Reply – Re: TV Tropes is actually a horrible place.
Your Name
Subject
Message
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: TV Tropes is actually a horrible place.
— by AnaMardoll AnaMardoll
I'm really not sure why you are asking all this on my site and not, say, the TV Tropes site. I don't own the site, I just link to the trope pages as needed. However, to answer:

Sorry for missing it. But why aren't the bad members, some of whom advocate (child) rape, banned? Doesn't that deserve policing, self or otherwise?
Probably because "banning" on the site would be functionally meaningless, based on what little I know of the mechanics of the site. They don't even have classic accounts; they have a "cookie-me-up" system that lets you register a name and not much more. They don't even register an email address, so banning someone repeatedly would do nothing more than take up dozens/hundreds/thousands of names until they got tired of "re-registering", which takes less than 30 seconds to do. Many places choose not to ban trolls because they believe that doing so is enough of a response to encourage them to continue; I do not have enough insight into TV Tropes' administration decisions to guess if that's the case here, but considering it's a Wiki site, it wouldn't surprise me since that seems pretty standard for Wikis.

And that's one of the fundamental differences between SA and TV Tropes. On SA, when horrible people post horrible things, they get called out and banned. And on TV Tropes, as I mentioned earlier, when horrible people post horrible things, anyone who calls them out gets banned.
I've never seen this happen, and the Something Awful threads you point to -- what I read of the opening posts, anyway -- don't link to this happening. On the threads I've been in, which is largely limited to the ginormous FATAL thread, people have been exceedingly quick to call out racism, sexism, etc. so it would seem that one's experience varies across the site. Again, Not A Safe Place, but that's a far jump to "actually a horrible place".  

There's one hell of a difference between "a reactionary 'hit back' reflex when people, including small children, strike [you]" and a reflex to CHOKESLAM A TODDLER. If a small child hit me, I too would have to suppress an urge to hit back. If a toddler hit me, I doubt I'd even feel much pain or the urge to retaliate. I certainly would not feel the same urge as the troper, which is apparently to take a two-year old and GRAB HIR BY THE NECK, LIFT HIR UP, AND SLAM HIR TO THE FLOOR. I'm sorry, but that quote does make that troper a bad person, and it says a lot about TV Tropes that nobody called said troper out on it.
Here is the actual quote:

This troper has been faced with the dilemma of what to do when the child hits first. Due to being subjected to playground violence as a child, being hit by someone tends to make me react violently and instantly, without thinking. I'm in my early twenties now and have a niece who's a toddler that thinks she can get her way by hitting people who are much bigger and stronger than she is. It is exceedingly hard not to react violently back, but I do try not to give in to my urges to chokeslam her every time she hits me.
The "chokeslam" reads like sarcasm/exaggeration to me. If it doesn't to you, well, that's what the Your Mileage May Vary page is for. As for what you, personally, would or wouldn't feel the urge to do in reaction to being struck, well, that's why being hit is apparently not a *trigger* for you. It would not surprise me even in the least for someone with a trigger against being hit to feel an urge to strike out reflexively at a child. I'm not going to judge someone for having that urge, especially when they've very clearly stated that acting on the urge is something inappropriate that they are actively fighting against.

I want to reiterate that: I am not okay with calling anyone a bad person based solely on the basis of this quote. If you think that makes me a bad person, so be it, but that is my opinion.

Troper Tales was deleted August 14, 2011. That page was left alone for FIVE MONTHS, maximum. Nobody in the administration looked at it and thought it should be deleted.
So a site with thousands (if not millions at this point) pages at this point, which can be created and edited by anyone in the world with a single push of a button, and which is (as far as I know) administered entirely by an unpaid volunteer staff in their free time took five months to notice an objectionable thread and deleted it? That... actually seems like a pretty good reaction time to me.

Everything above that line was a quote from a white supremacist website, and he is on record as having posting similar racist sentiments as early ago as July. He was not banned until October.
Oh... so they do ban people after all. But it takes them... four months to do so? Again, it's a really big site. I'm not seeing this as a damning thing, I'm sorry.

Re: Porn in its various shapes and forms, I've generally found that porn in general is too complicated for me to express an opinion on right now. I'm sorry, but I'll have to leave it at that.

---

You're entitled to your opinion, and as I said in my post I appreciate the reiteration that TV Tropes is Not A Safe Space.

Having said that, I have no interest whatsoever in judging another site for their moderation policy or lack thereof. If you look hard enough, there is/are rape apologetics and victim blaming in the comments on THIS site and I've not banned anyone yet. I suppose it'd be easy for someone on Something Awful to make a thread about how Dreadfully Awful my site is because I didn't ban someone who posts on a rape apologetics board, but to post such a thread would fail to take into account WHY I don't ban jerks willy-nilly. (I have my reasons, but to post them would take more time than I have at the moment.)