I got Google-Banned off of TvTropes.

Beholderess

What about annoying people who are progressively getting worse?

Chagen was getting progressively better. That is why I am quite sad about this ban and hope that appeal will work.

Bob

I didn't mean him. :P

Vorpy

I hope he doesn't get unbanned, for his sake.

randomtropeloser

This whole thing makes me feel sad.

glennmagusharvey

What the fuck is going on in this thread?

randomtropeloser

The topic seems to have derailed into discussing the mental well-being of tropers, mainly Chagen.  Like Vorpy said, he may be better off just forgetting about TvT.  At least for a while.

glennmagusharvey

I generally agree with that, though I wouldn't put it harshly the way Vorpy did.

Trash_Vortex

Believe me, that is not harsh.

randomtropeloser

Hoping he never gets unbanned might be kind of harsh, but he'll probably be able to accomplish a lot more without such a huge time sink in his life.  I know I would.

Vorpy

That's called "being blunt."

It's the passive-agressive way of being a dick, or trying to force honesty to be offensive.

It's something I am learning to pick up.

I wasn't trying to be offensive. It's just people on TVT are dicks and bad reps are generally not fun to have.

Bob

'S not really passive aggressive. I would actually say it's closer to aggressive-passive, but I don't even know if that's a thing.

Also, it might be best for him in the long run.

glennmagusharvey

Being blunt =/= being a dick.  "being blunt" is not an excuse for being a dick.

Vorpy

Tell that to everyone on the internet then gmh.

glennmagusharvey

I just did.  This webpage is public.

Vorpy

Good show, old chap.

Vorpy

How negative/generally unpleasant do you have to be to be considered a dick?

Khwarizmi

Relevant.

Chagen

I'm bored, and wondering if I could still edit the wiki.

Maybe I could start contributing. Then I'll be contributing to the site, and the mods might be more partial to unbanning me.Think of it like community service of a sorts. I'll do work and prove that I bring something useful to the wiki.

I mean, this probably wont work, but it's a shot.

Trash_Vortex

The mods don't want examples, they need articles cleaning up, correctly sorted, natter removed, facual innacuracies corrected, that sort of thing. Not that you can't do it, just saying that's what you'd be doing.

Chagen

Then I'll do that. The only problem is that I fear spoilers, but I guess I can suck it up.

RocketDude

Yeah, currently, I only police the articles on my Watchlist, moving YMMV examples, cutting tropes that don't fit, etc.

Haven't done anything about existing Natter yet, though.

glennmagusharvey

I have a high tolerance for natter so I rarely go around removing it.

In fact, if I had my way I'd mostly keep the commentary until it got too long for me to read the article.  And even then I'd keep some of it because it's amusing.

Anonus

I only started zapping it recently. I have always kind of liked Natter and only realized it was an impediment to readability recently (I used to ascribe a certain "experience" to TV Tropes).

Komodin

I, for one, have a pretty low tolerance for natter. If I see it on a main page, I will either remove it altogether, or move it to the discussion pages. I prefer my wikis to not be utterly schizophrenic.

Central Avenue

I used to kinda like natter because it seemed kinda informal, but since I've been reading the wiki again lately I've been removing it. I realized that not only does it make the page hard to read, but it's kinda annoying. I don't really need to see a little back-and-forth about whether character x's mother is an example of trope y.

Stormtroper

I used to dislike that adding to the wiki is apparently second to tweaking with what is already there.

I have a high tolerance for natter so I rarely go around removing it.

Same here. That, and I just dislike deleting others' "contributions" in general unless it's egregious, and if it has useful information buried somewhere, I try to keep it.

DYRE

It's a wiki.  Nobody owns anything they write on it.  Once they add it, it's free for other people to edit.  Or delete, if appropriate.  In the case of natter, it's appropriate to delete it because it's annoying and doesn't say anything constructive.

glennmagusharvey

Well, it depends on the natter.

First of all, in examples lists, I will almost always zoom to whatever examples are from works that I am familiar with, and just read those.  So I rarely notice natter in the first place.

That said, back-and-forth natter between members discussing how much an example fits a trope can sometimes be very useful in helping the reader understand the trope.  So as long as such behavior isn't excessive, I leave it in, because I think it's helpful.

And joke natter can be rather entertaining as long as it isn't done excessively that it clutters up the page.

So I actually kinda like the extra content.  Though it would be nice if it were kept in side-panels or something other than the main text.

DYRE

Actually, I admit that the natter on OlderThanTheyThink should mostly be kept.  And there are possibly other instances where pages benefit from it.  In that case, the whole trope is about people being mistaken about what the first use of something was, so it kind of makes sense to not just delete incorrect entries (well, unless they're something like someone saying one thing was the original when it actually came out after the more well-known example, or something) and just add an extra bullet point correcting it, or whatever.

Most other times I've seen it though, it doesn't really seem to help much and it could easily be condensed into a single thing.

glennmagusharvey

Now there's some natter that should be moved to various commentary pages, such as "X Meets Y" for instances other than when Word Of God or almost all critical commentary noting that the work fits that trope.  This is to avoid Square Peg Round Trope instances.