TV Tropes jumps the shark

[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.

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?

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 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 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. 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. 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 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 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.