I want to join Something Awful now

Katrika · 2011-08-01 19:41:07

Oh, whoops, yeah, sorry.

Er, can I assume that this is the right thread to talk about the thread on SA, though?

MillerCross · 2011-08-01 19:41:23

Yes, yes it is.

Katrika · 2011-08-01 19:47:11

Then I'd like to say that while the thread on SA brings up a lot of good points, I don't really like the widespread troper bashing. For every troper that's out in the open making an asshole of themselves, there's a lot more working quietly on actually, you know, analyzing trends in works of fiction through the use of tropes. Also, there's quite a few intellegent, funny people I know from the TvT forums, and I don't think it's really fair to make fun of Beholderess for her use of 'this one' without actually looking at the content of her posts, which are fairly thoughtful and sensitive and not at all something to make fun of. Nobody from SA is probably reading this, I just wanted to say it.

Um...I hope that's okay.

Vorpy · 2011-08-01 19:51:37

Well don't forget, that they don't care about the intelligent ones, nor is the thread a place to discuss the cool, intelligent tropers, because there wouldn't be much to say. Since the dumb, stereotypical generalized tropers seem more entertaining and are less liked than people such as Zudak, Tzetze, Beholderess and their ilk, it's more comfortable to poke fun at them, or rip them a new asshole on another site for their transgressions.

vandro · 2011-08-01 19:53:40

I find it pretty ridiculous to make fun of someone's speech. I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't, anyway.

Elbeem · 2011-08-01 19:57:07

"If you allow bigots and paedophiles a voice, people are going to assume they represent the site's opinions in some way. Not coming down against that sort of behavior looks like condoning it."

Hasty-generalizations are still hasty-generalizations, even if you have an excuse for it. I'm not convinced this particular excuse is a good one, as there were several instances where forum posts were brought forth for mocking, but dissenting TVTropes voices either weren't mentioned or were downplayed.

And, honestly, generalizing is fine if the intent is to take the piss out of the people you're targeting. It just makes it more likely for the targets to not take your otherwise legitimate criticisms seriously, because people will (in some cases, rightly) feel that your opinions are based on an inaccurate view of the community.

Katrika · 2011-08-01 19:57:35

Vorpy: Well, yeah, but it irks me when they quote an idiot and basically go 'lol tropers amiright?' Tropers who post on the forums =/= the majority of people who trope, and the idiots on the forum =/= every troper, and when most people in the thread are ignoring that fact, it turns into a circlejerk.

RocketDude · 2011-08-01 20:22:32

Eh, the fact that some Tropers migrated there does kinda make me sad, but I can get over it.

Nova · 2011-08-01 21:47:40

Question for the IJBM crowd - what happened to Guy In White? He turned up quite early on in this thread to defend TVT, but I seem to recall someone mentioning he got banned from IJBM and TVT proper. I also found an example of how not to post that actually has a happy ending. Guy makes a thread to solicit votes for a juggling competition, arouses the wrath of mod, but responds well, apologises and wins over critics with his apology video.

Guy in White was banned for talking about how he was going to evade his ban over at TVTropes, as well as posting links to proxy sites.

While normally I couldn't care less if somebody evades a ban, they will not use this forum to talk about how to do it.

See this thread.

ClockworkUniverse · 2011-08-01 21:48:47

Also, it turns out he was already a ban evader on TV Tropes. His ban was for unrelated reasons and the previous evasion wasn't confirmed until later.

Not relevant to why he was banned here, but noteworthy.

All Nines · 2011-08-01 21:48:49

Well, I was gonna answer, but Cygan and INUH beat me to it. Thanks, guys.

Myrmidon · 2011-08-01 21:51:10

I don't know why GuyInWhite doesn't just avoid posting in the forums, because he clearly has no idea as to how you act in an internet forum to avoid getting banned, and not being able to view TvTropes is always the thing he bitches about when he talks about why he ban-evaded.

glennmagusharvey · 2011-08-01 21:55:50

Re original topic of this thread:

I ain't payin' for my internet message board entertainment. I enjoy it as it is.

Not to mention that some of the...*ahem* more interesting characters are, well, rather interesting and often somewhat amusing too.

----

IN WHICH GMH GIGANTPOSTS IN A THREAD THAT HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN WATCHING LONG AGO

@Myrmidon > Incidentally, on the SA forums
"I think what never ceases to amaze me about TVTropes is that as a whole they have this incredibly narrow definition of "enjoyment" that it pretty much dooms them to only loving anime and young adult novels. ..."

...young adult novels? Tropers read that?

@Forzare > I liked Animal Farm!

I liked Lord of the Flies, Of Mice and Men, Pride and Prejudice, and others.

@DarkDecapodian > ^ So that's, what, four of the old guard gone in the last month? Shit. v Commando Dude, Miijhal, Shlapintogan and Bellacide.

Didn't know he left, didn't know she left, didn't know he left, barely heard of him/her.

@Vorpy > I have been using too many memes.

You haven't known me back in my last undergrad year.

@Juan_Carlos > I believe that this rule isn't necessary, as it's both redundant (Gee, we don't like insulting nor idiotic posts, who woulda thunk) and nothing more than a mere mission statement.

It basically is a mission statement.

I could, if I really wanted to, use it to justify immediate, drastic mod action against various problem posters and repeat offenders.

@Counterclock > @Cygan: The evolution of words is a beautiful thing, but since I come from a time when Dick means a private investigator, I don't believe that's very fitting for the situation at hand ^_^

Strangely, it's fitting when you describe a "dick" as "a sex machine that gets all the chicks".

@Counterclock > Sherlock Holmes and the IJBM Forums.

10/10 WOULD READ

@INUH > Forzare, you're definitely right that the "don't start shit" rule is far less enforced than it should be. I'm going to pay more attention to it in the future.

I'll also admit that I am often too lenient and willing to give people the benefit of the doubt, such as by giving people strongly worded warnings rather than locking threads and banning people left and right.

That said, I don't really like locking threads and banning people left and right, when the point of this form is to make people able to talk about stuff.

@INUH > This, really, has been the root of all our problems.

I guess I oughta act more quickly then.

@Everest > Also, would anyone be upset if I continue addressing problem posters as I have here and refrain from sugarcoating bullshit? I think it would help if that was common policy for mods, rather than just going "guys, quit it. Locking.", or "Thumped" as the sole answer apart from bannination.

I love this idea, to be honest.

It makes it clear what is the problem, and actually promotes people's discussing a problem and gradually figuring out how to solve it, rather than avoiding it like it didn't exist.

@Forzare > ^ I wouldn't. I think that kind of more forceful, direct moderation is what the site really needs.

Hmm, point taken. Though I think that we mods should still make it clear why we do what we do, be it warning, locking, or banning.

@Everest > On that note, I don't think it should be frowned upon to say if you dislike someone, rather than gradually and continually implying it; it might help them to rein themselves in. Or drive them away, if they're that detrimental.

This cites a key question that we as mods have to deal with: How much should we encourage people to be open to each other, but not let this become a source of drama?

@Juan_Carlos > A ban is a ban, regardless of whether it was revoked or not. It still leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the involved.

That said, I think that people we've banned have generally been relatively understanding about it. The two exceptions I can think of are a political philosophy spammer and someone who gave a user grief then got warned privately by the mods then started arguing with the mods.

@Vorpy > Why not just apply STFU bans/Probations/Tempbans like most other sites? If somebody is being stupid you can ban them for an hour or until you think they cooled down, and then unban them.

I guess shorter tempbans might be useful for temporary cooldown periods.

@Juan_Carlos > As a question, can we stop an user from making threads?

Oh, I see where this came from now.

@Everest > Should we make it a general rule to put someone with two strikes on Probation irrevocably? That might help a bit, as a deterrent.

I don't really like this; it would seem really irritating. Rather than making problem posters hate us, I think we should aim to make sure that they understand what they're doing wrong.

@Juan_Carlos > As a rule of thumb, I think that moderation should think of applying punishments in a case by case basis rather than having a progressive "X -> Y -> Z" deal, but that's just me.

As of now, this is part of our policy, though relatively rarely used.

@MisaAmane > Half-Year Ban/Permanent Ban

I know this wasn't the point of your post, but just for comment, I think that if we apply progressively stronger penalties and it gets to the point of half-year ban, it's more work than necessary, since we're talking about a major repeat offender.

@CentralAvenue > The nitpicker in me wants to point out that reading the forum and drawing with Goggles are things that you can do even if you're banned, but I'm not sure that adds anything to conversation.

We're aware that viewing is still possible for banned users. Let us know if you think this policy should be changed.

@Scrye2 > FUCK NO, YOU RETARD! It's cuz it has swirls of cinnamon in every bite!

I thought it was swirls of cinnamon and sugar.

@Meeble, @Scrye2, @Neo_Crimson, etc. > [SA, TVT, and IJBM]

Holy shit, multi-track site topic drifting.

@Scrye2 > @EVEREST! WHY WOULD YOU LINK SOMETHING LIKE THAT????

Hey, at least he didn't link the source material. The meme is actually pretty funny in its absolutely numbing stupidity.

@Miijhal > Kodomo no Jikan, I.E., that anime where the little girl tries to fuck her teacher. Even mentioning it in the Anime forum will get you banned.

Oh, I forgot the other reason why I don't feel like joining SA.

I'm just not their kinda person anyway. I don't like gags on topics. As much as I'm personally sick of all the arguing over lolicon from the last time we had a big spate of it, I would not do things like shitspam it to kill the thread (if I were a member) or lock and warn/ban (if I were a moderator).

I also don't particularly like their snarking and flaming stuff for the hell of it. This isn't endemic to them; this is all over the internet, and you have lots of people doing this to seem edgy, to look more sophisticated, or what have you. I'm just not a fan of it. On the other hand, I'm surprisingly tolerant of arguments that go on and on and on--sometimes participating in them myself--as long as there's something to argue over that's not just people rehashing things. So yeah, they probably wouldn't be a fan of me either.

END OF PART 1

Vorpy · 2011-08-01 21:59:46

inb4 PART 2

Forzare · 2011-08-01 21:59:47

I liked Lord of the Flies, Of Mice and Men, Pride and Prejudice, and others.

Lord of the Flies was great too. Of Mice and Men wasn't bad. Never read P&P.

Scrye2 · 2011-08-01 22:04:37

Good god, there's a sequel to that?

All Nines · 2011-08-01 22:04:41

"I don't really like this; it would seem really irritating."

That's the point. Aside from stopping dramatic threads cold, that is. It's supposed to be irritating because it's supposed to be a deterrent on top of a protective measure. And if they're a problem poster anyway, I don't particularly care if they dislike our moderation policies; they obviously demonstrated that well enough by getting banned in the first place. Whereas continually trying to explain their offenses gets us nowhere and belittles them without reasonable consequence in between that and the step of banning.

Nova · 2011-08-01 22:06:41

Good god, there's a sequel to that?

You do not know Glenn very well. This is a short post for him.

He probably just ran up against the character limit.

glennmagusharvey · 2011-08-01 22:27:01

PART 2

@Scrye2 > There's two active threads where the following is applicable but since it was linked in this one, I'll just say it here. That shit is exactly why I dismiss anime as a whole. Am I aware that not all anime is like that? Sure, but there's certainly a strong enough presence of it for it to give anime a bad rep. I know it doesn't technically hurt anyone, but still, it puts me in the position that I'm willing to fore-go a few noteworthy titles in order to disassociate myself with the fanbase. It doesn't really matter what people think, but at the end of the day, if you're standing next to a racist redneck fuck and you just happen to be wearing a white hoodie that's a little too pointed at the top, do you really want a bunch of black people walking up and seeing you next to the redneck?

Even though I disagree with Scrye's phrasing, I must say I fully understand what his perspective is, and feel the same way sometimes.

@Neo_Crimson > No I mean if I'm linked there from another site and want to go back, I right click on the back button and find that the first 5-6 entries are all the same SA page.

I don't know about SA's site, but I've had this happen to me on various other sites. I just chalk it up to crappy coding and use the back drop-down menu; I have no idea why it occurs.

@INUH > IJBM:While looking through the Know Your Meme page, I realized that "Pomf" is a mistransliteration and I can't unnotice it.

Even better.

@nohaynicklibre > kingharkinian_pomf.png

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL5iyPbI1-Q

@AHR > People turning into rutabagas and being eaten makes no sense. But there is a fetish for it.

Wait, seriously?

@nohaynicklibre > I think Japanese (or from anywhere else) laws regarding relations between cousins aren't as strict as American ones

There's also less probability of nasty genetic material shared between them.

@INUH > ^^^Apparently some people consider the derail worth discussing. If you aren't one of them, too bad. Feel free to talk about SA and try to rerail the thread.

Yep. In case a clarification of the rules is necessary: Yes, you are allowed to rerail a conversation intentionally, back to its original topic. Maybe we should edit the rules for this.

@MadassAlex > Damn, this thread got stupid.

Behold, the story of the internet.

@Everest > Oh wait, here's another idea for probation: could we program something that allows a mod to cut off a user's access to certain threads? Like, if Chagen comes back and starts shitting up someone else's thread, remove him, and if he has to be removed from too many, permaban?

I'd say if someone who's already on probation is still doing that, then they're pretty conclusively not learning, and ought to be temp- or permabanned, whichever is more appropriate.

@Shlapintogan > For what it's worth, Probations on SA are basically "You fucked up just bad enough to not merit a ban, but you can't post for x amount of time." There IS a probationary period that can last up to 100000 hours. If there were a way to put people on a permissions list above banned but below member (you could call it "Probation" or "Probated") that prevents them from posting or creating threads, that would be ideal.

This sounds like our tempban anyway, if you can't post at all but can still view. It only seems to make a difference there because there's a difference between losing your account (and membership fee investment) altogether and simply losing posting ability.

@Forzare > Well, if you can't hardcode it into the role, if a problem poster comes in to shit all over a legitimate thread and turns it into a dramafest, couldn't a mod say "Hey, stop posting in this thread or get banned?" Or will that seem too harsh?

No, not at all. That oughta happen rightfully, with anyone that has a drama history. "Stop doing this because it's causing drama; continue and get ban" is quite an adequate warning in my opinion.

Not to mention that we give 15-minute notifications before bans anyway.

@Juan_Carlos > @Shlapintogan: I've mentioned before that the 0 rule is just a redundant mission statement.

Yes, that's why it's not rule 1.

@Malkavian > It's the reason I stopped going to OTC. I was tired of hearing about muslim conspiracies and how Megaman and Metal Gear Solid are 'realistic'.
@TuefelHundenIV > Oh lord not the school systems are prisons shit again.

This is why I don't click on those threads.

@Juan_Carlos > Way I see it, importing drama should be an instant ban. Impersonating users deliberatly too.

Since usernames are not editable, impersonating usernames deliberately (which should be easily discernable from accidental cases) does in fact warrant instant ban. We had some people doing that way back when. It's not as easy with the current system where we have to approve new members, which technically is supposed to be a temporary system since the board software won't just let us do without this or a captcha but which we still haven't gotten around to doing away with, but...yeah.

As for importing drama, I don't want to make that an instant ban since (1) it's something that needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis, and (2) I want people to be able to talk freely around here about things, as long as it stays civil, and I think that punishing it with instant ban would discourage people from speaking their mind about things. That said, we DO lock threads that involve importing/exporting drama, we do warn members who engage in this behavior, and we have additional rules (which should be written in) such as "don't mention people by name" (not a rule I made or particularly like, but one that the other mods came up with).

I did like the time that Bobby and a TVT-forum-banned user from a site that rivals TVT (can't remember the name at the moment) were able to use IJBM to talk things out. I was going to lock the thread for importing drama but I saw that they actually started talking more peacefully and came to an understanding. I am fine with this site being used for that.

@Cygan > You do not know Glenn very well. This is a short post for him.

No, that wasn't short at all.

I just wanted to split it up so it wouldn't get too insanely overwhelmingly WTFreaking long.

Vorpy · 2011-08-01 22:29:25

@Glenn

glennmagusharvey · 2011-08-01 22:29:53

MillerCross · 2011-08-01 22:42:46

As for importing drama, I don't want to make that an instant ban since (1) it's something that needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis, and (2) I want people to be able to talk freely around here about things, as long as it stays civil, and I think that punishing it with instant ban would discourage people from speaking their mind about things

You and I seem to be using different definitions of what "importing drama" entails.

Just now, in this very thread, we're discussing with SA ways to improve our site as well as receiving two posters who I, at least, hold in very high regard.

Is that "importing drama"?

Fuck no.

Importing drama would be if we used this thread to go at SA and insult them and complain about them while said two posters just came here to diss us. It also would be exporting drama, but that's neither here or there.

Nova · 2011-08-01 22:43:22

No, that wasn't short at all.

Compared to your usual, I dunno.

Central Avenue · 2011-08-01 22:47:43

It was pretty typical length for Glenn's "long" posts, really, though he only really does those when he's catching up on a long thread.

Stormtroper · 2011-08-01 22:47:56

It's not importing drama if there's no drama, is it?

glennmagusharvey · 2011-08-01 22:48:11

^^^^ What you're talking about is actually what I'd call importing/exporting a war.

As for drama, I mean that someone drags a shitstorm from somewhere else into here, or someone brings a shitstorm from here to somewhere else.

I'm usually like, "this thread might be importing drama", and then I'll check out the thread, and (assuming I'm the only mod on the issue at the time) I make a judgement call as to whether it's importing drama or not. If it isn't but is getting close, I warn; if it is already, depending on severity as well as the nature of the original thread topic (whether the original topic involves drama) I might warn people to stop it or lock the thread altogether with a note saying it was because of im/ex drama.

Vorpy · 2011-08-01 22:49:08

Importing Drama examples
Hey sup IJBM, I really hate this guy from gaiaonline. Do you think you can help me flame him and shit on his thread?
Hey sup IJBM, I just got banned from TVTropes for calling Madrugada a cunt, do you happen to know any good proxies I can use?
Hey sup IJBM, want to look at this shitstorm I caused on a different thread that's happening this moment? Oh, they found this site. Oh well, isn't it so shitstormy?

Exporting Drama example
hey sup IJBM, some asshole is talking shit about me on another site, I'm going there from IJBM to fuck shit up. Wish me luck, or feel free to help.
hey sup IJBM, want to troll this furry IRC channel I don't like?
hey sup IJBM, look at this dumb ass thread I found, do you think we should spamrape it?
hey sup IJBM, I came here because one of your members just got done sending death threats to my sister, and I will not put up with this at all.
hey sup IJBM, one of your members is making a thread about something I don't find funny, at all. Tell them to stop.

MillerCross · 2011-08-01 22:52:33

As for drama, I mean that someone drags a shitstorm from somewhere else into here, or someone brings a shitstorm from here to somewhere else.

How is that different from said war?

All I'm saying is, that it's not wrong to discuss topics that involve other sites (nd as this place is still pretty much a TvT spin off, it'd also make a lot of the attitudes in here wrong and bannable)

all I'm saying is that if we don't discuss this things in a civil manner to each other, then it should be a bannable offense. Why? Because 1. It gives us a bad rep as a "protection site" where you can bitch, attack and produce libel against another person and 2. Because it still goes against our rules. At least, the number 0 one you've mentioned before it's a mission statement.

glennmagusharvey · 2011-08-01 22:54:03

> all I'm saying is that if we don't discuss this things in a civil manner
to each other, then it should be a bannable offense. Why? Because 1. It
gives us a bad rep as a "protection site" where you can bitch, attack
and produce libel against another person and 2. Because it still goes
against our rules. At least, the number 0 one you've mentioned before
it's a mission statement.

Point taken.

captainbrass · 2011-08-02 02:34:49

If commenting on the SA thread is on topic, I'd go along with a lot of what Katrika says. They make some completely valid points, but some of what they say is exaggerated and unfair to most people on TVT. Also, I can't really admire people who like to kick others up the arse, figuratively speaking, even if the others in question are walking around in T-shirts with "Please Kick Me" on them.

The site generally is a bit too gonzo for me, although reading some of their posts they're clearly not all the mindless idiots some would have you believe. And then there is the money.

What really bugs me is that I feel I can't say this on TVT - but that's another discussion.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

I want to join Something Awful now

Comments