invalid, it does make them, unfortunately, quite unimportant.

EDIT: I'm yet to see evidence of an 'utter collapse in standards'. I had never heard a single credible complaint about the moderation of TVtropes until the recent changes. Also, removing subjectively legitimate content is most certainly excusable. You're angry because a mistake was made for a short period and some subjectively legitimate content was briefly removed. The issue is that you don't agree with the call that the admin made, and while it's perfectly within your right to raise a stink about said call (And in this case I agree with you completely that that page shouldn't be removed, having just had a look at it) that doesn't necessarily mean we ought to be donning our shining armour and throwing off the yolk of our repressive overlords.

Furthermore, the fact that TVtropes is a wiki makes absolutely no difference to the fact that somebody needs to pay for it. It's not like wikipedia - it neither asks for nor receives donations from us, the contributers. We can't magically yell 'no taxation without representation!' if we're not actually contributing. Comparing Eddie's call to clean up some porn and in the process, remove some legitimate content to Louis XVI is equally ignoring the fact that he's not an evil overlord. He isn't cleaning the place out to watch us squirm, and he's not bending us over - He's making sure that his metaphorical 'France' can keep functioning. And yes, you're right, it will be a surefire recipe for drama, arguments and dissension, but only if we choose to blow it out of proportion and pretend it's something it's not.

[Matar]

Well, that's basically what happened with Encyclopedia Dramatica. Though, the situation was much more extreme given that the owner pulled the plug altogether. The simple fact that no-one has probably suggests that this isn't that serious an issue, in comparison.

I guess yeah. Although it's only been a few days.

Personally, I haven't used the site in like... a year. Maybe even two. The fact that this seems to be a bid deal to people is kinda shocking, not because I don't agree with them but because I never thought the website had such a large fan-base.

I hope someone is bothered enough by this silliness to create a new site though. Would be really nice imo.


. To me it seems like the concerns of the minority that must be inconvenienced so that the majority can still enjoy the site. While it doesn't make your complaints invalid, it does make them, unfortunately, quite unimportant.

I don't personally think this is true at all. The porn tropes didn't make TVtropes bad. Bad and bloated articles made TVtropes bad.

But I haven't been a fan of the website for quite awhile, so maybe I just see things differently then other people.

[Reverent-One]

As others have said, nobody is complaining about the mistake getting fixed. We're complaining about the utter collapse in standards that permitted the mistake to be made in the first place. Removing legitimate content is simply inexcusable.

Oh come on, given the amount of content they have to go through and the importance of funding, it makes more sense to be overzealous in the first place and get the funding back as quickly as possible, then allow the time to put together a set of standards and figure out which ones should be put back. It's simple crisis management, better for some parts of the site to be down for a while than for the whole site to be down.

[irenicObserver]

I see nothing but arguments that makes it their fault. Maybe it's your problem? I can tell from the OPs comments that he is taking it rather personally, as if the admins said straight to his face, "you are a disgusting pervert". Get over it, it's back, they realized and fix their mistake. Holding it against them makes you rather petty. If you are accused of something, don't mad and yell, "WHAT!? HOW COULD YOU SAY THAT ABOUT ME?!". Speak calmly and prove to them they are wrong. It's not harm done if they are, no damage to your reputation. While trying to paint them black for us to see you are showing us how black you can be.

[Reverent-One]

I hope someone is bothered enough by this silliness to create a new site though. Would be really nice imo.

It would run into the same bloat problems you have with the current tvtropes unless it didn't let everyone edit it, in which case it wouldn't have near the content and use of TvTropes.

[Tengu_temp]

Meh, I don't read many pages about porn tropes/media, so it won't change much for me.

It's less about the outcome now and more about the approach. Though it might also become about the outcome, if pages that didn't deserve to be cut will get cut anyway. You can talk about lots of sexual things in a SFW/PG-13 way, even OotS does that.


Uhm... You're upset because they made a mistake, recognised the mistake and fixed it?

Do note that "they" are not a monogamous mass. It's pretty likely that this happened:
1. Person A cuts the F/SN page because it has sexual content and is a visual novel with an anime style, and that means it's filthy, filthy porn.
2. Massive outrage ensues.
3. Person B notices the outrage, facepalms at A's judgement and brings the page back.
4. Person A may or may not change their mind on the topic.
So yes, this still leaves a bad taste in many people's mouths. Do we really need people who are in charge of running TV Tropes thinking that all anime is naughty tentacles? This is not the nineties anymore.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Or just don't go to the site anymore.

Yeah, that's been my plan for about the last few months, barring cases of extreme boredom. I just wanted to clarify that one instance of a site completely ignoring all previous policy and the fact that it is a collaborative wiki is enough for me, at least, to declare that it's kind of lost the point.

[Elm11]

Do note that "they" are not a monogamous mass. It's pretty likely that this happened:
1. Person A cuts the F/SN page because it has sexual content and is a visual novel with an anime style, and that means it's filthy, filthy porn.
2. Massive outrage ensues.
3. Person B notices the outrage, facepalms at A's judgement and brings the page back.
4. Person A may or may not change their mind on the topic.
So yes, this still leaves a bad taste in many people's mouths. Do we really need people who are in charge of running TV Tropes thinking that all anime is naughty tentacles? This is not the nineties anymore.

That's fair enough. In fact, that's almost certainly the case. But if person B is smart enough to fix person A's mistake, and person A is smart enough to learn from said mistake (which, given we haven't seen the end of all things explicit on TVtropes just yet, regardless of what some people seem to think, seems to be the case) then surely we should be relieved that there are clearly at least some logical people running the show, instead of being enraged by the fact the mistake was made in the first place and disregarding the fact that it was fixed and hasn't happened again?

EDIT:

Alright, I'm off to bed, because it's absurdly late. I'll be back to continue the rant/argument/discussion in the morning.

[Matar]

It would run into the same bloat problems you have with the current tvtropes unless it didn't let everyone edit it, in which case it wouldn't have near the content and use of TvTropes.

I guess. Couldn't be any worse then what the website already is though, that's for sure.


Holding it against them makes you rather petty.

That seems rather mean. It was something Tengu liked, and the site owner screwed up parts of it he enjoyed. To me that seems like a rather good reason to be upset.

I hate it when games I enjoy are turned to **** by DLC, bad company practices, etcetc. This is no different then that, really.

[Avilan the Grey]

Expanding on that theme: Do we really want the kind of people who are searching up fetish material on TVtropes to be hanging around? Perhaps I'm being presumptuous, and people who enjoy reading up on underaged panty shots are perfectly respectable and friendly, but frankly? I'm happy to take that risk.

With all respect, equaling having a fetish and being perverse is making me angry.

[Reverent-One]

It's less about the outcome now and more about the approach. Though it might also become about the outcome, if pages that didn't deserve to be cut will get cut anyway. You can talk about lots of sexual things in a SFW/PG-13 way, even OotS does that.


Sure, but talking about sexual things in a SFW/PG-13 way won't get something cut. They've stated that they flat out will not accept recommendations to purge anything that meets the following criteria (with the exception of things that portray children as objects of sexual gratification, if any such things exist):

Is a film rated below "R" for U.S. distribution.
Is a show that can be aired on prime time television.
Is a video game that is rated below "M" by the ESRB.
Is a written work that is sold in major bookstores without an "adult" or "mature" label.
Is an anime/manga/etc. that is approved for U.S. import as a non-adult work.
Is read/shown/taught in high school or below.
Is in another format and meets equivalent criteria.

[2xMachina]

I don't know... Bloat was never a problem for me. I enjoyed reading TVtropes before they cut down on content. Now, the references is a bit short IMO. I'm like, "Huh, I didn't notice that trope? But I don't want to reread/watch the entire series to find out"

[Teln]

Anybody want to take bets on how long it'll be before this policy is broken? I give it a year, tops.

[Elm11]

With all respect, equaling having a fetish and being perverse is making me angry.

I'm not quite sure I follow. Please clarify, because I'm reading that as 'As someone who both has a fetish and is perverse, I take offence at this statement'. If that's not what you meant, my apologies.

Alternatively, am I being grammatically incorrect?

[Matar]

With all respect, equaling having a fetish and being perverse is making me angry.

See, that. I think that's basically the only thing that upsets me about this whole fiasco.

There is nothing wrong with a fetish. There is nothing wrong with fetish tropes. Liking these things does not make you less of a person, or make you someone who should be entertained. I see no reason porn trope articles can't be as funny or interesting as other trope articles.

I get it, I get it. You don't want jerk-off material on your tvtropes. It's not a porn website, after all. And I can agree with that.

-But that's not what happened-. At least as far as I can tell. People weren't putting porn up on tvtropes, and people weren't fapping to tvtropes. It's some dude going "I personally don't like this stuff." and banning it.

Meanwhile, all the ****ty and bloated articles are still there, happy as can be. This didn't fix or help anything, it just made the website have less content and made it even worse.

[Reverent-One]

-But that's not what happened-. At least as far as I can tell. People weren't putting porn up on tvtropes, and people weren't fapping to tvtropes. It's some dude going "I personally don't like this stuff." and banning it.


No, it's someone going "I personally don't like this stuff." and complaining to Google, who pulled ads from the site. As long as Tvtropes wants to get money from Google, it has to play by their rules.

[Elm11]

See, that. I think that's basically the only thing that upsets me about this whole fiasco.

There is nothing wrong with a fetish. There is nothing wrong with fetish tropes. Liking these things does not make you less of a person, or make you someone who should be entertained. I see no reason porn trope articles can't be as funny or interesting as other trope articles.

I get it, I get it. You don't want jerk-off material on your tvtropes. It's not a porn website, after all. And I can agree with that.

-But that's not what happened-. At least as far as I can tell. People weren't putting porn up on tvtropes, and people weren't fapping to tvtropes. It's some dude going "I personally don't like this stuff." and banning it.

Meanwhile, all the ****ty and bloated articles are still there, happy as can be. This didn't fix or help anything, it just made the website have less content and made it even worse.

While to a large extent I agree with you whole-heartedly, most of the things that are being purged are not fetishes that tend to be considered acceptable within human society. To take the above example, I am not prepared to believe that it is morally acceptable to hold a fetish for under-age panty shots, and I don't believe that such content should ever have held nor should ever hold any position on any respectable website. What it boils down to is that someone is making a judgement, and some of us don't agree with that judgement, and have chosen to complain. Regardless of our complaints, our only logical options are to get over it or to move somewhere else.

This is me 20 minutes after I said I was going to bed. I'm going to close the tab now, or I'll be here even longer. Good night all. :smallsmile:

EDIT: I CAN'T GO TO BED MUM, SOMEBODY IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET!

Regardless of whether or not 'some dude' is justified in his/her/their dislike of certain explicit content, it doesn't change the fact that 'some dude' is the group that allows the site to keep running. If you're that upset about the loss of some content which you don't believe should be lost, don't complain about the gents at TVtropes doing what they need to do to keep the site alive, complain to Google about what you believe to be their unacceptably high/zealous standards.

EDITING THE EDIT:

Furthermore, the 'bloated articles' you mention are just as subjective as the explicit content. You may believe them to be bad, or even a cancer killing TVtropes, but others may not. Since the purge is still under-way, it's entirely possible that the perceived problem will be addressed. And given the site isn't running out of money thanks to having some bloated articles, you can hardly expect them to say 'the explicit stuff can wait, there's miscellaneous cleaning up to do!'.

[Matar]

No, it's someone going "I personally don't like this stuff." and complaining to Google, who pulled ads from the site. As long as Tvtropes wants to get money from Google, it has to play by their rules.

I don't see that as an excuse.

I could understand if they temporarily removed the articles until they got a new ad provider. But that's not what they did.

If Google was the reason they removed the articles then they shouldn't pretend that it was because of some "moral" reason. Nor should they pretend that it's because they think that porn tropes are detrimental to the website. They should have just said "We don't want to switch ad providers, so we need to remove this stuff."

But, like, none of that happened. It's not a temp thing as far as I can tell, they're not going to switch ad providers as far as I can tell, and there also seems to be other ad providers that will allow that kind of content.

So ads are not the issue. Just an excuse to remove something that the website owner does not personally like.


What it boils down to is that someone is making a judgement, and some of us don't agree with that judgement, and have chosen to complain.

Dunno. Judging people because of things that doesn't actually hurt anyone never seems to be a good idea in my opinion though. Unless someone is actually getting hurt then there isn't any issue.

I don't want to ever have to watch someone die horribly in real life, no matter how bad of a person they are. Does that mean that we should ban violent games? Should we judge people -because- they play violent games? Does that somehow make them less of a person? Does that somehow make them less deserving of entertainment?

It's the same thing with lolicon, porn, shotacon, and all that fun stuff. It's not hurting anyone, no children are getting hurt. It just makes you uncomfortable. You can't understand it.

And that's fine. There is nothing wrong with not liking it. And there is nothing wrong with not being able to understand it. But to judge someone because of it, when no one is being harmed? It seems hypocritical (I apologize if this sounds rude, I just can't think of a better word to use that would seem less so) coming from anyone who plays games or watches movies. Or... read books.

Really, it just seems silly coming from someone who likes things in general.


You may believe them to be bad, or even a cancer killing TVtropes, but others may not.

Yeah. I'm not defending the website or myself, really. I haven't gone there in ages because of the stuff I don't like.

I'm just defending the people that -don't- mind the bloat and are pissed off about this. I'm also (hopefully) explaining why this whole fiasco is bother silly and harmful to the website in general.

But yeah, like I said, I personally haven't enjoyed TVtropes for quite some time.

[Avilan the Grey]

I'm not quite sure I follow. Please clarify, because I'm reading that as 'As someone who both has a fetish and is perverse, I take offence at this statement'. If that's not what you meant, my apologies.

Alternatively, am I being grammatically incorrect?

You are. What I am saying is that the assumption that just because you have a fetish, you are also perverse, is making me angry.

[Lord Seth]

...Really? Orwellian? :smallsigh:

You folks should try going someplace that actually engages in Orwellian censorship, then come back here and complain about how TVTropes is trying to change itself up.Indeed. The way people sometimes throw out the term "Orwellian" reminds me of Godwin's Law.

[Reverent-One]

I don't see that as an excuse.

I could understand if they temporarily removed the articles until they got a new ad provider. But that's not what they did.

If Google was the reason they removed the articles then they shouldn't pretend that it was because of some "moral" reason. Nor should they pretend that it's because they think that porn tropes are detrimental to the website. They should have just said "We don't want to switch ad providers, so we need to remove this stuff."

But, like, none of that happened. It's not a temp thing as far as I can tell, they're not going to switch ad providers as far as I can tell, and there also seems to be other ad providers that will allow that kind of content.

So ads are not the issue. Just an excuse to remove something that the website owner does not personally like.

They DID say it was to keep google ads.
Also, From the FAQ on the First Google Incident (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TheSituation?from=Main.TheGoogleIncident) page (emphasis theirs):

Have you considered switching to [X] ad provider?
We are looking at a number of ad providers. The problem is that we've been upleveling with Google Ads for 5 years now and we've moved up their rate chart considerably from the just-starting-out rate. We aren't going to get the same rate as a new account from anybody else. If there's one out there that you think is a good bet, please tell us about it on the discussion page.
What about Project Wonderful?
We tried Project Wonderful for two months; in that time they produced roughly the same ad revenue as Google does in a couple of hours.


So yeah...

[Matar]

They DID say it was to keep google ads.

Then why did the owner of the site talk about how the porn tropes were harmful to the site? Why the condescending pages about things that they don't personally agree with? Why the judgmental attitude from the site owner?

If Ad Revinue was the only reason, and if there was no other way for them to support themselves, then they never should have BS'd about porn tropes and acted like that was the reason their site was going sour.

I don't think people would have been anywhere near as upset if they just said "We're removing this because we can't afford to keep the website up if we don't. We don't agree with the stuff personally, but that's not why it's being removed. We honestly don't have a choice here."

And again, that's only if it's true that they had no other way to earn up cash to keep the website up. Honestly, if 4chan can do it I don't see why they can't.

[Reverent-One]

Then why did the owner of the site talk about how the porn tropes were harmful to the site? Why the condescending pages about things that they don't personally agree with? Why the judgmental attitude from the site owner?

If Ad Revinue was the only reason, and if there was no other way for them to support themselves, then they never should have BS'd about porn tropes and acted like that was the reason their site was going sour.

I don't think people would have been anywhere near as upset if they just said "We're removing this because we can't afford to keep the website up if we don't. We don't agree with the stuff personally, but that's not why it's being removed. We honestly don't have a choice here."

And again, that's only if it's true that they had no other way to earn up cash to keep the website up. Honestly, if 4chan can do it I don't see why they can't.

Because since they're cutting material anyway, they might as well further help the site meet it's intended goals, namely being a family friendly (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/family_friendly.php)site. The only condencending pages I've seen are Pedophilia related ones, which is basically universially reviled, and rightly so.

[Lord Seth]

And again, that's only if it's true that they had no other way to earn up cash to keep the website up. Honestly, if 4chan can do it I don't see why they can't.Apparently, 4chan is losing money. See here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/16/AR2009021601565_5.html). Specifically this quote: "Right now he's not making money on 4chan -- in fact, he's losing money by charging the site's server costs on his credit cards. The crass content of the site makes it difficult to find advertisers."

Admittedly, this was from several years ago, so maybe things changed, though it's the newest bit of information I could find in regards to advertising on 4chan.

[Seraph]

From what I understand, it was either make some changes or shut the site down. Now, would you rather have TvTropes minus a few fetish pages and with some trope names changed, or would you rather have no TvTropes?

there was no Smut Police who were going to roll in and blow up the servers if they didn't clean out all mention of porn, Adsense was just going to stop running ads.

Two things:

-Adsense is by no means the only ad service out there, and again - if a site like 4chan, which is much BIGGER, much VASTER, and INFINITELY more offensive, can support itself through ads, then there is NO REASON tvtropes can't.
-this was trolling. There was nobody actually offended, they just used a loophole in the adsense terms of service to submit a complaint that would result in immedate cessation of advertising. They've done it before, they will do it again. just to put this in perspective, the article that started this? Naughty Tentacles, which was reported to adsense even though adsense is specifically coded to not run ads on that page.


Apparently, 4chan is losing money. See here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/16/AR2009021601565_5.html). Specifically this quote: "Right now he's not making money on 4chan -- in fact, he's losing money by charging the site's server costs on his credit cards. The crass content of the site makes it difficult to find advertisers."

Admittedly, this was from several years ago, so maybe things changed, though it's the newest bit of information I could find in regards to advertising on 4chan.

4chan has changed to a much more profitable adserver since then, which is supported by the fact that moot recently added about 10 more boards in the last 6 months. That may not sound like much, but they're imageboard, which means they use significantly greater bandwidth.


It still boils down to the fact that he pays for the site, thus we use it by his grace. We need to respect that right.


no, the advertising pays for the site, which is what all of this started over. In fact, there are rumors that if anything, Fast Eddie uses the surplus admoney as personal income, which is why he was so eager to fold like a leaf in the face of google's complaints.


and person A is smart enough to learn from said mistake (which, given we haven't seen the end of all things explicit on TVtropes just yet, regardless of what some people seem to think, seems to be the case)

considering the incredibly condescending language used in the new wiki pages, as well as the mass, hivemind use of the phrase "pedo****" in the forums to label and decry everything they don't like, no. No, person A has not learned ****, and they appear to be gaining a support base.


Because since they're cutting material anyway, they might as well further help the site meet it's intended goals, namely being a family friendly (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/family_friendly.php)site. The only condencending pages I've seen are Pedophilia related ones, which is basically universially reviled, and rightly so.

If you seriously think tvtropes is "family friendly" now, you are deluding yourself. The term means more than just excising all mention of tits.

[Reverent-One]

-Adsense is by no means the only ad service out there, and again - if a site like 4chan, which is much BIGGER, much VASTER, and INFINITELY more offensive, can support itself through ads, then there is NO REASON tvtropes can't.

See Lord Seth's comment above.


considering the incredibly condescending language used in the new wiki pages, as well as the mass, hivemind use of the phrase "pedo****" in the forums to label and decry everything they don't like, no. No, person A has not learned ****, and they appear to be gaining a support base.

Being harsh on Pedophila related material isn't the same as claiming non-pornographic works are pornographic.

[Matar]

The only condencending pages I've seen are Pedophilia related ones, which is basically universially reviled, and rightly so.

What Pedophilia pages? I wasn't aware that the website was hosting images of underage children. Unless you're talking about the lolicon related stuff? But if that's the case then I must venomously disagree. That's no more pedo then what games are to murder.


Apparently, 4chan is losing money.

You hear it alot of different ways depending on who you ask. Some claim that 4chan is losing money. Some claim Moot is filthy stinking rich. Really, there isn't any way to tell who's right.

But fact of the matter is this: The website is still up and doesn't seem to be going down any time soon. So, you know, I feel pretty confident is saying that 4chan is at least -stable- without google ads.

[Reverent-One]

What Pedophilia pages? I wasn't aware that the website was hosting images of underage children. Unless you're talking about the lolicon related stuff? But if that's the case then I must venomously disagree. That's no more pedo then what games are to murder.

So Lolicon isn't about sex with, being sexually attracted to, or whatever with young girls?

[Seraph]

So Lolicon isn't about sex with, being sexually attracted to, or whatever with young girls?

Lolicon is a character archetype who is defined as being attracted to young girls.

And if you argue it has no place there, then I hope for the sake of your integrity that you are busy blanking the Complete Monster page.

[Matar]

So Lolicon isn't about sex with, being sexually attracted to, or whatever with young girls?

That's a difficult question that I think someone else can better answer, but I'll give it a shot.

Lolicon can mean many things.

A Lolicon, as in a person, can refer to a person who's attracted to little girls. It can also refer to someone who enjoys animated images that portray underage females. Note, it can mean -one- of these things, or -both- of them. A person could hate lolicon but still be attracted in real children (A very nasty mental health issue, I'm sure we can both agree to that), only be interested in the animated stuff (Lolicon hentai, which while... weird s harmful to no one), or both (Which, given the fact that it involves real little kids is pretty damn ****ed up).

Lolicon can also refer to a -genre-. At least I think that's the right word. When someone says "Lolicon manga" or "I'm for lolicon" they are almost always referring to the animated stuff. I say almost because there are some really creepy people out there.

A loli is basically a little girl. But I'm sure you knew that.

A shota is basically a little kid.

Shotacon is basically lolicon but with boys. However, I've never heard of someone interested in real boys, animated boys, or both ever called a "Shotacon". So I'm not sure if the terms are interchangeable or not. Don't think they are.

If you're wondering what my personal stance on the issue is? I'm all for animated lolicon because it's just that. Animated. I can't think of a single possible way for me to be against lolicon while still being against the censorship of violent games or mature movies. In my eyes that would be beyond hypocritical.

But yeah, there ya go.

[KnightDisciple]

Lolicon is a character archetype who is defined as being attracted to young girls.

And if you argue it has no place there, then I hope for the sake of your integrity that you are busy blanking the Complete Monster page.

1.)You can't deny detailed lists of instances of lolicon and other things in a similar vein aren't at least a little skeezy.

2.)Even if you make a point about how they shouldn't totally wipe out the concept, do they need categorized lists of the stuff?
And to your Complete Monster question...well, sure, if that page details blow-by-blow reasons X is a Complete Monster, and gives all sorts of detailed reasons linked to their atrocities, then yeah, it could probably use trimming down.


I'm sorry though, but I can't at all buy these arguments that there's absolutely nothing skeezy about lolicon, shotacon, or stuff like that. I'm not saying "lock them up" or anything, but a website deciding it doesn't really want to detail that stuff? Not a crime in my book.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Because since they're cutting material anyway, they might as well further help the site meet it's intended goals, namely being a family friendly (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/family_friendly.php)site. The only condencending pages I've seen are Pedophilia related ones, which is basically universially reviled, and rightly so.

Except that Lolicon and Shotacon are actual character traits found (mostly) in Japanese anime/manga works and not treated as "universally reviled" and played with varying degrees of seriousness.

Ayaka Yukihiro would be a good example of how the simple "Shotacon=IRL Pedo=Complete Monster" logic is complete garbage. I can cite other examples of how in Japan sexual jokes/undertones/content/etc do not have anything like a firm age cut-off and not simply on the hentai side of the street. Off hand I would say it is 95% in works targeted at older audiences mind you.

Being objective and non-judgemental means being objective and non-judgemental. No exceptions.

[Reverent-One]

Lolicon is a character archetype who is defined as being attracted to young girls.

So it's pedophila related (specifically, a subset of it).


And if you argue it has no place there, then I hope for the sake of your integrity that you are busy blanking the Complete Monster page.

I don't edit TvTropes at all, and don't really care if they left references up to those sorts of pages, provided they don't actually include any such material on the site. I just understand why they may not want to include even that much, especially when it can affect their financials.

[Matar]

So it's pedophila related (specifically, a subset of it).

By that logic Call of Duty is bother a subset of military combat and also a subset of murder.


Being objective and non-judgemental means being objective and non-judgemental. No exceptions.

If such content doesn't harm anyone then I fully agree.

[Seraph]

1.)You can't deny detailed lists of instances of lolicon and other things in a similar vein aren't at least a little skeezy.

no, I don't think a pictureless list of characters and works is skeezy.


2.)Even if you make a point about how they shouldn't totally wipe out the concept, do they need categorized lists of the stuff?

it is exactly as deserving of a categorized list as every other article on the site.

[Reverent-One]

By that logic Call of Duty is bother a subset of military combat

It's a subset of military combat games, yes.


and also a subset of murder.

If your character murders anyone in the game (as opposed to merely killing enemy soldiers in the course of a war, which isn't murder), then it would be a subset of games that include murder yes.

[Matar]

It's a subset of military combat games, yes.

Then this is a subject we're never going to agree with. Playing a game is no way comparable to actually being in the military, nor is it in any way shape or form comparable to murder.

If you believe it to be so then that's fine, but I find no logic behind such a belief.

However, for the sake of the argument let's say I agree with you. Do you think that playing these games harm others, or that violence in video games/movies/etc can make someone harm others?

If yes, then there isn't really any argument. Although I don't personally understand how a person could play games, watch movies, etc while thinking this.

If no, then how does it not apply to lolicon as well? If this is not harmful, if this leads to no crimes, then what exactly is the issue here?

Again, porn is not the issue here. Tvtropes, as far as I know, never hosted lolicon. It did not host lolicon/pornographic stories or images. It simply described the tropes of said genres in humorous ways.

[OracleofWuffing]

no, I don't think a pictureless list of characters and works is skeezy.
Eh... Since the pages in questions have been blanked out (or blanked out and restored with bits removed, whatever), I can't really be certain if this is the case, but usually when I'm looking at tropes, people do throw in links to pictures and videos in their examples. Sure, presentation-wise, the list is pictureless, and all pictures are probably hosted off-site, too, but when your pictureless list includes easy access to pictures, at least one point somewhere is getting defeated.

Granted, folks could have just removed the links to pictures and tone down the descriptions in examples, but when one gets to the magnitude of content TVTropes covers, such individual attention becomes impractical when time artificially becomes an issue.

[Avilan the Grey]

It's a subset of military combat games, yes.

This is a VERY strange way of looking at things.

[Reverent-One]

Then this is a subject we're never going to agree with. Playing a game is no way comparable to actually being in the military, nor is it in any way shape or form comparable to murder.

That we agree on, I never said it was. I specifically said Call of Duty is a subset of games about military combat (aka military combat games).


However, for the sake of the argument let's say I agree with you. Do you think that playing these games harm others, or that violence in video games/movies/etc can make someone harm others?

I didn't say I did, so no.


If no, then how does it not apply to lolicon as well? If this is not harmful, if this leads to no crimes, then what exactly is the issue here?

It's related to pedophila (that is, the state of being attracted to children), which distrubs some/many/most (choose whichever you find most accurate) people.


Again, porn is not the issue here. Tvtropes, as far as I know, never hosted lolicon. It did not host lolicon/pornographic stories or images. It simply described the tropes of said genres in humorous ways.

And provided examples/possibly links of them.


This is a VERY strange way of looking at things.

Oh? How would you describe them then? Are they not about military combat? It's a first person shooter, set during a war, and you're a member of a military force, so I'm not sure what other sort of game it could be.

[Prime32]

If no, then how does it not apply to lolicon as well? If this is not harmful, if this leads to no crimes, then what exactly is the issue here?You're implying that paedophile means someone who causes harm and commits crimes. But it just means someone who's attracted to children - they're not any more likely to harm children than the rest of us are to harm adults. You hear more about the ones who do, though, because it's not something you'd want to make public (and "YOUR CHILDREN ARE IN DANGER" sells newspapers like nothing else).

There was once a page under Did Not Do The Research explaining this, titled All Pedophiles Are Child Molesters (or something close). It got deleted.
EDIT: Quite a while ago, I mean, not in this purge.

[Matar]

You're implying that paedophile means someone who causes harm and commits crimes. But it just means someone who's attracted to children - they're not any more likely to harm children than the rest of us are to harm adults. You hear more about the ones who do, though, because it's not something you'd want to make public (and "YOUR CHILDREN ARE IN DANGER" sells newspapers like nothing else).

This is true, and I'm well aware of this. I apologize for not being clear enough.


That we agree on, I never said it was. I specifically said Call of Duty is a subset of games about military combat (aka military combat games).

I just misunderstood you. Although I'm not really sure why you mentioned that, as that wasn't what I was asking. You'll have to understand my confusion on the matter.


It's related to pedophila (that is, the state of being attracted to children), which distrubs some/many/most (choose whichever you find most accurate) people.

In the same sense that GTA is related to murder, yes. That is to say, vaguely.

Again, I'm not defending child molesters. But lolicon doesn't hurt children, it doesn't make people child molesters, and it shouldn't be vilified or discriminated against. There are plenty of things that we find distasteful or can't understand. But that doesn't make them -wrong-.


And provided examples/possibly links of them.

We don't really know that, do we? They were taken down after all. And even -if- they linked to lolicon hentai (which I find unlikely, as linking to porn is against rules of that website as far as I know), the links should be taken down. Not the whole article.

[Traab]

This is true, and I'm well aware of this. I apologize for not being clear enough.



I just misunderstood you. Although I'm not really sure why you mentioned that, as that wasn't what I was asking. You'll have to understand my confusion on the matter.



In the same sense that GTA is related to murder, yes. That is to say, vaguely.

Again, I'm not defending child molesters. But lolicon doesn't hurt children, it doesn't make people child molesters, and it shouldn't be vilified or discriminated against. There are plenty of things that we find distasteful or can't understand. But that doesn't make them -wrong-.



We don't really know that, do we? They were taken down after all. And even -if- they linked to lolicon hentai (which I find unlikely, as linking to porn is against rules of that website as far as I know), the links should be taken down. Not the whole article.

Which basically agrees with an earlier post I made a few pages back. Since terms like lolicon ARE legitimate tropes used in manga and other japanese anime, the best way to handle that and other potentially inappropriate terms is, define the trope, provide a list of media that uses said trope, and provide no links to images. That way those who want to avoid said tropes can, and those looking for them have a list they can use. No porn is posted or linked to, and everything is fine. Objecting to that would be like refusing to post ads on a site with a dictionary on it, as it has the word "sex" in it, and is therefore porn.

[Reverent-One]

I just misunderstood you. Although I'm not really sure why you mentioned that, as that wasn't what I was asking. You'll have to understand my confusion on the matter.

Fair enough, I should have been more thorough in my point. What I meant by that is that we can say that Call of Duty is a subset of military combat games, because they're both things, your original analogy compared a thing (a video game specifically) to an action (military combat or murder), which makes no sense. It's also not equivalent to what I was doing, which is comparing one concept to another concept.


In the same sense that GTA is related to murder, yes. That is to say, vaguely.

Again, I'm not defending child molesters. But lolicon doesn't hurt children, it doesn't make people child molesters, and it shouldn't be vilified or discriminated against. There are plenty of things that we find distasteful or can't understand. But that doesn't make them -wrong-.

Again, you're acting as if pedophila (paedophila?) is the act of hurting children, otherwise your video game analogies would be irrelevant. Since it's just being attracted to children, being attracted to a certain sort of children (girls for loli, boys for shota) is directly related to it, simply from a definitional standpoint. Someone who is a lolicon (if we're using it to describe a character type) is a pedophile by definition.


We don't really know that, do we? They were taken down after all. And even -if- they linked to lolicon hentai (which I find unlikely, as linking to porn is against rules of that website as far as I know), the links should be taken down. Not the whole article.

And the Lolicon article is still up.

[Matar]

Again, you're acting as if pedophila (paedophila?) is the act of hurting children, otherwise your video game analogies would be irrelevant. Since it's just being attracted to children, being attracted to a certain sort of children (girls for loli, boys for shota) is directly related to it, simply from a definitional standpoint. Someone who is a lolicon (if we're using it to describe a character type) is a pedophile by definition.

Again, calling someone a lolicon can mean that they're attracted to real children, fake children, or both. So yes, A lolicon is a pedophile but they don't -have- to be. Plently of people enjoy lolicon but are not interested in looking at real naked kids.

Compare to watching an R-Rated movie. I would not want to see someone murdered in real life, even if I take no part in it. But -fake depictions of murder is not the same as seeing someone get murdered-.

Same thing with lolicon. Depictions of fake kids in sexual situations is not the same as actually watching a real child get molested. Ones fake and hurts no one, the other is real and can ruin someones life.


And the Lolicon article is still up.

And both inaccurate and extremely judgmental. Also, Kodomo No Jikan is still down. And who knows what else.

Honestly, this whole ban idea seems to be extremely ineffective. There are tons of games and shows still on TVtropes that either sexualize young girls or have pornography in them of young(animated, of course) young girls.

Honestly, why the hell would they even make a rule banning this stuff if they're not... going to actually ban the stuff? They take down some and keep other stuff, and I just do not understand.

[Prime32]

Honestly, this whole ban idea seems to be extremely ineffective. There are tons of games and shows still on TVtropes that either sexualize young girls or have pornography in them of young(animated, of course) young girls.

Honestly, why the hell would they even make a rule banning this stuff if they're not... going to actually ban the stuff? They take down some and keep other stuff, and I just do not understand.They're probably just too obscure for anyone to have thought of them.

[OracleofWuffing]

And both inaccurate and extremely judgmental. Also, Kodomo No Jikan is still down. And who knows what else.

Honestly, this whole ban idea seems to be extremely ineffective. There are tons of games and shows still on TVtropes that either sexualize young girls or have pornography in them of young(animated, of course) young girls.

Honestly, why the hell would they even make a rule banning this stuff if they're not... going to actually ban the stuff? They take down some and keep other stuff, and I just do not understand.
From what I can see, the blank sweep was on anything that was listed in TVTrope's "Hentai Index." If the page was listed there, it was blanked, if it wasn't listed there, it may have been avoided. Since Lolicon gets used outside of Hentai, I could see it not being listed in the Hentai Index.

That said, you can see Google's Content Policy for Adsense here (http://support.google.com/adsense/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1348688). For what its worth, that policy uses a broad enough definition of pedophilia that all of your examples of lolicon fall under that topic.

[Reverent-One]

Again, calling someone a lolicon can mean that they're attracted to real children, fake children, or both. So yes, A lolicon is a pedophile but they don't -have- to be. Plently of people enjoy lolicon but are not interested in looking at real naked kids.

I'm not sure the definitions of either distiguish between being attracted to real children, fake children, or both. :smallconfused:


Compare to watching an R-Rated movie. I would not want to see someone murdered in real life, even if I take no part in it. But -fake depictions of murder is not the same as seeing someone get murdered-.

Same thing with lolicon. Depictions of fake kids in sexual situations is not the same as actually watching a real child get molested. Ones fake and hurts no one, the other is real and can ruin someones life.

And some/many/most people find them similarly disturbing.


And both inaccurate and extremely judgmental.

Hmm, I can agree it should probably be changed to more like the Shotacon article, which is more neutral and analytical.


Also, Kodomo No Jikan is still down.

No idea that that is.


Honestly, this whole ban idea seems to be extremely ineffective. There are tons of games and shows still on TVtropes that either sexualize young girls or have pornography in them of young(animated, of course) young girls.

Honestly, why the hell would they even make a rule banning this stuff if they're not... going to actually ban the stuff? They take down some and keep other stuff, and I just do not understand.

In case you hadn't noticed, there's a LOT of stuff on TV tropes, if you feel there's something they've missed, report it to them.

[Soras Teva Gee]

No idea that that is.

Here you go. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodomo_no_jikan)

[Reverent-One]

Here you go. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodomo_no_jikan)

I see, look like something that's ok to stick around, someone actually on TV tropes should probably bring that up in their thread about reinstating closed pages to make sure it doesn't get forgotten.

[Seraph]

I see, look like something that's ok to stick around, someone actually on TV tropes should probably bring that up in their thread about reinstating closed pages to make sure it doesn't get forgotten.

It has been brought up.

repeatedly.

in every case, it is immediately shot down as being "pedosh*t," and in one case one of the people on the "impartial council" supposed to JUDGE these things referred to it directly as "pedosh*t no fapfapfap."

[Avilan the Grey]

Oh? How would you describe them then? Are they not about military combat? It's a first person shooter, set during a war, and you're a member of a military force, so I'm not sure what other sort of game it could be.

Ah, but the question you agree to is if you see a combat game as an equal of ACTUAL COMBAT. That is a VERY weird way of looking at things.

Edit: I am definitely split on the Lolicon thing. One one hand I hate the whole censorship thing. On the other hand this has always creeped me out to no end.

[Reverent-One]

Ah, but the question you agree to is if you see a combat game as an equal of ACTUAL COMBAT. That is a VERY weird way of looking at things.

Notice the clarifing statement I make about it. Still, as I said to Matar, I should have been more detailed.


It has been brought up.

repeatedly.

in every case, it is immediately shot down as being "pedosh*t," and in one case one of the people on the "impartial council" supposed to JUDGE these things referred to it directly as "pedosh*t no fapfapfap."

And looking in the thread and seeing this about it:

The story is about a schoolchild trying to a seduce a teacher with another adult character trying to seduce the schoolchild. It also features a scene in which a child is explictly masturbating with a shower head.

I take back my guess that it would be alright. I did not get that from the wiki page.

[Tvtyrant]

Has here been any discussion about simply splitting off the sections that google finds offensive into a separate website?

[TARDIS]

Jegus... I don't know who to be more annoyed over with this revelation - Google, the company that pulled out of China because they couldn't deal with communist censorship; or TVTropes, which was supposed to be a place where political correctness took a back seat to what is actually out there in modern culture. Good job, both of you, you have my slowclap of disapproval...

And the unfortunate thing is I can't really protest TVTropes like I have Google... while I've moved over to using Bing as my primary search engine and have always used Yahoo for almost everything else that Google provides (other than YouTube), there really is no alternative to TVTropes - Wikipedia and individual show wikis might come close, but they don't have anywhere near the same discovery potential.

Please note, this is coming from a prude who would personally be fine with reducing the pr0n on the interwebs, but who understands that others are less inclined to agree. This is more about the principal of what TVTropes is doing than the action itself.

Mind you, renaming some of the sexual assault-related tropes probably wasn't a bad idea. Nowhere near the level of nixing Colonel Makepeace or Jonas Quinn *gripe gripe gripe*

[Seraph]

I take back my guess that it would be alright. I did not get that from the wiki page.

I've never read KnJ, but neither have you, so we seem to be on a level playing field.

The impression I have always been given about Kodomo No Jikan is deliberately written subversively, not unlike Hard Candy but without the moral-guardian-satisfying sequence of the pedophile being physically and psychologically tortured. From what I understand, the entire point of the manga is that the adult in the situation is having an extended nervous breakdown because he is aware of being attracted to a preteen and is very unhappy with that fact.

Again, I haven't read it, but considering the Author is a woman, I'm a bit skeptical of the claim that it exists purely for masturbatory purposes.

[Reverent-One]

Given their stance on the matter though, unless that poster was outright lying, it crosses their line of appropriate material for indexing, whatever the author's intent was.

[willpell]

Has here been any discussion about simply splitting off the sections that google finds offensive into a separate website?

I would be behind a HentaiTropes wiki 100% (and not just for the purpose of getting some fries with that shake).

[Pokonic]

I would be behind a HentaiTropes wiki 100% (and not just for the purpose of getting some fries with that shake).

Well, a entire section (Like the Darthwiki) of the site could be dedicated to the stuff that perhapes would not normaly in the regular page, so you realy could not be excused for not clicking on the page and finding yourself face-to-face with the Sex tropes.

[Elm11]

no, the advertising pays for the site, which is what all of this started over. In fact, there are rumors that if anything, Fast Eddie uses the surplus admoney as personal income, which is why he was so eager to fold like a leaf in the face of google's complaints.

No, the advertising most certainly does not 'pay' for the site. FastEddie pays for the site, and he uses the advertising as a means to ensure that he personally doesn't go broke paying for the site. Furthermore, I don't believe you have any evidence at all that Fast Eddie is using surplus to bolster his wallet, so you'd do well to provide some. In other words - [CITATION NEEDED].


considering the incredibly condescending language used in the new wiki pages, as well as the mass, hivemind use of the phrase "pedo****" in the forums to label and decry everything they don't like, no. No, person A has not learned ****, and they appear to be gaining a support base.

The Wikia pages were made by users, not the admin. In case you'd forgotten, Person A was the admin removing pages, not a contributor spamming expletives. I'm not prepared to make any comment on the state of the contributors that visit TVtropes, only that the admin is clearly cleaning up it's mistakes, which you seem to be disregarding in favour of railing on them for having made the mistakes in the first place.


You are. What I am saying is that the assumption that just because you have a fetish, you are also perverse, is making me angry.

I apologise if I gave the impression that everyone who has a fetish is perverse, because that certainly wasn't intended. I did, however, imply that I believe some fetishes are most certainly perverse, and while it's true that nobody is being hurt directly by the sharing of upskirt shots of young girls from animated shows, I am making the moral call that no good can come of it. You like feet? Fine by me. Nothing wrong with liking feet. It's simply my subjective opinion that not all fetishes are the same - some are perfectly acceptable, and I couldn't give a hoot about them. Others, however, sicken me, and I do believe that people with those fetishes are, if not perverse, at the very least in need of a good talking to.


By that logic Call of Duty is bother a subset of military combat and also a subset of murder.

Military combat has never been considered murder by mainline historians, ethicists, etc. But we are straying kind've close to real-world politics, so let's avoid that particular issue completely.


Again, calling someone a lolicon can mean that they're attracted to real children, fake children, or both. So yes, A lolicon is a pedophile but they don't -have- to be. Plently of people enjoy lolicon but are not interested in looking at real naked kids.

Okay, this, I have serious issues with. Combat games are a far cry from warfare - most of them are unrealistic, and you can't simply step outside after playing a combat game, say 'Wow, I really feel like shooting up X', then go shoot up X because there's a war going on next door. Lolicon, on the other hand, is no far cry at all from paedophilia. If someone enjoys looking at animated/drawn/whatever pictures of naked little girls, they're only a few short clicks away from looking at real pictures of naked little girls, which, If I'm not mistaken, is both morally bankrupt and a felony.


I would be behind a HentaiTropes wiki 100% (and not just for the purpose of getting some fries with that shake).

I think this might be the best result for all involved. I don't care in the slightest for that kind of thing to be on TVtropes, but personally, I couldn't care less, since it won't bother me unless I'm dumb enough to go looking for them. At the same time, if people care so greatly about the existance of hentai-tropes that they're prepared to raise such a big stink about their removal, perhaps the situation could be solved if those people went elsewhere for those particular tropes, and TVtropes could be made properly 'family friendly'.

Of course, at the same time, Tropes doesn't need to be family friendly, and I'm not necessarily for it becoming so. It seems the only point I agree with many people here on is that political correctness is meant to come second. I'm not in favour of seeing the site completely devoid of swear-words and mature themes, but I draw a big, clearly defined line between 'mature themes' and those I consider morally bankrupt. Things like paedophilia are most certainly morally bankrupt, and I'm afraid I'm not prepared to hear any defence of them. Things like violent games that involve murder may or may not be - it really depends on the person.

In fact, technically the same is arguable for 'lolicon' etc. Some people may just enjoy looking at naked little girls who are drawn, and may be wonderful people otherwise... I'm sure...

In all seriousness, there most certainly are people who enjoy lolicon but are perfectly normal human beings (I should hope the vast majority of cases), sure as there are people who play violent videogames and are influenced (like raging, screaming twelve year olds, who've apparently had more intimate moments with my mother than I'd care to count).

In the event that these acceptable people get upset because their unacceptable fetish is no longer allowed on a respectable site, it's their responsibility, not the site's, to look elsewhere for their fetish material. If that means they leave the community, then so be it. If good people are doing something bad, don't expect more good people to cover for it.

[Seraph]

No, the advertising most certainly does not 'pay' for the site. FastEddie pays for the site, and he uses the advertising as a means to ensure that he personally doesn't go broke paying for the site. Furthermore, I don't believe you have any evidence at all that Fast Eddie is using surplus to bolster his wallet, so you'd do well to provide some. In other words - [CITATION NEEDED].

If I had proof I would be stating it as fact. I am calling it a rumor because I have heard it from multiple places but lack concrete proof.

in other words, learn vocabulary.




The Wikia pages were made by users, not the admin. In case you'd forgotten, Person A was the admin removing pages, not a contributor spamming expletives.

Person A is both. As in, The Admins are removing pages and spamming the phrase "pedosh*t" on the forums.

[Elm11]

If I had proof I would be stating it as fact. I am calling it a rumor because I have heard it from multiple places but lack concrete proof.

in other words, learn vocabulary.





Person A is both. As in, The Admins are removing pages and spamming the phrase "pedosh*t" on the forums.

Please don't insult my vocabulary, I don't appreciate ad-hominem attacks.

Furthermore, examination of evidence is the greater part of good history, and I can start pulling rumours out of the air with no evidence too. The problem is that you're providing only the rumours that suit your ends - to make out Fast Eddie and the admin staff as the next Mussolini. I've done my best to criticise my own arguments, and I've been very careful not to waste time with rumours and speculation. After all, unless someone on the admin staff or very close to Fast-Eddie has been leaking information, the only logical origin of these rumours will be someone going 'Hey, I bet you FastEddie is pocketing the excess money for himself!' and somebody else later saying 'So I hear FastEddie is pocketing the excess money for himself.'.

[Tvtyrant]

I would be behind a HentaiTropes wiki 100% (and not just for the purpose of getting some fries with that shake).

I think it would certainly make more sense then mass extermeletion.

[Chen]

Has FastEddie ever said he's not taking the extra money? I mean I assume if its being run as a business the INTENT is to make money off it no? Why are we considering that a problem?

[Prof. Noname]

Okay, this, I have serious issues with. Combat games are a far cry from warfare - most of them are unrealistic, and you can't simply step outside after playing a combat game, say 'Wow, I really feel like shooting up X', then go shoot up X because there's a war going on next door. Lolicon, on the other hand, is no far cry at all from paedophilia. If someone enjoys looking at animated/drawn/whatever pictures of naked little girls, they're only a few short clicks away from looking at*real*pictures of naked little girls, which, If I'm not mistaken, is both morally bankrupt and a felony.


This...is a very nasty contradiction. So nasty that I would easily compare it to two, rocket fueled freight trains filled with dynamite and gasoline, roaring toward each other at twenty times the speed of sound. A contradiction so disgusting that when these two trains of thought collide, they make a horrible, glorious, burning explosion of anti-logic that is so common in arguments such as this. An explosion so great that God himself would step down from heaven, point at the burning mass and say in his booming voice:



“That's a contradiction.”

In all seriousness, and no real offense to you Mr. Elm11, this is the purest form of anti-logic I've seen in a while. There are so many things wrong with this statement that I don't even really know where to begin to take it apart. You've made such a huge leap in logic that I can never hope to understand how you got from point A to Xhosa in this. Do you have any sort of proof to back this statement up? Have you had any personal experience with this? Please tell me you're not just pulling this from the “This stuff is icky” part of your brain because seriously...that statement makes little sense. I'm not trying to be inflammatory, I'm not trying to insult anyone here, I'm not trying to start a flame war but my goodness, just looking at this makes my head hurt.

Seriously, reread that paragraph, what I see here is this: You're trying to say that the typical army themed first person shooter; where the developers go out of their way to mimic real guns, real world locations, real world army wear, and graphics so good and realistic that the player can step inside the screen and indulge in the bullet slinging chaos in the notMiddle East...is somehow less realistic than a nasty smut comic starring a female with humungous bug eyes, disproportionately large head, and other warped proportions penned by a lonely Japanese man who thinks all real women are disgusting pigs and his ideal wife is from a show for 10-year-old girls. Not only is the army simulator less realistic, in all it's bloody, gritty, gun porn glory; but it's also less likely to make people shoot people with gun in real life than a bunch of lines on paper.

I really want you to sit down and think about this, neutrally. To me, using my logic and setting aside the fact that I'm not a fan of lolicon either, this statement makes no sense, none at all. I'd go as far to post this quote:



[...]At its most simplistic level, this argument is valid when conjoined with an absence of social conditioning and rational intelligence. In effect, the argument against lolicon only works if common sense is set aside. And if the argument against fictional depictions of child sexuality are applied, the same principles must also be applied to all art, sports, politics, and religion - concepts which all have a potential to desensitize and influence behavior.

[...]If a large number of people observed lolicon material then transformed into vicious sexual abusers, I would have to concede that lolicon is dangerous material with a harmful influence. However, that has never happened, and, I believe, never will happen. So I consider lolicon material no more “wrong” to enjoy than, say, a tall glass of beer - which also has a potential to influence behavior and is also restricted to consumption by only rational, responsible adults.

...Because your paragraph is a perfect example of what the above poster is talking about. It's so common in these sorts of arguments that it's baffling. Yes, the thought of pedos doing pedo things are icky. No, I would not suffer a child molester (note the use of a different term) to be let loose in society. I am well aware that defending children is a soft spot for most people in general, myself included. But even with all that, I am not the type to set aside my own common sense and thinking mind to go on a witch hunt for people who like cartoons I don't care for. I grew up, like many people here I would assume, knowing the difference between fantasy and reality, and that most people were smart enough to know this difference. The whole fiasco with video games cemented this.

Now, this comment is gotten pretty long, and it's more about the general issue of how lolicon material is treated rather than TVTrope's specific policy. Then again, I feel it's impossible to properly comment on that without going straight to the core of the issue, the anti-logic that makes it an issue in the first place. Many have stated that the issue is because of Google, but FastEddie and his partner's rather inflammatory statements, nazi-like banning of anyone who disagrees with them, and blind page deletion reveals a slightly different picture of the issue. Even if the team has put some pages back, the very fact that they were taken down is call for alarm, especially since those pages were only placed back up because of their popularity, not because it was proven that it didn't violate their own new policy. Not only that, but neutrally speaking, this new policy contradicts what the site was made for in the first place. It was meant to be a rather lighthearted and lax place to archive media and the certain properties said media shared. The “No such thing as notability” was a purely inclusive policy, meaning that it could be use to archive any sort of media. Even if you try to say that's not what the founder meant, that's how it was taken by the majority of users on the site, and the fact that the higher ups didn't discourage this justified the inclusion of non-TV media. (Video games, comic, webcomics, literature, music, fanfiction, etc.)

This new policy flies in the fact of “No such thing as notability”, as the only ones that are saved from the cut are things that are notable/popular. Furthermore, the claim that this is to make the site “family friendly” rings hollow, as the site is filled with profanity, tales of murder, rape, and other sorts of stuff that is hardly “family friendly”. As well, “removing perverts and undesirables” from the site rings just as hollow. Why is that, you may ask? Because if there is one thing that I've learned from the internet, it's that all media, even the most innocent and well meaning, has a bunch of perverts that like it. Getting rid of porn will not remove the perverts, because the perverts often don't come for works that are explicit. I can say, from very personal experience, that fans of risque works like Kodomo no Jikan are not even in the same ballpark of perversion as, say, fans of My Little Pony. The absolute most perverted folk I've seen online were fans of Pretty Cure, a Sailor Moon-like action show aimed at young girls. Getting rid of KnJ will do nothing about the multitude of fetishists that cling to kid's shows and write creepy stuff that got TVTropes it's bad reputation. This policy does nothing but show the site's owners to be huge hypocrites, and possibly lose it many, many users. The fact that their nuking any thread that mentions any descent of their new policy only makes them look worse. The only reason they have any support right now is because porn, especially of the cartoon sort, is a very easy target, and as shown in this thread, people have no problem denying that sort of stuff as “free speech”, not really realizing that this act flies in the face of the very concept of free speech.

This has gone on too long, and I would like to conclude. What I really want most from this site is to be both consistent and polite about it. If they want to make the site family friendly, do so across the board, including more popular works and the language used in the entries. If they're only doing this because of Google, either they should find another ad company, or they should have forewarned people before randomly deleting pages. Or better yet, make a specifically NSFW TVTropes spin-off for that sort of thing. As It is, FastEddie and his ilk are just being jerks and are in the wrong. I don't care if the victims of their wrongdoing are “undesirables”, wrong is wrong to me. I don't abide by bullying, and this is what I see this whole situation as. For those who read this whole thing, I thank you for considering my position. I would also like to reiterate that I am not attacking Elm11, simply his opinion. Have a nice day.

[Lord Raziere]

Darn it, Noname, now I wish this forum had a thank button for posts, caused I wanted to thank that post!

Why? Why doesn't it have a thank button!?

[Eerie]

So, is anyone saving the pages that are getting deleted? I think The Epic Rise and Fall of TVTropes should be preserved for future generations.

[Soras Teva Gee]

@Prof. Noname:

http://i1047.photobucket.com/albums/b476/robitusson2/orson-welles-clapping.gif

[Man on Fire]

Vaguely related to the problem (http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html) and those who says there is no harm in banning articles featuring something erotic should really read it.

Anybody knows if they deleted Berserk's page?

[Elm11]

It's not often for someone on the internet to say they're beaten, and I'll not pretend that it doesn't hurt like a kick in the balls to do so, but well played. I really can't argue against most of your logic there, and I'm not the kind of person who goes on tugging at straws to pretend he's won when he hasn't.

I will, however, beg to disagree on the following statement:


This...is a very nasty contradiction. So nasty that I would easily compare it to two, rocket fueled freight trains filled with dynamite and gasoline, roaring toward each other at twenty times the speed of sound. A contradiction so disgusting that when these two trains of thought collide, they make a horrible, glorious, burning explosion of anti-logic that is so common in arguments such as this. An explosion so great that God himself would step down from heaven, point at the burning mass and say in his booming voice:


“That's a contradiction.”

In all seriousness, and no real offense to you Mr. Elm11, this is the purest form of anti-logic I've seen in a while. There are so many things wrong with this statement that I don't even really know where to begin to take it apart. You've made such a huge leap in logic that I can never hope to understand how you got from point A to Xhosa in this. Do you have any sort of proof to back this statement up? Have you had any personal experience with this? Please tell me you're not just pulling this from the “This stuff is icky” part of your brain because seriously...that statement makes little sense. I'm not trying to be inflammatory, I'm not trying to insult anyone here, I'm not trying to start a flame war but my goodness, just looking at this makes my head hurt.

Seriously, reread that paragraph, what I see here is this: You're trying to say that the typical army themed first person shooter; where the developers go out of their way to mimic real guns, real world locations, real world army wear, and graphics so good and realistic that the player can step inside the screen and indulge in the bullet slinging chaos in the notMiddle East...is somehow less realistic than a nasty smut comic starring a female with humungous bug eyes, disproportionately large head, and other warped proportions penned by a lonely Japanese man who thinks all real women are disgusting pigs and his ideal wife is from a show for 10-year-old girls. Not only is the army simulator less realistic, in all it's bloody, gritty, gun porn glory; but it's also less likely to make people shoot people with gun in real life than a bunch of lines on paper.

I really want you to sit down and think about this, neutrally. To me, using my logic and setting aside the fact that I'm not a fan of lolicon either, this statement makes no sense, none at all. I'd go as far to post this quote:

First, I do find your opening metaphor both condescending and quite rude, and am offended by it. This is because I believe you are misunderstanding the meaning of my statement. Perhaps I was not clear enough in what I meant, so I will attempt to clarify. If you wish, however, to debate, please be civil and avoid insults, intended or no. The best way to do this is to avoid emotive language.

Modern representations of violent videogames may be both explosive and glamorous, may be filled with, as you put it, 'gun porn' and may most certainly seem realistic, but they aren't. Combat, tactics, strategy and war as they appear in videogames in no way reflect (except in a few very rare cases, which are often classed as tactical simulators rather than games) those same conditions in real life. The argument that warlike games inspire people to commit acts of violence has been thrown around the world hundreds of times by the likes of disbarred lawyer Jack Thompson (The most famous opponent of video-games in this way), and research does exist (such as, for ease of reading, here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_controversies)) that violent videogames do correlate with increases in violence, but it's clear for all to see that the likes of call-of-duty do neither of the following:

Turn us all into rabid seriel killers, supersoldiers, terrorists etc.

or, much more importantly: Provide us with the means to undertake such acts of violence.

I don't live in a country like America, where guns are as common as daisies, so the means to commit acts may be present there where it is absent here, but it is the presence or absence of such means that I believe most conclusively seperates these violent games from fetishes such as lolicon. Because there is such a wide gap between acquiring firearms and having an internet connection, lolicon needs not provide any means which someone who is interested in drawn pictures of naked children would require to transition to real pictures of naked children. Since the above is a bit convoluted, allow me to summarize:

Playing CoD doesn't hand you a gun so you can murder people.
You don't need lolicon to 'hand' you anything to transition to something far, far worse.

Rather than making the same blanket statements which you decry in my post, please specify exactly what issue you find with the statement so that I might explain it more clearly.

Addressing the second half of your argument: As I stated in my opening, what you are arguing is largely irrefutable, and I see that I was misunderstood in my opinion that the admin has committed no wrongs in their reforming/cleaning of the site. Unfortunately, the points which you have so successfully conveyed are only some of those I have been arguing, and some of these have not been addressed. I can't be bothered typing out my opinions for the previous three pages, so I will simply summarize those points which I believe I am quite correct on:

The mods are not:
'Pure Evil', 'Louis XVI', Emperor Palpatine/Zerg for reforming the site. In other words, mistakes or no, they are still people and are undertaking these acts out of both convinience and necessity.

We, the users of TVtropes, do not have the right to:

A) Decry the admin for choosing to reform the site rather than change to different advertisers (for the myriad of reasons that have been displayed by various posters throughout the thread)

B) Pretend that our freedom of speech is paramount on a site which to which we contribute no tangible aid - we write on it, but we don't support it.

Furthermore:

I still believe the reactions of many people in this thread are both over-reactions and poorly informed.

I might as well add that I am concerned that people with views less valid and more radical than your own may see your above argument and believe that this immediately validates their own views, which may or may not be related at all to yours. As a result, I'd appreciate you laying out your viewpoint on the matter. Call me pedantic, but it drives me mad when:

-SNIPPED-

EDIT: In fact, to avoid beating around the bush, I'll say this.

Your arguments may have been logical, but those of some other people arguing against me have not been. It would be very disappointing if they pounce on your successfully refuting some of my statements and immediately presume that all of theirs must be right. Especially if such people have been constantly making use of straw-man arguments and emotive language and failing to address points that I don't believe them capable of accurately addressing. It frustrates me no end that some people are incapable of accepting logic.

[Traab]

Oh god this topic is gonna get locked so fast. Can you guys please drop disputes over whether or not looking at animated little girls nude means you like looking at living little girls nude, or at least take it to private messages?

[OracleofWuffing]

Many have stated that the issue is because of Google, but FastEddie and his partner's rather inflammatory statements, nazi-like banning of anyone who disagrees with them, and blind page deletion reveals a slightly different picture of the issue.
Can we please have a better clarification of this "blind page deletion" accusation? I mean, the two major examples brought up in this thread were classified on TVTropes as Hentai prior to the event (presumedly by people who followed the series and contributed to the page) or contained explicit scenes. It really doesn't sound blind to me.


If they're only doing this because of Google, either they should find another ad company, or they should have forewarned people before randomly deleting pages.
They've previously tried to find other ad companies. They found that the competition simply does not compare to the revenue they get from Adsense.

Take a look at The Edit History (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Administrivia.WelcomeT oTVTropes) on the same page that lists TVTropes' rules and policies. The Wiki Content Guideline saying that they don't want explicit sex is not new, and The Troping Code (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheTropingCode?from=Main.AdministrativePolicy) says that nastiness will not be tolerated. Sounds like forewarning to me, and that's setting aside that the nature of wiki software means that pages get deleted all the time for plenty of different reasons.

[KnightDisciple]

...Are we still calling these guys "nazi-like"? Seriously? SERIOUSLY?

Let's put aside how violently that invokes Godwin's Law for a moment.

Can all of you people frothing at the mouth about how some of the skeezy stuff's getting cleaned up, and some causalities are getting caught in the crossfire, back up for about 120 seconds?

Backed up? Good.

Now maybe gain some perspective that a.)no one's been hurt at all in this, b.)while pages are deleted from this site, there's nothing restricting your freedom from going other places and putting them up there, and c.)this has got to be one of the biggest cases of First World Problem Nerdrage I've ever seen.

This isn't about some legitimately scary law from a government, or a strict policy from an ISP. At best, it's about slightly overzealous policies from an ad group. And how those choices/policies translate to one specific site, a site that's a wacky collection of "tropes" that's really kind of lost its way a while ago, and that's clearly caught up in the idea of it's own self importance.

But the way you people are reacting? You'd think governments were burning public libraries.

Seriously, back down on the stupidly hyperbolic rhetoric, please. Words like "frustrating" and even "distasteful" are totally fine. But "evil" or "nazi-like" have no place here when this world is already full to the brim with actual evil that most all of us privileged people never even get near. We sit safe in our homes while in probably 3/4 of the world people have to deal with genuine evil every day. So seeing you people try to paint this as anything other than something you don't like on a website (they changed it now it sucks, amiright?) is dishonest, disingenuous, and disrespectful.

Seriously people. Get a perspective check. :smallannoyed:

[Lord Seth]

...Are we still calling these guys "nazi-like"? Seriously? SERIOUSLY?

Let's put aside how violently that invokes Godwin's Law for a moment.

Can all of you people frothing at the mouth about how some of the skeezy stuff's getting cleaned up, and some causalities are getting caught in the crossfire, back up for about 120 seconds?

Backed up? Good.

Now maybe gain some perspective that a.)no one's been hurt at all in this, b.)while pages are deleted from this site, there's nothing restricting your freedom from going other places and putting them up there, and c.)this has got to be one of the biggest cases of First World Problem Nerdrage I've ever seen.

This isn't about some legitimately scary law from a government, or a strict policy from an ISP. At best, it's about slightly overzealous policies from an ad group. And how those choices/policies translate to one specific site, a site that's a wacky collection of "tropes" that's really kind of lost its way a while ago, and that's clearly caught up in the idea of it's own self importance.

But the way you people are reacting? You'd think governments were burning public libraries.

Seriously, back down on the stupidly hyperbolic rhetoric, please. Words like "frustrating" and even "distasteful" are totally fine. But "evil" or "nazi-like" have no place here when this world is already full to the brim with actual evil that most all of us privileged people never even get near. We sit safe in our homes while in probably 3/4 of the world people have to deal with genuine evil every day. So seeing you people try to paint this as anything other than something you don't like on a website (they changed it now it sucks, amiright?) is dishonest, disingenuous, and disrespectful.

Seriously people. Get a perspective check. :smallannoyed:Quoted For Truth.

[Frozen_Feet]

I've never read KnJ, but neither have you, so we seem to be on a level playing field.

For the record, I have both watched the show and the read the manga. And while overall, the manga takes its subject matter fairly seriously and treats it with respect, it also includes many pointlessly revealing pictures that would be very hard to justify as anything else than child pornography to an out-of-context viewer. This makes the series very uncomfortable to peruse. Granted, I'm certain that awkwardness is partially intentional from the part of the author.

I will also not that KnJ is perhaps the most accurate fictional portrayal of how 10 to 12 year old girls actually act.

[Seraph]

Can we please have a better clarification of this "blind page deletion" accusation? I mean, the two major examples brought up in this thread were classified on TVTropes as Hentai prior to the event (presumedly by people who followed the series and contributed to the page) or contained explicit scenes. It really doesn't sound blind to me.


the page for Nabokov's Lolita was wiped, and when it was brought up on the forums, Fast Eddie was openly hostile to people asking for its reinstatement and responded with, and I quote directly from the forums (with emphasis added,) "Yes, I think it would be a great idea to cut Lolita, since it comes up every time someone wants to quibble about what is or isn't pedo trash. It certainly isn't a work important for any other reason."

The administrator of a wiki on media and literature openly dismissing one of the landmark novels of the 20th century. Fast Eddie, ladies and gentlemen.

He then followed it up by openly stating that he did not give a **** about what anyone else on the site believed, only to recant when his moderator team more or less implied mutiny, and even then said he would only reinstate it after "every fanfic, anime, and manga work about pedophilia" was deleted. (Nice of him to be so bizzarely precise in the forms of media he wants gone, by the way.)

[Maxios]

...Are we still calling these guys "nazi-like"? Seriously? SERIOUSLY?

Let's put aside how violently that invokes Godwin's Law for a moment.

Can all of you people frothing at the mouth about how some of the skeezy stuff's getting cleaned up, and some causalities are getting caught in the crossfire, back up for about 120 seconds?

Backed up? Good.

Now maybe gain some perspective that a.)no one's been hurt at all in this, b.)while pages are deleted from this site, there's nothing restricting your freedom from going other places and putting them up there, and c.)this has got to be one of the biggest cases of First World Problem Nerdrage I've ever seen.

This isn't about some legitimately scary law from a government, or a strict policy from an ISP. At best, it's about slightly overzealous policies from an ad group. And how those choices/policies translate to one specific site, a site that's a wacky collection of "tropes" that's really kind of lost its way a while ago, and that's clearly caught up in the idea of it's own self importance.

But the way you people are reacting? You'd think governments were burning public libraries.

Seriously, back down on the stupidly hyperbolic rhetoric, please. Words like "frustrating" and even "distasteful" are totally fine. But "evil" or "nazi-like" have no place here when this world is already full to the brim with actual evil that most all of us privileged people never even get near. We sit safe in our homes while in probably 3/4 of the world people have to deal with genuine evil every day. So seeing you people try to paint this as anything other than something you don't like on a website (they changed it now it sucks, amiright?) is dishonest, disingenuous, and disrespectful.

Seriously people. Get a perspective check. :smallannoyed:

My thoughts exactly.

[Traab]

"every fanfic, anime, and manga work about pedophilia" was deleted. (Nice of him to be so bizzarely precise in the forms of media he wants gone, by the way.)

In all fairness, those are the media types that are most likely to include underage sexual scenarios. I mean hell, half of naruto relationships in fanfics tend to be squicky if you think about them too much considering they start sleeping together pre timeskip when they are like 12-14 years old or so. You wont see many marvel or dc comics written around pre teens seducing their teachers or other similar scenarios, but manga has its fair share of legitimate published works that are either devoted to just that, or have occasional scenes that involve underage people in sexual or semi sexual scenarios. Same for anime and western cartoons. I cant call up any specific titles for japanese anime along those lines as I find it personally disturbing and distasteful, but I know they are there.

[Drolyt]

Well, this thread is... interesting. Certainly more vitriolic than I'm used to on this site. As for whether TvTropes has jumped the shark, I haven't read this whole thread, but my take is that TvTropes is a collaborative website without a well defined goal. This is a recipe for disaster. In the end the result will be that nobody is perfectly pleased with it, except perhaps Fast Eddie if he proves a competent enough dictator. I do find the site informative and entertaining, but I've always had several issues with it. Let me offer my take on a few things:

Censorship:
Censorship, insofar as it is defined as the suppression of ideas for the purpose of control, is always bad. I am somewhat shocked to see some people in this thread disagreeing. Censorship can never produce good results. That said, what TvTropes is doing isn't necessarily censorship. They are removing material extraneous to their (admittedly ill defined) mission. They aren't telling people they can't express themselves, just that they can't do on a site whose mission has never been a forum for free expression.

For a similar scenario, look at these very forums. Certain topics are banned, but that isn't censorship. The focus of this site from the very beginning has been Tabletop RPGs, and while it sort of shifted that focus towards The Giant's brilliant webcomic parody of Tabletop RPGs, there is still a defined focus. In that light banning certain topics makes sense.

Maybe TvTropes went too far. In fact they certainly did if they banned Lolita, even for a second, but that is a different issue.
Trope Names:
This one boils down to the issue of not pleasing everyone. Personally I preferred the old style witty trope names. Sure, maybe their meanings weren't immediately obvious, but as a useful shorthand I think they are actually superior to more descriptive titles, similar to how in a science such as chemistry you have a huge vocabulary you have to learn to communicate with other scientists but once you do everything flows much more smoothly than otherwise. More than that, the better trope names were very easy to remember once you knew the story behind them. Xanatos Gambit is an excellent example. Once you know that Xanatos is a master strategist, even if you have never seen Gargoyles, Xanatos Gambit becomes an intuitive and obvious name because our brains are wired to remember that kind of association easily. A more descriptive name is actually easier to forget than an association because of how our brains work.
There is No Such Thing as Notability:
I'm not sure this was ever a good policy. It basically declared that the site had no well defined purpose and invited everyone to try and make it into whatever they want, ultimately causing the eventual debates and dissatisfaction. Huge swaths of the site have had to be cut with no real agreement as to which parts should be cut. The result is pure chaos.
"True Art":
This is what bothers me the most about TvTropes, the site's collective disdain of high art and scholarly criticism, especially as evidenced by the "True Art" series of "tropes". I'm sorry if I come off as elitist here, but there damn well is a difference between true art like Hamlet and trash like reality television. I'm not anti pop-culture here, I stand by my belief that the best episodes of shows like Star Trek and Buffy the Vampire Slayer are just as artistic as Shakespeare, but the fact remains that there is art that reflects and elevates the human condition on one side and mindless entertainment on the other, and this isn't just an academic distinction or subjective opinion. This probably wouldn't bother me so much if the whole site wasn't about textual (in a loose sense of text that includes all media) analysis.

[Jayngfet]

Trope Names:
This one boils down to the issue of not pleasing everyone. Personally I preferred the old style witty trope names. Sure, maybe their meanings weren't immediately obvious, but as a useful shorthand I think they are actually superior to more descriptive titles, similar to how in a science such as chemistry you have a huge vocabulary you have to learn to communicate with other scientists but once you do everything flows much more smoothly than otherwise. More than that, the better trope names were very easy to remember once you knew the story behind them. Xanatos Gambit is an excellent example. Once you know that Xanatos is a master strategist, even if you have never seen Gargoyles, Xanatos Gambit becomes an intuitive and obvious name because our brains are wired to remember that kind of association easily. A more descriptive name is actually easier to forget than an association because of how our brains work.
[/SPOILER]



The problem comes from the fact that some of these trope names were misleading, or else had unfortunate implications.

I mean Sasami Syndrome for example. I mean yeah, she's more responsable than the other girls but that's because they ignored that she's like, twelve and the other girls were all either crazy or had a lot of growing up to do themselves, or both. Sasami is a gag option because she's a naive little girl who still technically fills the requirements. It's made clear that once she matures a bit she'd give the others a run for their money but that she's got a ways to go.






"True Art":
This is what bothers me the most about TvTropes, the site's collective disdain of high art and scholarly criticism, especially as evidenced by the "True Art" series of "tropes". I'm sorry if I come off as elitist here, but there damn well is a difference between true art like Hamlet and trash like reality television. I'm not anti pop-culture here, I stand by my belief that the best episodes of shows like Star Trek and Buffy the Vampire Slayer are just as artistic as Shakespeare, but the fact remains that there is art that reflects and elevates the human condition on one side and mindless entertainment on the other, and this isn't just an academic distinction or subjective opinion. This probably wouldn't bother me so much if the whole site wasn't about textual (in a loose sense of text that includes all media) analysis.



Eh, I think that you kind of shot yourself in the foot there a bit with your examples. I mean Hamlet is certainly classier than springer, but most of that class was added post-production. You've really got to remember that the bulk of Shakespear's audience at the time was an uneducated mass and a lot of what he wrote reflected that.

At the same time a lot of Springer's draw comes from it's trashy guest's and stage fights, but that kind of thing also shines a bit of light on the human condition. I mean the show itself runs off hypocrisy, regret, prejudice, and attempted redemption on a very personal level. I mean if hundreds of people falling to eerily similar vices, getting into the same situations, and trying in their own incredibly messed up way to make amends doesn't shine a light on the human condition, what does?

[Trazoi]

the page for Nabokov's Lolita was wiped, and when it was brought up on the forums, Fast Eddie was openly hostile to people asking for its reinstatement and responded with, and I quote directly from the forums (with emphasis added,) "Yes, I think it would be a great idea to cut Lolita, since it comes up every time someone wants to quibble about what is or isn't pedo trash. It certainly isn't a work important for any other reason."

The administrator of a wiki on media and literature openly dismissing one of the landmark novels of the 20th century. Fast Eddie, ladies and gentlemen.
I think you're too blinded by your hate for Fast Eddie to see the obvious sarcasm in that bold part and how it relates to the sentence before hand. He's not referring to himself, he's referring to how the tropers he's debating with see Lolita.

This is exactly why TV Tropes is in the current mess, because a sizable number of tropers can't discriminate and always start rule lawyering to include everything and then act surprised when Google doesn't see it that way. Fast Eddie is saying that, if the troper community can't distinguish between Lolita and child pornography because both contain trope X, then the solution is going to be no more Lolita.

[Gnoman]

"True Art":
This is what bothers me the most about TvTropes, the site's collective disdain of high art and scholarly criticism, especially as evidenced by the "True Art" series of "tropes". I'm sorry if I come off as elitist here, but there damn well is a difference between true art like Hamlet and trash like reality television. I'm not anti pop-culture here, I stand by my belief that the best episodes of shows like Star Trek and Buffy the Vampire Slayer are just as artistic as Shakespeare, but the fact remains that there is art that reflects and elevates the human condition on one side and mindless entertainment on the other, and this isn't just an academic distinction or subjective opinion. This probably wouldn't bother me so much if the whole site wasn't about textual (in a loose sense of text that includes all media) analysis.

You seem to have missed the point of the "True art is X" pages. They reference the sort of people can insist that only things that are "X" can qualify as art. It's nothing more than references to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy as applied to art.

[Seraph]

I think you're too blinded by your hate for Fast Eddie to see the obvious sarcasm in that bold part and how it relates to the sentence before hand. He's not referring to himself, he's referring to how the tropers he's debating with see Lolita.

This is exactly why TV Tropes is in the current mess, because a sizable number of tropers can't discriminate and always start rule lawyering to include everything and then act surprised when Google doesn't see it that way. Fast Eddie is saying that, if the troper community can't distinguish between Lolita and child pornography because both contain trope X, then the solution is going to be no more Lolita.

you give fast eddie far too much credit. Keep in mind that this is the man who:

-threw a hissyfit and perma-locked the Memento page because he got upset over people reversing the order of the article as a joke;

-nuked and locked the page about the "This Troper" youtube video series even though the page was impartially written, with an edit note along the lines of "I won't advertise this a**hole;"

-repeatedly made efforts to excise any and all Yahtzee quotes on the site because he, as a game designer, has a personal grudge against the man;

-regularly censors any mention of Encyclopedia Dramatica or SomethingAwful, no matter the context, because he is cripplingly paranoid about the prospect of goons or ED editors "raiding" the site;

-is so utterly incompetent in the field of forum design that his so-called "efficiency hack" of the forums involved each thread being set as a separate table, which for those of you without coding experience is roughly equivalent to trying to do a powerpoint slideshow where every slide is on a different computer;

-related to the above as well as in general, he regularly purges criticism of himself or the website rather than actually confront it like an adult;

-and, to be perfectly blunt here, is probably one of the worst posters on his own forum, from a perspective of decency, courtesy, or sanity.

Yes, I hate Fast Eddie, and I will not deny that fact, because he is one of the biggest contributing factors to one of my once-favorite websites going to absolute hell. What I WILL argue is that I am somehow "blinded" by this, because the man is demonstrably nuts.

[Drolyt]

The problem comes from the fact that some of these trope names were misleading, or else had unfortunate implications.

I mean Sasami Syndrome for example. I mean yeah, she's more responsable than the other girls but that's because they ignored that she's like, twelve and the other girls were all either crazy or had a lot of growing up to do themselves, or both. Sasami is a gag option because she's a naive little girl who still technically fills the requirements. It's made clear that once she matures a bit she'd give the others a run for their money but that she's got a ways to go.



Sasami Syndrome? No idea what trope that is. The only Sasami I can think of is from Tenchi Muyo, I'm guessing this was a relationship trope?




Eh, I think that you kind of shot yourself in the foot there a bit with your examples. I mean Hamlet is certainly classier than springer, but most of that class was added post-production. You've really got to remember that the bulk of Shakespear's audience at the time was an uneducated mass and a lot of what he wrote reflected that.

At the same time a lot of Springer's draw comes from it's trashy guest's and stage fights, but that kind of thing also shines a bit of light on the human condition. I mean the show itself runs off hypocrisy, regret, prejudice, and attempted redemption on a very personal level. I mean if hundreds of people falling to eerily similar vices, getting into the same situations, and trying in their own incredibly messed up way to make amends doesn't shine a light on the human condition, what does?


I'm not getting your point about Shakespeare. He wrote for the common man, but he didn't write down to them. If anything his stories elevated them, got them thinking. Sure there was a lot of crude humor that is often missed if you aren't familiar with Elizabethan English, but that doesn't degrade from the higher themes. As for Springer, I'm not sure where that entered the discussion, but I don't see how that can be called art, or how it can be seen as showing a light on the human condition. You have to realize that these types of shows are carefully crafted to manipulate the people that come on, carefully selecting people and deliberately provoking them and egging them on to get reactions out of them. It is about as close to staged as you can get without having to sign a deal with the Screen Actors Guild.

You seem to have missed the point of the "True art is X" pages. They reference the sort of people can insist that only things that are "X" can qualify as art. It's nothing more than references to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy as applied to art.
I got that point and I don't disagree with it entirely, but they went too far and basically denied any distinction between true art and mindless consumption media. Or at least they used to. I just checked and they were massively cleaned out with the reasoning that TvTropes shouldn't be taking a stand on what true art is. Regardless the "True Art is X" tropes never described anything like a No True Scotsman fallacy and I get the impression that a lot of people on the internet don't understand how that fallacy is supposed to work.

[Axolotl]

While I largely agree with what, Drolyt is saying, I'll disagree that the site has no idea what the it wants to be. It wants to be a serious and useful site analysing all the cliches and concepts in media as well as the media they appear in. The problem is that while they're willing to destroy things that may make the site more of just a nerdy community (making the names more generic) nobody contributing to the site seems willing to actually putting in the effort needed to make the site more serious and useful.

I mean I think No Such Thing as Notability is good in that the idea of not deleting things because they're obscure is laudable. However it ignores that in reality there is notability and the site has glaring absences of notable works, and this stops it from actually being useful for artistic purposes. This isn't helped by a massively insular community supporting it.

[Trazoi]

you give fast eddie far too much credit.
I'm surprised I'm defending the guy myself. :smallbiggrin:

Actually, I think the reason why TV Tropes keeps having these troubles is entirely due to Fast Eddie; heck, it has to be given its his site and ultimately his responsibility. His edict of "TV Tropes is for fans only, no criticism whatsoever" is what killed the site; the culture shifted considerably and the analysis dried up. He wanted the site to self monitor itself, but didn't put any effort into cultivating the right sort of culture for that to happen.

Right now he's on the right track, but the problem is his monster has already been built, trained and trashing the village. He can't change the culture now with a litte nudge; he's got to do something drastic. Personally I don't think it's going to work and I suspect they'll not get their Google ad funding back permanently, but we'll see.

[Drolyt]

While I largely agree with what, Drolyt is saying, I'll disagree that the site has no idea what the it wants to be. It wants to be a serious and useful site analysing all the cliches and concepts in media as well as the media they appear in.
Sorry, I probably wasn't clear enough there. TvTropes definitely has a general idea of what it wants to be, but it isn't specific enough or clearly stated enough to prevent chaos. The counterexample would be Wikipedia. They have a clearly defined goal, to be a free online encyclopedia, and they have reams and reams of rules defining exactly how they will go about that. I don't necessarily agree with everything there, but at least it is clear.

[TheLaughingMan]

you give fast eddie far too much credit.

Eh, as much as I dislike Fast Eddie (cursing someone out for no reason does that to people), I'm pretty sure he's being sarcastic there. The man can do some things right.
I mean, he's gotta be able to navigate food into his pie-hole in order to run the site, so that makes at least one other instance.

[_Zoot_]

Censorship, insofar as it is defined as the suppression of ideas for the purpose of control, is always bad. I am somewhat shocked to see some people in this thread disagreeing. Censorship can never produce good results.

Really? Censorship can never produce good results? You wouldn't consider the victory of the allies in the Second World War to be a good result? They censored information almost as heavily as the Axis powers did. Or the current system of International relations, it is built on the ability of diplomats and states to hold one opinion about a country, but not need to have that opinion widely known.

While I agree that there is a need for citizens to be able to say what they think, and not be forced to toe the governments line, I don't feel that there is some divine right to it. I don't believe for a moment that it is a 'slippery slope' case; despite what some people believe the government is made up of Human beings, they are able to tell the difference between someone's need to express a legitimate opinion and someone's desire to say what ever is on their mind, no matter how utterly insane or hurtful it is.

I gather that the concept of free speech being an unassailable bastion is an American thing, because in Australia we don't have the same laws defending it to the same degree, yet, surprise surprise, we are not forced to live in a totalitarian state with no ability to express our selves. So I can safely say that there is at least one example (and I would point to the UK as a second) of a perfectly democratic country operating in the way it's citizens want with out everyone being able to say absolutely anything they God damn want.

[Elm11]

I can't help but wonder: If you dislike Fast Eddie and the way he runs the site so much, and you now dislike the site because certain pages have been removed for certain reasons, good or bad, then why don't you go somewhere else?

At the end of the day, mad or no, Fast Eddie is the site admin, and, mad or no, he has been the one who's kept the site running for years now. I don't know about these accusations of chucking hissy fits and locking threads (so I wouldn't mind if you could send a link my way) but if he's the site administrator, that's his call. I'll admit freely that I don't like it either if that's the case, but then again, I'm not the one running the show.

{{Scrubbed}}

[OracleofWuffing]

the page for Nabokov's Lolita was wiped,
I'm looking for clarifications that back up the accusation that content was blindly removed from the site. The example you are giving me right now is the very reason why "lolita" has entered the vernacular as a word that describes a sexually mature underage girl. Are you sure that's the example you want to go with when I'm asking for clarification on this?

[TheLaughingMan]

I can't help but wonder: If you dislike Fast Eddie and the way he runs the site so much, and you now dislike the site because certain pages have been removed for certain reasons, good or bad, then why don't you go somewhere else?

There are many terrible leaders, but there is only one TV Tropes. What you're saying sounds akin to "why don't you just leave the school club if you hate the president so much?"

We love our clubhouse, run-down as it is. We love our club-members, as divided as we are. We love to join our hands together and make something great, no matter what that may be. One man cannot change that, no matter who he may be. This is our club, together, and we'll see it through to its end, whenever that should be.

Yeah, it's still just a website at the end of the day, but one can't help but feel a bit attached to the sinking ship.

[Elm11]

Which is fair enough, but you still have to put up with your mean club president to do that.

[TheLaughingMan]

Which is fair enough, but you still have to put up with your mean club president to do that.

Hey, I never said we wouldn't complain. :smallbiggrin:

[Drolyt]

Really? Censorship can never produce good results? You wouldn't consider the victory of the allies in the Second World War to be a good result? They censored information almost as heavily as the Axis powers did. Or the current system of International relations, it is built on the ability of diplomats and states to hold one opinion about a country, but not need to have that opinion widely known.

While I agree that there is a need for citizens to be able to say what they think, and not be forced to toe the governments line, I don't feel that there is some divine right to it. I don't believe for a moment that it is a 'slippery slope' case; despite what some people believe the government is made up of Human beings, they are able to tell the difference between someone's need to express a legitimate opinion and someone's desire to say what ever is on their mind, no matter how utterly insane or hurtful it is.

I gather that the concept of free speech being an unassailable bastion is an American thing, because in Australia we don't have the same laws defending it to the same degree, yet, surprise surprise, we are not forced to live in a totalitarian state with no ability to express our selves. So I can safely say that there is at least one example (and I would point to the UK as a second) of a perfectly democratic country operating in the way it's citizens want with out everyone being able to say absolutely anything they God damn want.
I'm a bit confused. Your war example seems to be confusing keeping secrets with censorship, if I understand you right. Either that or you are referring to the censorship that did happen in WW2, but that wasn't in any way instrumental to the war effort and few people in modern day America think it was actually a good idea. As for the rest... uh, I don't want to break the rules here, and we are getting very close to politics. I do feel I should point out that in American Political Theory, rights like Freedom of Speech are usually considered to be inherent human rights rather than something granted by law, and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are only there to protect those rights that every human being already has, which is at least partially why we feel more strongly about them than some people in other countries. Beyond that, whether various policies in America or Australia are right or wrong, we aren't really supposed to discuss here.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Locked for review and scrubbing of real world politics, flaming, etc.