Can someone tell me why are using tvtropes as a reference here? Last I saw, we do things differently here. We discuss it here among each other, not use tvtropes as a yardstick.
Can someone tell me why are using tvtropes as a reference here? Last I saw, we do things differently here. We discuss it here among each other, not use tvtropes as a yardstick.
But they still consider tvtropes the source for undeniable info. People might hate what this site thinks is accurate or inaccurate, but it would make the wiki more of an unique alternative.
Of course you don't.
And, given your obstinate refusal to accept any additions to the category (whatever we're calling it) that is not also listed as one on TV Tropes, means that I find it very ironic that you're going to say "neither website is perfect". Because from where I'm standing, if that were true, we'd have villains listed as Pure Evil that are not considered so on TV Tropes. But...we don't.
Neither website is perfect, huh?
Amen to this. I mean seriously, it's ridiculous.
let's not - I said my piece but I also made it clear why pursuing further is a bad idea.. we can work on ways to further our own wiki identity versus tropes but some parts (especially complete monster and whatnot) are issues best just left because it never ends well.
my comment wasn't a means to start a fight - that's been done too many times.. I meant what I said: "it's a subject best left alone".
I wouldn't like to say it's "best left alone". We shouldn't have to yield to another site just because it's popular. However, I understand the headaches it would cause.
there's ways to tackle sensitive subjects, public threads are rarely one of them - especially on internet, where threads are often hijacked, derailed or just used to one-up by all levels (users and admins alike) : the best way is to find a means of getting a neutral ground (on a platform an admin can not simply close when the debate doesn't go in their favor) and starting talks that way.. those in power have to be willing to negotiate for a start..
so until we get better replies than "I don't see the problem", "this is unnecessary drama" or "x is to blame" it is best to focus on better things.
for change to happen at all there has to be a willingness to allow it, so far on this particular subject there's not a willingness to allow meaningful change : just arguments and closure of threads etc.
so until we get better replies than "I don't see the problem", "this is unnecessary drama" or "x is to blame" it is best to focus on better things.
for change to happen at all there has to be a willingness to allow it, so far on this particular subject there's not a willingness to allow meaningful change : just arguments and closure of threads etc.
I agree with this too, overall. Only question is what kind of neutral ground could that be? After all, admins do have certain powers and privileges. Even if we agree to have a place for discussion that an admin can't just shut down when it doesn't go their way, what guarantee would we have that that promise would be kept? After all, if tempers flare, and a given admin gets angry, they might still exercise their power to close a discussion thread down anyway.