Yup. Sigh.

TV Tropes...I had avoided it for so long. So I read this on the front page:

"Tropes transcend television. They exist in life."

What...what does this even mean? A "trope" in real life is a theoretical informational unit of instantiated property offered as a solution to the philosophical Problem of Universals. It has fuck all to do with pop culture cliches like characters baring their midriffs or having their continuity retroactively altered.

If the people who passionately edited their Yu-Gi-Oh, Star Trek, and Batman articles would become literary theorists, Classicists, logicians, or linguists, and used their passion for classifying minutiae for good, we'd advance our culture by like 200 years in the next 20 days.

That said, I wonder if Naylor ever reads his various user-edited articles. He doesn't seem like the sort to edit his own articles.

>>13657
Correction: Scientology for basement dwellers

DONT TALK BAD ABOUT NAYLOR GUYS I WILL EDIT THE TVTROPES PAGE!!!

**I'M WARNING YOU**

>>13657

It's mostly a spin on the whole "life imitates art" thing, and by extension they're trying to insinuate that tropes can be found in real life. Which when you consider things like unwarranted self-importance a trope.... well, yeah.

>>13657

>>That said, I wonder if Naylor ever reads his various user-edited articles. He doesn't seem like the sort to edit his own articles.

I disagree.

He seems exactly like the sort to edit his own articles if they were speaking bad about him.

I still wouldn't put it past one of his idiotic fans though...

>>13662

Huh, I guess I take Naylor as one who withdraws from places where he has little control. Like, he rants on his blogs but that's 'cos anyone who disagrees is deleted. But does Naylor even go on messageboards (not meaning chan-style ones, 'o course)?

He just seems like one who would roll his eyes at user-edited stuff.

>>13660

I can't wait until there are localized pages on TV Tropes: "Northwood High School tropes: baring midriff! Reusing plots! Teachers not doing research!"

In the past, Jay has expressed sentiments to the effect that wikis are inherently communistic and too error-prone and opinionated to be reliable, so I don't know if he'd lower himself to tampering with them.

Btw, I just went to the Dethroning Moment of Suck page, and someone had deleted all the Jay Naylor entries. I re-added them by copying them from the page history folder. So yeah, either Naylor himself or a dedicated fan is trying to remove all negative comments about his comics on TVTropes. If someone else likes Jay Naylor's works that's fine, but for fucks sake, don't just summarily delete all criticism of him!

>>13666

>>But does Naylor even go on messageboards (not meaning chan-style ones, 'o course)?

There's been some theories that he may visit this board. Of course, he obviously wouldn't post for fear of him being told how wrong he is... about everything.

He'd bitch and moan about it here, then go run to one of his blogs and bitch and moan about it there. Than he'd probably cast us all as a couple of strawmen characters. (you guys know the arc from better days I'm talking about)

>>I can't wait until there are localized pages on TV Tropes: "Northwood High School tropes: baring midriff! Reusing plots! Teachers not doing research!"

That would be funny as hell.

>>13673
hm, I wouldn't mind seeing a beaver strawman (since naylor doesn't have any minor characters, only strawmen) on OL. the worst he could do to me would be not having any commas when I talk. or maybe he would just make stuff up, since he's obviously not above that.

ooh, or maybe he could make a wolf strawman that rants about copyrights all the time, a la sage.

>>13670

Doesn't it say on the DMOS page, "Don't delete these entries?"

>>13677
Why, yes. Yes it does.

>>13677

make sure write into the Talk page for that article that there is whitewashing afoot. Tvtropes has people to roll back that kind of alterations

>>13655

Yeah, I noticed that. "Don't mind me" is from me--I'd been banging on that article for three days before someone came in and started yanking out almost every thing I did.

>>13717

Wow, I hadn't even noticed the levels the editor went to--yanked out Hatedom, Your Mileage May Vary, Wallbanger, Acceptable Targets, Author Avatar, Wall Of Text, You Fail Biology Forever, Ho Yay, Memetic Mutation, even the quote at the top and rewrote the description to make Fisk sound like he was just raised differently. This is a whitewash if ever I saw one.

>>13718

Small Name Big Ego was yanked too, from both articles. I noticed that both page quotes went.

That's the thing about defensive furries, they always want to protect their fap material providers from themselves. Just like you're not allowed to actually quote Hardiman's "fandom rants" on his wikifur page, because doing so keeps his buddy on the admin staff from whitewashing them into being "just a joke".

I guess similarly we're not allowed to quote Jay's racist/misogynistic comics, even though they're right there, for anyone to read, in the comic itself.

Has anyone actually tried to fix the TvTropes page yet? And if so, has this unknown furry tried to blank it agian?

>>13720

Yes, it has been fixed. No, it's stayed fixed so far.

>>13722

indeed

i made a post on the Better Days Talk page, reminding anyone who reads it that the Page History shows everything is changed so things can be restored very quickly

Most of that is biased tbh, but I don't suppose TVTropes is WIkipedia

>>13758

TVTropes is reliant on actual explanations for examples of a trope, so if it seems a bit biased, provide evidence that the tropes don't apply, and eventually the example will be removed (or, at the very least, the evidence against the trope applying will remain intact).

Prove that any of the examples that seem "biased" to you don't apply to Better Days or Original Life. Go ahead. I can't wait to see you try.

>>13654
I'm not entirely familiar with how this site works- Who posted the original article on it and why do they have the ability to delete criticism of it?

>>13763

It works like a wikipage. Anyone who thinks it's been biased one way or the other can come in and edit it. It's a -bit- biased towards the negative now, what with some of the stuff Freehaven and I have had added lately (by the way Sage, thanks for editing the Wall Banger example), so I'm sure the fans are coming in and trying to pull it back the other way.

Thankfully TV Tropes never really seems to claim perfect neutrality in their works. It may mean a tug-of-war but it also means nothing like mod intervention or edit locks.

Just fixed up yet another Lickspittle mass-edit.

>>13876

gods

isn't there a way to flag an edit-war to the mods of tvtropes? is that even possible?

>>13895

I don't think there is a feature for that, but you could get in trouble if a mod notices rapid changes to a particular page.

>>13895

There's a page called Ask the Tropers for reporting stuff to the mods. The edits to OL have been repoready, and apparently an edit block was installed.

>>13910
...Now no one can add or ammend entries.

>>13911

You're saying that as if that is an absolutely terrible thing.

It also means nobody can do their own little censorship campaign.

>>13911
>>13913

Gotta agree here. The pros outweigh the cons.

>>13913
But now if new things come up that we feel should be noted, we can't do anything.

Edit page still comes up for me :\
Though I didn't actually try and edit anything so maybe the block is when you try to submit the edit.

>>13915

i haven't tried editing anything...

how does the lockdown work - is all edits just impossible, or are they subject to review?

TO that end i implore everyone here: GIVE A REASON for why you edit.

If there was a lock on either Better Days or Original Life, it's either been removed or it doesn't work--I just did a non-impactive edit, no problems.

>>14019

did you add a reason for the edit? it just makes it so much more easy to see what edits are whitewashing and what aren't if those that aren't explain why they edit

>>14019

Maybe because it was non-impactive.

Well, some higher-up has officially fucked around with the page, claiming that alot of the examples were "editorials" that belong in the review page, and I got banned for restoring the article. Wow.

>>14174

You're not supposed to editorialize on TV Tropes?

Since WHEN?!

Hell, this was editorializing targeting something right-leaning, that type is practically ENCOURAGED on that site!

If anyone wants to go in and try to restore it again, I have a backup saved.

I'm going over the changes now, and to be honest a lot of these changes are structural (moving headings around) or subjective, like the strip where Jay knocks The Beatles being a Dethroning Moment Of Suck (compared to the comic at large, it isn't all that far down on the chain of suck). The kids' dialogue being Narm is stretching the definition a little much; there's bits that turned into discussion in the page body, which the mods try to keep to a minimum (and usually fail); saying Red went straight to pot in her first appearance isn't accurate, given we'd never seen her personality before, just what she looked like; and so on.

Things like the Unfortunate Implications (Liz not having any possessions we see) that got yanked by other editors are still there, along with Viewers Are Morons and Art Decay.

Only things that changed that really bothers me is removing Elizabeth under Character Derailment, which really that happened in Better Life, and taking out a bit about Abigail being more of a straw man than usual, but it didn't really fit in the section it was in.

I'm not entirely sure we're on the losing end of the game here, folks. The page still reads as though the comic is a suck-ass sociopolitical delivery system.

>>14178

And by Abigail I mean Angela. Or whatever her name is.

if you don't think the dialogue is full of Narm, you need to re-examine everything they've been saying up to this point.

Also, while I'd like to think positive, this is just going to give Naylor's fanbase an excuse to entry pimp on how awesome his work is, conveniently leaving out any criticisms whatsoever.