Archived Discussion

This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.

Working Title: Darth Wiki/Dethroning Moment Of Suck: From YKTTW

Lord TNK: Please leave the "DarthWiki/CrowningMomentOfAwesome" redirect. It's so Crowning Moment of Awesome has a Darth Wiki icon.

Lale: Is this going to replace things on the wiki used for Complaining About Shows You Don't LikeDis Continuity, So Bad, It's Horrible?

Lord TNK: First, that's License To Whine. Second, no. This is supposed to be the worst moment of anything to you. You think you'll have no other problems with fictional works?

Filby: I fail to see how any single example on this page couldn't be filed under Wall Banger or So Bad, It's Horrible — in fact, most of them already are. This wiki is hard enough to navigate as it is without all the Subjective Tropes and near-duplicates with only a hair's-width difference between them taking up space.

Lord TNK: This is the Darth Wiki. It is meant to be a twisted version of the main site. That's the point. Plus So Bad, It's Horrible is about works, while this is about moments in the works. So these cannot be filed under that trope, since they don't fit.

As for Wall Banger, well we could move some of the examples from that trope, if we want to thin it out.

Charred Knight: I think Lord TNK has a point about moving some of the Wall Banger here, with a link from Wallbanger to here pointing out that this is for the worst of the worsr. The fact that the UFN is made up of nearly all East Asians in Code Geass is a Wall Banger, the Curb-Stomp Battle between the Knights of the Round, that is horribly conceived horribly written and makes mistakes no decent writer should make is this. Jesus Christ, I have never seen such horrible use of Informed Ability in my life. You just can't tell me someone's an ace you have to show me that the person is an Ace. I once compared the battle to if Ranbal Ral dies just after meeting Amuro.

Insanity Prelude: Isn't this basically what Complain About Shows You Dont Like is for, though?

Tanto: This is exactly the same as Wall Banger, which itself wouldn't last a day if it hadn't been grandfathered in. Delete.

Lord TNK: But this trope WAS accepted in, the ykttw discussion proves it. And this is the darth wiki, where it's not a problem to be redundant, either for wall banger or complain. The darth wiki is supposed to twist some of the rules of the site. That's the point.

Tanto: I daresay that duplicative entries are something that no part of the wiki wants, Darth Wiki or otherwise. They just don't have a point. "Twisting some of the rules of the site" doesn't mean "Do whatever you want, even if it's to the detriment of the rest of the site".

As for YKTTW, you can force anything through YKTTW if you're stubborn enough. You'll have to come up with something better than that.

Lord TNK, you seem to want to encourage complaining and negativity on this site, but that's not what we're about. Even here, we don't need twenty-seven different pages for divining exactly how much shows we don't like blow.

Lord TNK: You obviously didn't read the ykttw, because there was no forcing. It actually more enthusiasm.

And this is not "doing whatever you want". This is a "dark version" of an established trope, which is the purpose of darth wiki. As for "to the detriment", Fast Eddie moved So Bad, It's Horrible to here (being the dark version of So Bad I Ts Good), because in one ykttw, he pointed out that So Bad, It's Horrible is against the purpose of the main site. When someone mentioned he move it to the darth Wiki, he was all for it. So he obviously thinks this section follows different rules.

The Kitchen Magician: It seems to me that Wall Banger is more of a "dark version" of Crowning Moment of Awesome than this is. A show can have more than one Crowning Moment of Awesome, and it can certainly have more than one Wall Banger. It appears, though, that a show can't have more than one Dethroning Moment of Suck. Therefore, this is something completely different, and looks most like either a needless subset of Wall Banger or just Complaining About Shows You Don't Like. However, if a show can have more than one Dethroning Moment of Suck... well, what's the difference between this and Wall Banger, then? The page is useless either way. There's a big difference between creating pages that break the wiki rules but are justified because they're fun and interesting, like So Bad, It's Horrible, and clogging up the wiki with worthless semi-tropes that don't contain any new material.

Lord TNK: Also, I've noticed this tropes isn't growing that fast. Aside from a few trimmed examples, it seems tropers really are going for the worst moment, rather than just any moment they don't like.

Renita: Now that we're starting to see multiple entries for any given thing, shouldn't we start asking people to sign their additions as an easy way of telling if people are attempting to add multiple moments for something?

Lord TNK: I could put that up, but make it clear it's optional. No notability and all that. But it will be highly recommended.

Renita: Was there any particular reason why my Doctor Who entry was taken down?

triassicranger: Probably because you should've given a reason. That and there are others on the site who probably find it to be the Crowning Moment of Awesome. Guess that shows how much Doctor Who fandom is a Broken Base.

Lord TNK: Give a reason, and make it clear its your own opinion, and it can stay up.

Renita: I noticed other entries on the page lack reasons (such as the One More Day one), so I figured I could afford to be non-specific, since I didn't want to look as if I was listing multiple things when you're only supposed to list one. After all, Journey's End is as bad as it was (IMO) on account of multiple factors. Any one of the travesties (the regeneration tease, the Clone Doctor, the Doctor's reaction to the Clone Doctor's rational decision, the Doctor fobbing Rose off with the Clone Doctor, Donna defeating the Daleks with Time Lord leet haxxor skillz, Donna being given a psychic lobotomy and the Earth being towed back whilst that "you should feel moved now" music plays in the background like a cue card) alone wouldn't have been enough to make it, simply, the worst Doctor Who story ever made, but all together, it's something that the show had better treat as a "we don't talk about it" issue before I'm ever willing to forgive it for this shameful piece of garbage.
  • Novium: Can I just say Amen to that?

Peteman: I think no one should try to talk about someone else's Dethroning Moment of Suck and why it shouldn't be here. It's all about personal tastes. A moment happens and there are people on this Wiki that, once they've recovered from their personal head trauma, come here to complain. No one else gets to try and tell them that it shouldn't be. At least, that's how I feel.

Lord TNK: It's not preventing certain examples. It's that there has to be some elaboration (I even fixed a few that didn't). Since renita put it back up, and elaborated on it, it's perfectly fine.
(Moved from the main page)
  • Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog: When Joss Whedon proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that no matter what medium he works in, he cannot avoid inserting a cheap random character death for shock-value and thinking that makes it edgy, original, or artistic. Too bad the shock value and novelty wore off about 8 years ago, Joss. Guess figuring out a character arc that doesn't end in random death is definitively a tad beyond Whedon.
    • Yeah, because its not like Penny's death had anything to do with completing the character development arc of Billy's slide into becoming Doctor Horrible. Which was kind of the whole point behind the series. Nope. Just random, meaningless character death that wasn't foreshadowed from the very beginning.
      • Random or not, this troper can't help but think that Joss Whedon's tendency to use character death as a convenient source of Wangst and / or Character Development crutch in almost everything he does kind of took away from the moment.
      • Does the phrase "moving the goalposts" mean anything to you? If the only JW series you've seen to completion is Firefly, you don't see it coming. And even Wash's and Book's deaths were exactly what would happen if the series were real. If you're going to start complaining about Wash and Book dying "randomly", you need to start asking why no one was injured by a spaceship falling out of the sky, especially when several of the people in the spaceship aren't strapped in.
      • Penny is one of the few, if any, characters Whedon characters that didn't die meaninglessly. Joss has stated several occasions he likes his deaths to be sudden and not have much of a point, to better reflect life. Penny, however, dies for a purpose: To show Billy what he's become. But it's ok, I was angry at first too.

Scrounge: Removed

  • All right, Dr. McNinja, you know I like you, so let's make a deal. You finish up this irrelevant, boring Robster/Scuttletruck nonsense and give me a decent explanation for why I've had to sit through it, and I'll buy some of The Merch. Sound good?

I put it there before I realized that there was a halfway-decent reveal likely coming, and it wasn't, in all honesty, that bad. I stand by calling it the worst moment in the comic thus far, but I removed it because... Well... It's not actually bad, it's just everything else has been better.

Lord TNK: So even though it's the worst moment, it doesn't actually suck?

Scrounge: Pretty much. The only error is that it's not as far Beyond the Impossible as most of what's come before. Well, that and I didn't care for the one bit of incontinence-based humor.

Emperordaein: Should'nt this trope be more about character specific moments of suck, rather than "super Wall Bangers"?

Bob: Yes. Yes it should.

Lord TNK: Complain About Shows You Dont Like actually includes that.

Caswin: I was thinking the exact same thing. If there is a place for such moments - and if we can have Crowning Moments of Awesome, that certainly seems fair - then this should be it.

Emperordaein: So, should we shift all the non character specific moments to the Wall Banger page and leave in the character specific moments? That would be fine.

Chris X: Will somebody explain why the Warriors Orochi entry keeps getting deleted? I can't put it on Complain About Shows You Dont Like, because on whole it's a good game. The characterization of Masamune, however, is the thing that I thought sucked the most, I consider it his Dethroning Moment of Suck. Is that wrong, or that can be categorized on something else?

Lord TNK: If it's the worst moment for you, it belongs here. Put it back. If someone else disagrees, that person is wrong, because this is a subjective thing (unless an entry is factually wrong).

Cliché: I'd put stuff about Edward from Final Fantasy IV on here if I didn't love hating him so much, thus making his moments not actually "worst". Where do I put moments that are So Bad, It's Good as opposed to this page's emphasis on So Bad, It's Horrible moments?

Dragon Quest Z: I'd Take It to the Forums. Anything else would just muddle things here.
Dragon Quest Z: Okay, everyone, "Complain About Shows You Don't Like" got cut, but that doesn't necessarily mean that will happen to this page, since it has a definite format instead of a free-for-all, and some of us are making sure the page stays that way, particularly no Natter.

That 20 Guy: It's important to note the difference between natter and legitimate replies, or corrections. Remember not to delete something just because it has two asterisks in front of it.

Dragon Quest Z: Of course, since not only the above, but many of those are just other tropers' different suck moments of that show.

Cliché: I'm guessing that the complaints about the Star Wars fanbase were cut due to it being similar to a "Real Life" section. Am I correct?

Guelerme: Do you guys have any problems if I make a Music sub-section here? There are some good examples to put here, but since I remember it already existing and probably getting cut out...well, better safe than sorry.

That 20 Guy: Would it be for things the musicians have said/done or for songs?

Trouser Wearing Barbarian: I think a music section would fit just fine. Musical artists have definitely had their share of dethroning moments.

triassicranger: Cut this from the page:

  • This troper lost all faith in Hiromu Arakawa when Edward Elric randomly shouted out "THE TRUTH STOLE MY BOXERS".
    • Er... wasn't that an Omake?
    • Yeah, but it made no sense and wasn't funny anyway.
      • Sharm Hedgehog is just a troll. He was defaming the FMA page a couple of months back. And stop trying to imply Arakawa is a pedophile, you've been doing it a lot. Its slander, which is a crime by the way, and has no basis in fact.

Would someone mind telling me what is going on here? This is not the Ultimate Troll Entry and this is not Complain About Tropers.

Sharm Hedgehog says: lol, I'm not a troll. In fact, I've made a bunch of helpful edits towards a lot of articles (namely, Homestar Runner, Elite Beat Agents, and others). So, let me get this straight. I make some helpful edits, but I hate Fullmetal Alchemist, and I'm a troll? I believe I have a right to hate this manga. Sure, you may like it, but I think that Fullmetal Alchemist is boring, the characters are unsympathetic, the plot is predictable, and it reeks of Author Appeal. I don't see anyone else's entries getting taken out. It's OK for me to not like something, and it's OK for you to like it. But when you remove someone's entries simply because you disagree with them, that's just being a fanboy.

Falcon Pain: As an impartial observer who doesn't know anything about this, I checked the edit history of the FMA page to see what Sharm contributed. This is the extent of Sharm's edits: removing spoiler tags, linking to So Bad, It's Horrible, and editing entries and adding bullets to claim that the author isn't funny, sucks, and has an Author Appeal for little children. I am not leaving anything out, aside from moving a subversion up a line.

Regardless of personal opinions and freedoms, that is hard to construe as anything but vandalism.

triassicranger: I removed the entry because I didn't want any fighting in the main article. It has nothing to do with my interests in anime etc. It was not I who accused you of trolling, I merely did not want fighting so I cut the entry and merely sought an explanantion. If it is not trolling, put it back in. If it is trolling keep it out.

If you check the history, you'll find the user who made the Troll accusation if anything was someone named Ouroboros. Would this user care to explain why he delivered the accusation in the first place?

Sharm Hedgehog: I put it back in now. Ouroboros is the real loser here.

Sharm Hedgehog: Holy flying— Someone deleted it again. Seriously people, you're all a bunch of hypocrites. Other people are allowed to have opinions; why can't I have one!?

triassicranger: I took a look at the edits you made to the Fullmetal Alchemist page. Disliking it is one thing, putting things down like "X sucks" and "So Bad, It's Horrible" is another. It appears your reputation isn't that good. Yes, we are all allowed our opinions on what we dislike, mucking the Fullmetal Alchemist page is another. Such things are to be done on the Complaining About Shows You Don't Like page forget that, we don't have that anymore. On your page you even claim the show sucks as "fact". That won't do you any favours. That appears to be why you're viewed as a troll.

Sharm Hedgehog: Whee, one moment of vandalism because I was bored and in a bad mood, and I'm a troll. Honestly, I will never understand this website. I am normally a good person, but I just changed the FMA page for the heck of it and to see how the fans would react. I make plenty of helpful edits towards this website, and you pay me back by calling me a troll. Sickening. It really hurts my feelings to see people bash me just for having an opinion. You know, forget it. Might as well leave this place behind.

Sharm Hedgehog: Oh, and by the way, sorry I thought it was you who called me a troll. I misinterpreted what you deleted and thought you deleted my lines and added your opinion.

Fast Eddie: Put a block in on Sharm. No time for people who vandalize when they are "bored."

Ouroboros: A bit late but may as well explain myself. I have no problem with legitimate complaints people have about the things I like, and don't expect others to share my interests, but what Sharm did was beyond that and blatant trolling, his attacks and slander towards Hiromu Arakawa, claiming that she's a pedophile, and referring to her as a cow, was going too far. Note that I was not the only one cleaning up his comments. Note also that I went to the forums with my complaints as to Sharm's actions before expressing annoyance in the wiki proper.

A bit late now, but I only just stumbled upon this conversation today, and thought that I might as well explain my actions on the off-chance Sharm was still lurking.

Dragon Quest Z: It's okay. It was bashing. This page is for what you think is the worst moment, and why. Anything else is not contributing to this page. It would be the same as describing a Cool Car on the Kick the Dog page.
Emperordaein: Why is the Horton Hears a Who example there? The movie was an upbeat comedy about friendship and belief. Saying that the musical bit at the end was a DMOS is just wrong. So what, you don't like having a movie carry it's theme to the end? That song was a Crowing Moment of Heartwarming (It's even on the page).

triassicranger: Dude, it's his/her opinion. It's like how Doctor Who fans are divided over...well...anything!
Be: I can put up with most of the shit slung Yahtzee's way because it's the nature of the beast that is the Internet, but:
"How about his review of Portal? Basically sucking a game's dick when it's incredibly overrated and you have a reputation for calling shit shit is..."
That's been cut for being fucking retarded. Whoever wrote this, I don't know who it was and I don't care enough to find out, doesn't even appear to grasp the concept of an opinion and seems to think that Yahtzee legitimately hates everything.

misfit119 There's a slight difference between complaining about something and just being flat out insulting and offensive. That quote is a bit far on the personal attack level even for a guy who doesn't even watch Yahtzees "reviews" for anything but a few chuckles (certainly not a balanced opinion on a game).
misfit119 This response in the tabletop games section seems a bit... forum-ish to be posted in the main article:

"DUDE, do not make this about 3rd. 3rd. is my life. I'm sorry it stopped making Forgotten Realms the main setting in favor of Greyhawk, I really honest to god am, but DO NOT MAKE THIS ABOUT 3rd."

I didn't delete it or anything, I'm new blood here and I don't want to rock the boat, but should this really be there? Wouldn't this be better served on the discussion page or the forums?

triassicranger: It looks like gushing to saved for the Sugar Wiki.

Peteman: Okay, can someone explain to me the edit war that is going on with Dragonball Z? Why is it so offensive that it keeps getting removed? Due to the subjective nature of the trope, a Dethroning Moment of Suck should only be removed under two circumstances: it refers to a real world event, or the scene in question is blatantly untrue (so if I talk about how Aang kept bitching about his morals the entire series finale of Avatar, then killed Firelord Ozai anyways, I'd be completely wrong)

Azxc: All right I'll concede and give up trying to delete that post. I did it first because I thought it didn't qualify from a D Mof S and seeing as there's nothing in the rules that says you can't delete anything you don't like, I thought there be no harm. However when triassicranger kept putting it back, I lost my temper somewhat and declared an Edit War. But now I officially give up.

triassicranger: Very well. Thank you for explaining your side of the story.

emeriin: Regarding this:
  • The Nostalgia Critic's recent review of the modern TMNT movie has him insulting the late Mako's voice acting. Whatever backlash he gets now, he had it coming.

While I don't know for certain, isn't it more likely that cigarette comment was more of a case of not knowing that the guy was dying of throat cancer rather than intentionally being an asshole? While that was a stupid mistake (and I'm hoping that's all it was because I wouldn't want to find out that he's actually a bastard), does it really belong here?

Emperordaein: No it does not. He actually apologized for that in his Red Sonja review. He didn't even know who Mako was.

Great Pikmin Fan: removed:

  • Let's be fair here... That was a pretty good Conway Twitty performance... and the longer it lasted, the less of that stupid Family Guy episode there was to watch.

same troper: for obvious Family Guy bashing. Unles you meant that the episode it's self was a DMoS. But if that's the case, then which? Conway is in three episodes so...

Great Pikmin Fan: Why are there no real life examples here, but they're for Wall Banger? And can there be more then one CMoA, but only one DMoS?

Peteman: Because they both have flame war potential. Why we have real life Wallbanger is a better question. And we can have multiple DMOS, but like CMOA, there needs to be some kind of restraint when dealing with it. Otherwise, every shoddy little thing becomes a DMOS.

SpiriTsunami: If anything, Dethroning Moment of Suck is better suited to having Real Life examples than Wall Banger. The Wall Banger appears to be for when the authors did something unbelievably stupid and made you wonder what the hell they were thinking. Since CMoA is for characters, DMoS, as its counter trope, should be for when the characters do something that is epic fail (in the general usage sense, not in the sense of our Epic Fail trope.) Real Life does not have authors; therefore, when something ridiculously bad happens, it's not a Wall Banger. Well, okay, I guess sometimes it can be, for the really stupid decisions in life.

Dragon Quest Z: That only works if people wouldn't use this as an excuse to flame anyone they don't like.

Great Pikminfan: My cartoon network example was in OTHER, not in real life. why say it was a R.L. example and get rid of it?

triassicranger: I removed it because television channels are set in reality, not fiction.

Cambdoranononononono: Can I contest the Pinewood Derby example from South Park? People might not have liked the episode, but the complaints themselves seem to suggest a failure to understand what the jokes even were. The episode is essentially: "Basic plot that makes sense for individual people gets applied to an entire planet. Regular jokes about the implausability, then a big joke about it at the end, along with one character's earlier prediction turning out to be correct." The apparent failure of characters to remember previous alien encounters can be chalked up to Negative Continuity, as pointed out on the page.
Antwan: When I came here and added folders to this due to the size of the thing, I was hoping that the disorganization would end. The whole thing still looks like a total mess, especially the Western Animation section. Either there's some stuff hanging out that needs deletion or some things need some rearrangement. In any case, this trope needs cleanup, so be alert.

triassicranger: Attempted to clean up the Western Animation section. Will move on to the other sections eventually.

triassicranger: I have completed my attempt to clean up the article. If anyone else feels anymore cleaning up is due feel free.

Great Pikmin Fan: Mind telling me why in family guy's not all dogs go to heaven example, the end of the last sentence of the first comment pot holes to South Park?

triassicranger: Is it OK to have the Professional Wrestling section here? I am aware there is some degree of fiction involved in wrestling (the fights being rehearsed) but it's a sport. Sports are based in reality. And most of the stuff there is ranting about things outside of the ring.

Antwan: I don't see why not, but I have a feeling most of the entries will just be same things from professional wrestlings's So Bad, It's Horrible.

Crazyrabbits: I'll try to get at this and edit it sometime in the next couple of weeks. There needs to be some sort of standardized identification system for who nominated what example. There's still a lot of natter prefaced with the word "I", which makes no sense because there's no way to know who nominated what.

slb: Removed the following from the Video Game section:

  • This Megaman 9 Review, seriously, he's bashing the game, and he's not even good at the game, he is a graphics whore, and he made a very, VERY rascist comment about Iraq!

because it borders on real-life insulting, which this trope forbids. It's both a surreal and deserved target, but leaving this on the page will provoke "AVGN is fail" and all kinds of other real-life targeting.

Great Pikmin Fan: should I give Family Guy a new folder? because really, there's just too much.

Sapphire Again: Alternatively, why not tidy up and shorten the examples? I've already considered doing this myself.

Komodin: Removed this, because quite frankly, the natter is getting out of hand:

    Family guy (part of western animation) 

Insanity Prelude: Seems like it'd be hard to define natter on a page like this...

Joe CB 1991: Doesn't seem out of hand to me. A lot of us think that Family Guy has become a DMOS since it came back, and we are just venting. Isn't that what this page is for?

triassicranger: May I take the opportunity firstly to remind everyone Dethroning Moment Of Suck is only used to refer to moments, not entire works.

Secondly, I feel that the complaints listed by fans over Family Guy are valid and that they ought to be restored with a bit of pruning.

Thirdly, what would natter be on a page like this? I'll explain. If someone posts a moment and posts something like "I wholeheartedly agree" and it doesn't add anything (i.e. it doesn't add any reasons why the moment sucks) that is natter. Also if people try post stuff to attempt to defend the moment, such as "Can a character really be a Scrappy after only one episode?".

Fourthly, does Dungeons & Dragons actually belong here? Are the complaints about the 4th edition stuff that went on in the storyline, or whinings about how the gameplay has changed, because the latter would make it a real life example and thus does not belong here.

Albert Nonymous: Rather than axe the whole section, why not just cut out the 'natter', and leave the otherwise valid points?

Joe CB 1991: I can agree with that, I just read through the entire list and most of what is one there is a valid point about Family Guy.

KI Simpson: Can we put it back now? It's really unfair that the way things are now, Family Guy has been rewarded for having so many dethroning moments by having all except one removed.

triassicranger: I attempted to prune things down in the Wiki Sandbox (at the time of writing my edits can be seen in the history, though they will be gone in about a month. It's August 2009 as I'm writing this). And after pruning, it was still as long as the Doctor Who section on the Live Action Discontinuity page before we imposed the new guidlines. If anyone feels they can prune it down any further go right ahead. Otherwise dig into the history and restore it. Otherwise come up with another idea.

Why does it seem this page is degenerating into bitching about trivial things?

triassicranger: I fail to see how the page is degenerating into such. Please elaborate.

I agree. It can't degenerate into something it already is.

triassicranger: I fail to see that the page is already "bitching about trivial things" as it is.
BritBllt: Removing this bit of natter...

  • Well, there is a difference between the villains attacking the city and a villain attacking the Tower, which would be an attack intended on the Titans. Robin is less Jack Bauer and more Mal Reynolds, since this a guy going after his team, and he won't stand for that.

...because Justifying Edits are bad enough already, much less on a subjective page. Also, it's not really true. Many episodes of Teen Titans revolved around a villlain attacking the tower, including a few comedy episodes (hell, Control Freak has done it!). The opening scene's ink-mook didn't do anything new in that regard.

Great Pikmin Fan: Well... The Simpsons is starting to have as many examples as Family Guy did, but I'm afraid to folder it, as it may face the same fate as FG's folder.
Lale: Does this trope only refer to Bad Writing? What about moments of good writing that intentionally and effectively make you lose any respect for a character (not necessarily acts of evil like Kick the Dog)?

triassicranger: As far as I know, it's only Bad Writing.
Great Pikmin Fan: Deleted my own entry, because that wasn't so bad:

  • The Total Drama Island episode "Haut camp-ture" was the DMOS for the season, not only was a good plot (see what happends to the eliminated campers!) wasted killed murdered. It was what could be described as "Everyone is Captain Obvious and telling what happend", that would be fine, but we have another season recap 3 episodes later. The MOST we ever see about anyone is Courtney getting her revenge on Harold for rigging the votes and hitting any one who disagrees with a lampost. And the campers who were voted off get to pick who they want off next, so what happends? Chris takes every name of the final five as a real vote. The worst part was how everyone who "voted" forgot about pronouns and was being too stupid to know what Chris was doing, instead, they were saying "lol stop saying Leshawna lol". Was this supposed to be funny? What kind of an episode waste was this? Also Izzy, you dissappoint this troper. (Great Pikmin Fan)
    • Not to mention that when Chris first mentions that the voted off campers get to vote someone off, they all just had to wait until Katie and Sadie got to be asked first rather than taking the perfect chance to shout out "HEATHER!"

BritBllt: Deleting this disclaimer...


...because I'm not seeing the need for it. There's no rule against it, the entries can be unsigned anyway so nobody would even know if the same troper's posting twice, there's nothing in discussion to suggest it's been an issue, and it looks like the one situation it was meant to cover was self-deleted anyway. If someone tries to pull a "you already posted a DMOS" deletion, the disclaimer'll be here in discussion. If it happens enough, it can be added back as a rule.

triassicranger: Incorrect. When we first made the page we only permitted tropers only one example for a work. Read earlier on the discussion page, please. To se why we stipulate this, again see earlier in the discussion. And there is a way to know if a troper has posted multiple entries - the page history (if it were not for the fact everything seems to be vanishing after a month or so).

BritBllt: If it's not on the page, then as far as most visitors would know, there's no rule. You can add one to the page if you think it's needed, but I don't see how it can be enforced. Anyone who wants to get around it can just post anonymously, reset their connection to change their IP address, and then post again. Or they can use multiple computers if they're in a public place like a cafe, library or computer lab, or if they use more than one computer or connection at home, or they can just wait a week or two for their last entry to fall off the page history before posting again. The only people who'd get caught are the ones making an innocent mistake, and I think making it a rule on the page would just encourage trolls to spam the page in defiance of it. If it ain't broke, why fix it?

triassicranger: We need to take this to a vote, scratch that, we need a third party, or even a 4th and 5th. Do we start permitting multiple examples for same show for same troper or what? I really don't want to go along with it because someone just put it there one day.
BritBllt: Okay, the Fan Dumb troper who keeps removing this entry really needs to read the rules.

  • Beast Wars, I love you, but you screwed Dinobot's death. A bit of Fridge Logic on this one, but apparently Maximals and Predacons are capable of taking the sparks of other Transformers into their bodies Primal for Prime and Megatron for... Megatron. Sure at the time the Maximals hadn't done it before and it was risky, but as their great ancestor was dying it's worth the danger but not to save a Predacon comrade who'd given his life to protect the future? Better dead than Pred indeed.
  • Gargoyles: Xanatos ruins Eliza's brother's life and never shows any regret, even after doing a Heel–Face Turn which makes the reasons he did it for obsolete.

Because I will keep putting them back. I don't care if they're "widely considered" to be great episodes. Clearly they're DMoS's in the opinions of the tropers who put them there, and they're pretty reasonable complaints that don't troll the entire series. Just because you disagree, just because everyone you know disagrees, does not give you the right to remove the entry. Other people are allowed to disagree with your opinion, and they're allowed to post moments that struck them personally as a series low point without other people coming along and deleting or attacking their opinions for it.

(By the way, I checked out Crowning Moment of Awesome, and there are five different entries all talking about that same moment. I really don't think one fan saying that Fridge Logic killed the moment for him is going to destroy the show's reputation.)

Cue: On the Beast Wars entry: That's sort of the thing. It's just that one guy. A lot more people like it and we're keeping it here for him and him alone. A few things:
  • It's a bit weak for a Dethroning Moment of Suck, the Moral Event Horizon of [1]s. I can see it on a Fridge Logic page, a Headscratchers, or maybe even the Narm or Wall Banger pages, if signed, but its inclusion here is a bit much.
  • His/her vague complaints about class? Pretty much due to a continuity fuck-up, at best, and very much unintentional. The episodes in which Megatron and Optimus' sparks were housed within their descendants took place in the following season and was treated as a crazy, unworkable idea by the players involved, so the solution of housing Dinobot's spark within another Transformer's body most likely did not occur to either the characters or the writers.
  • Keeping this here comes off as trans-page Wiki Schizophrenia. We praise that episode up and down over at the Sugar Wiki, but here we suddenly change our opinions . It's very inconsistent.
  • Again, this is a lone individual's opinion. The entry's Natter has gotten far more "WTF?"s than "Hell yeah"s, and it's just going to continue to get deleted and contested and justified over and over and over again until we have to slap A BOLD DISCLAIMER LIKE THIS RIGHT UNDERNEATH THE DAMN THING to keep it there. It's prime Flame Bait.
Long rant short: why can't we just move this to a Troper Tales page or to the show's Headscratchers page? Outright deletion, as you say, is unnecessary, but it seems very out of place here.

BritBllt: Don't you get it? The whole point of this page is that people list what they consider to be a Dethroning Moment of Suck. Having a Troper Tales of DMOS would be redundant: it was tried, and it was cut. I'm not a Transformers fan so I'm not invested in the entry either way, and to me it reads fine, and much more reasonably phrased than most of the examples. It at least starts off by acknowledging that he likes the show, and the complaint sounds logical enough. This is Darth Wiki, it and Sugar Wiki are supposed to be subjective, that's why they exist. And frankly, why does it bother you so much? Just say "wow, he has no taste" and move on. It's a show, it's not your mother.

Cue: I'm not the guy(s) that keeps deleting this entry, so kindly don't bitch at me. I'm just discussing it is all. Since this page seems to be your territory, your decision obviously stands.

BritBllt: Sorry about that. And I'm just a regular here - Triassacranger's had the most experience with DMOS, so I'd trust his call on it. But deleting an example strictly because other fans don't agree with it seems open-and-shut. If one person's honest dethroning moment is Dinobot's death, because he was a Dinobot fan and thought the death felt cheap, who are we to say it can't be posted? In a sense, every entry here is for that person alone, and there's probably someone out there who'd disagree with all of them.

I know it opens up the door to troll'ish things like "when Darth Vader said he was Luke's father", but the reasoning sounds okay on this one, at least. While this might work better as a Headscratchers where the plot points could be addressed, I just wouldn't feel right killing an otherwise valid subjective entry just because of the Internet Backlash. The Dethroning pages, and the Crowning ones, should be the one place people can post their thoughts without having to defend themselves.

Cue: Good points. This quote of yours: "The Dethroning pages, and the Crowning ones, should be the one place people can post their thoughts without having to defend themselves." seems like a pretty good mission statement for the page. Maybe we should plug it into the main description to fully establish it? My butting in on the subject was mostly based on my experience with the Wall Bangers page: the general rule there seems to be, "If we can't raise any points against a complaint, it's a wall banger; if not, it belongs in Just Bugs Me, with the points addressed." However, if we put the above in the description, we pretty much establish that this page is to establish personal complaints, kind of like a pseudo-Troper Tales, and then maybe we could cut down on the persistent Natter that comes from taking the mindset from the rest of the wiki to this page.

BritBllt: Yeah, the Wall Banger page is kind of in its own strange limbo, where there should be some fan consensus like a main page, but it's still subjective and negative like Darth Wiki. I'm just waiting now to see what other people think, but your idea about a statement like that on the page, maybe in bold and near the bottom, might help. The entries used to be signed like Troper Tales entries, and getting that going again might help things too; it'd make it clear it's not TV Tropes saying the moment sucks, just this or that troper. If nothing else, and nobody objects, I might go through sometime and just add "Anonymous" to the ones that aren't signed.
Some New Guy: Can we cut the Las Lindas entry? Its basically one guy Complaining About Developments He Doesn't Like while making them sound worse then they actually are.

The Swedish Elf: Oh, right, because passing off a 100% pure jackass as a Nice Guy Love Guru, a Disney Death, pointless sexual orientation retcons, apparently super-gluing the Idiot Ball to Sarah just to move the increasingly ridiculous plot, idiotic levels of character favouritism, loss of story direction, and the writer just jerking everyone's hopes and expectations around seemingly for his own amusement are such excellent examples of development.

Great Pikmin Fan: To who ever cut the Ed, Edd n Eddy entry (for "listing more than one moment"): no, it was one moment. The moment where Jib is kicked off the show a literally Put on a Bus. I only put the trap part in because that also felt like a kick in the nuts (but not as bad).

Triassicranger: Thank you for providing a reassurance. This is the sort of thing I was asking for.

Cambdoranononononono: Hm? I just saw the episode; Jib left on his own. ("Jib said his work here was done.") Eddy helped move the stuff, but that was more of a "can't get him out of here fast enough" move. If you want to go there, Jib might have even threatened to beat him up again. The trap thing was maybe out of character, but it seemed to be a 'fight imaginary with imaginary' bit to Edd and Eddy — Edd agreed to it because he seemed to think it was unhealthy for Ed and hence went for advice on imaginary friends — before the latter started getting beaten up.

Great Pikmin Fan: Who the hell cut this:

  • Total Drama Island has a Broken Base, what with a lot of love it or hate it moments, but the worst two moments for this troper is what he considers a Jump the Shark moments that turned Chris into a Complete Monster. Harold, fed up with Duncan's tourture, rigs the votes to get Courtney voted off Moral Event Horizon aside, Chris knew everything about it. So what does he do? Nothing, the first DMoS, but what makes that worse is that two episodes later, he brings back Cour- no, wait, Izzy and Eva. (the second DMoS) Who were rightfully voted off. and one gets voted off in the same episode! All this, all this, ''just so that Izzy could get more development, someone can be voted off just because the writers have no more ideas, and for Courtney to leave when said writers have no ideas left. Christ. (Great Pikmin Fan)

I'm adding it back. I looked up the page history and saw that this was cut for no reason. Possibly by some die-hard Total Drama Island fan that refuses to think that this show has it's flaws.

BritBllt: Getting rid of a Justifying Edit...

  • Seriously, why are people complaining about the poster boy for Negative Continuity ignoring continuity? Various Star Wars characters, including Palpatine, Darth Vader and the Stormtroopers have appeared in the show as real people in Quahog, but the instant it suits the plot and/ or the current joke Star Wars is a fictional film series and noone remembers seeing any of these people. It's the same here - god existed in that episode with the plagues and in various cutaway gags, god did not exist in the episode about Brian being an atheist, and god will exist/ not exist in future episodes depending on what is needed for the joke.

Because the moment someone tries to answer that on the main board, we get into Thread Mode and that's what the Discussion page is for. As for the question, the problem is that Palpatine, Vader and stormtroopers only appeared in one-shot gags. God, Jesus and the Grim Reaper have made so many appearances by now that they count as secondary characters, which is why turning around and saying they don't exist comes off as so bizarre. Now if it was Rule of Funny versus Rule of Funny (as in one gag works better with them existing, another gag works better without them), it'd be fine, but overturning the Rule of Funny to make room for a dour Author Tract in what's supposed to be a comedy series is bound to draw complaints.

Removing this:
  • Sam & Max Episode 205 When Jurgen's Monster asks you to kill him, you...kill him. What? Sam and Max are the good guys, they don't do stuff like that.

On the grounds that San & Max are both Heroic Sociopaths (which goes double for Max)

Triassicranger: Moments are not to be removed because you (personally) disagree with them.

webrunner: Although I agree with that, it seems that removing one because it's outright wrong should be fair.

Triassicranger: You mean they didn't kill someone?

Peteman: No, that they are the good guys and don't do stuff like that. They are Heroic Sociopaths who do do stuff like that. Remember, when Max got elected president, you have the option to nuke both Krypton and your friend's store. They do so quite enthusiastically, and the only reason it doesn't happen is because your friend has a missile system to stop you, and Krypton is several million light years away and therefore won't reach it in anyone's lifetime.

I think we should remove the Sam And Max Episode 205 example. Sam and Max are well established as being the kind of people who do this kind of thing, despite the OP's protests.
TsundeRay: Requested a cut of this page. This page has the potential to become Complaining About Shows You Don't Like II. That, and there are dipshit tropers who are potholing this, especially for real-life examples.

Great Pikmin Fan: No, not at all. anything that can be silghtly counted as a real life example gets cut, and so will entries complaining about entire works. Wall Banger is worse, it used to have a real life section, and it in itself just says "list plot points you don't like", that and it can have multipule examples from the same troper, and it gets pot holes even more than this page.

TsundeRay: Which is why this page should be nuked. Anything could be construed as a real life example, so just to be on the safe side, this page needs to die.

Dragon Quest Z: Fiction is not real life.

Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: I'm with Dragon Quest Z. And this is the Darth Wiki — we have slightly more leeway here. And at least this isn't multiple pages yet (I think).... If this page does get cut, merge its contents with Wall Banger.

TsundeRay: Regardless, I am tempted to snipe the entire Professional Wrestling section, as a start, due to it blurring the border between reality and fiction.

Triassicranger: Go right ahead.
BritBllt: I hate to edit someone else's DMOS, but I'm adding this line...

  • Just like the "Homer getting raped by a panda part" mentioned below, there was a part of South Park this troper also felt there was absolutely no justification for. In the last episode I saw (both literally and figuratively), Chef goes on vacation with this club he recently joined. Sounds innocent enough, but when he gets back...he becomes a pedophile who's obsessed with having sex with children. I can put up with a lot of things, but I draw the line at defiling the coolest character on the show. And yes, I know about Isaac Hayes leaving the show over Scientology.

Because maybe, maybe that'll help keep South Park fans from natter'ing the damn thing with "that's because Isaac Hayes left the show over Scientology". No Justifying Edits, period.
Great Pikmin Fan: About these from the The Simpsons folder:

  • This troper used to be a loyal fan, but then he realized there was trouble in paradise after watching The Simpson Tide. For a show that was generally pretty down-to-earth compared to most other cartoons, and even compared to most other sitcoms, this episode left me struggling to comprehend all the ridiculous leaps in logic. How did the penguins get a navy, and how did they crew it? Since when was Leon Kompowski/Michael Jackson gay? What was Smithers doing dancing on the submarine, and how did he get there in the first place? How could Homer talk to the penguins? How did Homer get his job at the power plant back in time for next week's show? That, combined with the sheer lunacy of the plot, with the Soviet Union being reformed, Homer taking the submarine halfway around the world and ending up in a political schism between Russia and the U.S...Nothing made sense, the storyline spiraled ridiculously out of control, Homer went from being a well-meaning Bumbling Dad to a Psychopathic Manchild, and the whole thing was more suited to Family Guy than The Simpsons.
  • I don't remember what the episode is called, but the plot has Lisa taking a test and completely spacing on all the answers. At the end Skinner shows up and says the test is meaningless (this isn't the bad part, just a quick explaination of the episode). Right after this he also decides to lift the previously unmentioned ban on dancing and everyone dances. Note to the writers: We all know Family Guy has been shamelessly copying you for years, but that doesn't mean you should try to copy them. Throwing a completely irrelevant joke in for the hell of it works for them (well... kinda), but it's far above a show that has been a success for as long as you.
  • The episode where Alan Moore and some other guys guest star. No, the Alan Moore part was awesome. What WASN'T awesome was the cutaway gag of Homer saying "Mmmm...porkpies." Not only was this joke not funny but, considering that the creators hate everything having to do with Family Guy, using a cutaway gag this late in the game seems lazy and stupid.

I think these are missing the point: the entries are basicly amounting to "this moment was too much like Family Guy", but look, The Simpsons isn't a serious series in the first place! Heck, I've seen a lot of the new Simpsons episodes, and they seem as equally odd as the ones above. Even in the old episodes (you know, before Family Guy was created), The Simpsons has been on the wacky side , and if Family Guy didn't exist, then these would be cut anyways because "The Simpsons is a comedy series, and it trys to be a strange as possible". Besides, if we listed every instance where "The Simpsons acts like Family Guy", then the folder would be loaded. The bottom line is: should they be cut?

SNES Master KI: I find some of those (the last one mainly) extremely petty, but I'm not sure if they can be justly removed. The Simpsons Tide one originally had a rant about how The Simpsons was the one copying Family Guy, which I removed because that episode predated Family Guy.
Caswin: So why is it that the Wall Banger page encourages editing or deleting controversial examples, but this one forbids except in the case of blatant misrepresentation?

BritBllt: Because that's a main page and this is Darth Wiki, which is all about personal opinion. As the opener says, "this is the worst moment, in your mind, for any character, work, series, or entire franchise."
Komodin: Looking over the Family Guy section, I can't help but simply be amazed at its current length. Is the show seriously that bad nowadays?

Triassicranger: I think one of the reasons it's so long is because people are saying stuff like "agreed" or "same here". I have a suggestion: Cull any statements from all entries which put are not people listing a different moment. Yes, there may well be different/more reasons as to why a moment "sucks" but as far as I can see that's how we're going to be able to shrink the folder. And possibly more.

Dragon Quest Z: Then I could put up a note in the description that if you just agree, put your name alongside the name for an entry, the way Most Triumphant Example does.

Triassicranger: I agree with that suggestion.
BritBllt: Nuked more Justifying Edits, fixed an entry that got truncated to make room for someone else's justifying edit, and, for now, removing this entry due to Rule of Cautious Editing Judgement...

  • South Park also had an episode where Fundamentalist Christians at straight camps are portrayed as stupid morons who have no clue what they're talking about, and who cause more harm then good.

A truly conservative, fundementalist person could take genuine offense to that , but since straight camp is a hot-button issue (to say the least), it'll just keep accumulating backlash if it stays.

Triassicranger: Someone removed this from the page from under the Teen Titans movie:

  • Can we just crown the entire movie a Dethroning Moment of Suck? Besides the Rob x Star romance, there's nothing worth watching really.

Triassicranger: Entire works cannot be called a DMOS. But then this is a movie of a cartoon, and normally we'd throw out entires listing entire movies. So, can this stay on the page, or not? Help.

BritBllt: Well, the reason the person gave for deleting it wasn't valid, since they only removed it because they disagreed with it sucking. But since there are already individual moments listed on the page for that particular movie, having the whole movie called a DMOS beneath those entries would just confuse the "no entire works" rule. So I'd say it goes: they were right to remove it, but had the wrong motivation.

Can we resolve this here and not on the page?

  • The Dark Knight is all about Batman's refusal to kill, no matter what. And right on the heels of his victory over the Joker - defeating him without killing him - he tackles Two-Face, basically shoving him to his death, when a well-placed Batarang probably would have done the trick. And when the response is to pin the blame for the murders Two-Face committed on Batman, Gordon doesn't even mention the possibility of going after him for the actual murder he just committed, when you'd think that would be a good time to bring that up. (Haven)
    • He didn't kill Two-Face. He dove to save Gordon's son, knocking Two-Face off the ledge in the proccess. Even then Bruce had no way of knowing the fall would kill Two-Face. After all he suffered the EXACT SAME fall and survived. Two-Face just fell badly in a way that was fatal. It was manslaughter at the very most.
    • Batman's refusal to kill the Joker via Batpod-mounted machine guns after flipping the Joker's eighteen-wheeler, which resulted in the immediate death of innocents. In fact, the entire movie's suggestion of moral equivalency between the two characters.
      • How did the flipping of the truck result in the death of innocents? There was no one on the street where it landed.
      • What is confusing is why he even has machine guns or missiles or whatever they were on the Batpod in the first place, especially since Batman is usually against lethal weapons.
      • It's not custom designed for Batman. It was a Waynetech military vehicle he borrowed and the Army is very much for lethal weapons.
      • Also, the first scene with Batman shows that the weaponry is for shock and awe, not killing. They also come in handy for getting rid of inanimate objects in the way.
      • Has everyone forgotten the poor guy who was driving the garbage truck that Batman drove the tumbler into? Not likely that he survived the entire front of the truck being crushed on the ceiling.
      • Not the entire front, still room enough left to duck down. There's also the fact that if he wanted to save the police truck, there was little other possibilities to consider.
    • To This Troper. The moment where Lucius Fox criticizes Batman's use of the Cell-Phone Sonar machine to stop the Joker claiming "It is too much power for one man to have". Let's keep in mind that the Joker is keeping at least 500 people hostage and there is a 99% chance he will kill them for kicks. It was just as bad as Gordon's permission to let the SWAT team to attack the Joker's building (which would have kill some of the hostages without Batman's intervention).
      • Notice how he still helps Batman operate it because he knows its necesary to defeat The Joker and that Batman installed a means of destroying it, showing that he agreed with Fox.
      • My main problem with the movie was the sonar system itself: Assuming you could remotely program mobiles like that, each phone would at best be able to give a vague and semi-accurate image of the room it was in - you'd need to have multiple phones in a small area in order to get any useful data. Detailed 3D images of people moving? Not a chance - even if you had enough phones in the (supposedly abandoned) building. But in the movie, the sonar system is even able to distinguish the shades of colour on the Joker's face. There goes the suspension of disbelief...
    • My main objections to this movie were its implied justifications of torture, lying/deception, and domestic surveillance. Given that all of those have been going on in real life, the flawed logic of this movie just hits too bluntly and too close to home. It also subverts its own message at the end, given that it spends most of the film making the assertion that outside-of-the-law heros like Batman are necessary and that "regular" people cannot be trusted to stand up for what is right, when Batman's ultimate victory over the Joker comes by showing that in fact people will do the right thing if given the chance. This negates Batman's supposed necessity (the people on the boats would have behaved the same whether or not Batman existed), and undermines pretty much everything the movie had been saying up until that point.
      • Actually, that was the entire point of Batman. To be the symbol of justice that Gotham had lacked. He was there to prove that a single person could rise up and make a difference, that good would overcome. By refusing to go along with Joker's experiment, they had vindicated Batman's hope.
      • The Joker would have blown up both boats if it weren't for Batman's intervention.
      • Not necessarily, due to Batman's intervention it's never established whether or not he would actually have blown up both boats. He *says* that he will, but during his dialog with Batman he seems extremely agitated that neither of the boats have exploded on their own. To him the boat thing was a social experiment, and not simply an excuse to murder a bunch of innocents. Because his goal with the boats was to prove a point about human nature, its presumptuous to assume that he would have really detonated both boats at the end after having his hypothesis disproven. His reactions in the film make it clear that he fully expected one boat to blow up the other, so there's no telling how he would have reacted if neither boat blew up and no one had come in intervene.
      • "Never established?" Batman stops him as he's pulling out the detonator and is about to blow them up, saying if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself. And he's the Joker; killing people is what he does. You really think he would've let that many people prove him wrong and just given up and gone home? Of course not.
    • My main problem is that in a movie that supposedly got everything so "realistic", why did they retain Joker Immunity? Okay, the Batman has problems with guns. But if Gotham is anything like the Chicago it was filmed in, after killing so many people, the Joker would have shoot-at-sight orders on him - and he showed up in the presence of armed policemen an awful lot in the movie alone, if memory serves. I'm also bugged by the logic that it's somehow immoral to kill a raving terrifying psychopath. Think about it: every time the Batman has the Joker in his power and doesn't kill him, he is effectively personally killing an untold number of Innocent Bystanders.
      • No, the one point of Batman is to never kill, to never sink to the level of the criminals he fights. By killing people, he'd show that there truly is no hope for Gotham as there's no morals at all. Only by sticking to his no kill rule can Batman keep up the idea that Gotham can be saved.
      • There's a lot of convincing reasons for why Batman doesn't kill people, especially in this movie, but... meh.

Great Pikmin Fan: Canned a real life example. It's also blatant Twilight complaining and Terry Pratchett gushing:

  • Not for the books themselves, but for the readers: the Dymocks bookshop chain has been putting out a list of the books voted the best. They have Twilight as #1, The Host somewhere in there as well, and not one single damn mention of Terry Pratchett. You heard it here first, folks, some of the bestselling humorous fantasy novels of all time written by someone who was knighted for his writing don't rank in the top 101, but the top slot is reserved for Anne Rice fanfiction starring a Mary Sue and sparkly vampires. (This troper could take "no Pratchett" or "Twilight at the top", but both at once enters This Is Unforgivable! territory fast enough to profoundly unnerve Einstein.)

  • Yes, it was a really stupid thing to have the Symbiote make him act that way. But he wasn't acting emo — he was acting like a dick; like a douchebag.

BritBllt: He wasn't being "emo", he was being an egotistical, full-of-himself dork... but I thought that was a brilliant subversion of Evil Is Cool on the movie's part. All the symbiote did was increase his aggression and negativity; it's an alien, it doesn't know anything about culture or style beyond what Peter himself knows. So Peter, being turned evil by the symbiote, tries to pull off Evil Is Cool based on what he thinks cool is. But because Peter's really an amiable science geek at heart, his version of it is dated, cheesy and obnoxious. The symbiote made him feel cool because of the changes to his brain chemistry, but it didn't give him the fashion sense and attitude to pull it off.
BritBllt: Moving a previously deleted Justifying Edit...

  • Is this troper the only one who thinks Meg always deserves it? I'm an awkward, lonely geek and find nerdiness extremely attractive, but nothing about Meg appeals to me or triggers my sympathy. She's always been written as shallow and petty. On the inside, she's exactly like the "cool" kids who pick on her, and actively wishes she was one of them. She hypocritically snubbed Neal for his geekiness and is just generally a whiny, obnoxious little bitch. I find her suffering hilarious. The worse it gets, the funnier it gets.

It was rightly deleted, but it's a good (and rarely expresed) enough point to be worth saving here.

Triassicranger: In regard to my recent edit on the Spider-man 2 entry, someone wrote the word "cloace". I looked that word up and it wasn't in the dictionary (here's the website I used, by the way) and it said the word didn't exist. I wasn't sure what word the original person meant to use, so I replaced it with "dose" (well it made sense at the time).

Peteman: Can the people who are complaining about Peter Parker's refusal to rush in to save a guy from two muggers when he would be hopelessly outmatched against rewatch Spiderman 2? You can complain about his goofy expressions, but his refusal to take on two muggers who were beating up some random pedestrian (like supposed normal people would) seems to ignore his lack of powers and the legitimate worry normal people would have that the muggers might pull knives or guns on you if you intervene.

Aquila89: removed this about Not All Dogs Go to Heaven

"This creates a situation where you could use the episode's faulty logic in real life. The fact is, God (regardless of whether you believe in Him or not) didn't create Meg Griffin...Seth MacFarlane did. However, Meg is ugly. Ergo, there can be no such thing as Seth MacFarlane.

To quote a certain beer commercial, BRILLIANT!"

Logically wrong. The argument wasn't that nobody would create Meg. The argument was that an omnipotent and infinitely benevolent being, such as God, wouldn't create a somebody as miserable as Meg. Nobady said that Seth MacFarlane is omnipotent or infinitely benevolent.

Great Pikmin Fan: Becuase of the Flame War waiting to happen, I removed the "Smithers is black" comment in the Simpsons folder. As some other troper put it:
  • I'm sorry, did you just cite race as a reason something was bad? Remember, at the time, it wasn't a continuity error (it was Smithers's first appearance), so if anything, you should be complaining about his next appearance.

— I think this Justifying Edit is enough to just remove the one part of the original entry.

Triassicranger: IP address you misunderstand me. The same troper cannot add multiple entries for the same work. While it is true a show can have more than one Dethroning Moment of Suck, the same troper cannot add more than one example.

Mullon: Can an entire arc count as a moment, or is that too big?

Triassicranger: Arcs are fine.

Triassicranger: Isn't 's entry about confusing Asperger's with Sociopathy(sp?) more than one moment in time?

Happyman: Should we give the DMOS of Family Guy it's own page?There a lots of examples.

Great Pikmin Fan: Wouldn't it be a better idea to sort out the other sections into pages first?

Great Pikmin Fan: O.K., about this:

  • One episode, sayed about in one of the trope pages, has Lisa falling in love with someone (not the DMoS, but it's still important, keep reading). Then Lisa overhears a conversation with said someone to a girl over the phone. Lisa's response? Track down said girl, comming over for a event, and redirect her path to head over to a deep part of the woods where she could get killed. Based on one assumption that is highly unlikely. And the writers are aware of just how wrong, stupid, and insane that was, and what do they do? They lampshade how wrong it is in the most painful way possible that is, all Lisa get's for that is a "You did that for me? How sick!" (or something along the lines of that). Karma Houdini? Check. Complete Monster? Check. Ax-Crazy? Check Moral Event Horizon? Check and mate. (Great Pikmin Fan)
    • Lampshaded twice, where the girl Lisa led down the wrong path responded to Lisa's explanation that it was all just a misunderstanding with "Well, THAT certainly justifies attempted murder."
      • Uh, are you forgetting Lisa risked her life to save the girl after learning her true relationship with her crush? True, she did set the thing off, but she isn't a Karma Houdini, Complete Monster, Ax-Crazy, or crossing the Moral Event Horizon doing so. Hell, the worst that Lisa thought is that the girl would have been late to the dance not be killed or anything. Way to not remember how the episode went, Great Pikmin Fan. (Super Saiya Man)
      • Bart's the one who saved her, but the point stands. Lisa did try to make amends, and their is no evidence lisa was trying to get her killed. It seemed like giving her wrong directions.
      • Yeah, because it's not like you can die if you're deep in the woods at night, and it's not like Lisa only saved her because she's not the guy's girlfriend, and, as said above, it's not like Bart was the one who saved her...
      • When you are obscenely jelous you don't think things through. Lisa wasn't exactly in a rational state at the time. When she stopped letting her jealousy blind her she realized what she had done and tried to make amends.

Unless I'm forgetting something, here's how I remember the general thing: Lisa falls in love with some guy, she hears a conversation between him and somebody on his phone, assumes the wrong thing, goes out in the woods and turns the sign or something. Then later, Lisa attmits after she finds out the the guy was talking to his cousin (or his sister, but I'm pretty sure it was his cousin), she, Homer and Bart go out to get said cousin/sister and it turns out... she was trapped while river water was rising beacuse of a beaver dam (this was becaus of some sub-plot, but I can't remember that). So Bart saves her, and then everything is forgotten after the episode. Anything I missed?

And my new responce, made when my post was cut in the same edit, attempted to justify it by saying Lisa has just jealous... yeah, look, if someone did something to you similar to what Lisa did, under the same amount of proof (which was, IIRC), would you forgive them? Unlike the other examples on this page, I'm not saying it's Bad Writing. I'm saying it's a DMoS for Lisa.

Plus, the rules say your not supposed to cut an entry unless it's untrue (Lisa did do the mis-directions, and the girl might have gotten killed or lost or something), it's a real life example (The Simpsons is fiction, I know that.), it's complaining about the DMoS page (it isn't), or it's not a moment and is just whining on how a show has gotten unfunny (it was a moment).

Just tell me how it's "Bad understanding of an episode", as the one who recently cutted this said, I'm not defending this to the death (I recently added a DMoS for "Once Upon a Time in Springfield", if the Lisa thing counts, I'll cut the new entry and put the one above in. If it wasn't true, I'll just keep the one on te page now). Although what I said at the end: Moral Event Horison? For me, as the trope is subjective, yes. Ax-Crazy? More like Love Makes You Crazy. Karma Houdini? For that episode, yes she did get away with it all as I remember, but for the series, no. Complete Monster? No. Oh yeah, and to the one who said she couldn't get killed, another troper responded it was lampshaded twice with "Well, THAT certainly justifies attempted murder."

Bottom line, if it was cut because Lisa was just jealous, then I guess we can delete the "Not all Dogs go to Heaven" sub-section because the towns people where just idiots.

Triassicranger: IP address , for the third time you cannot add more than one moment for the same work.

Peteman: I thought we abandoned that rule.

Dragon Quest Z: No. It's still in place. You can expand on points, but if it's not your dethroning moment, it's merely expanding on another's point.

Great Pikmin Fan: Looking at the King of the Hill section, I just have to ask: Isn't KotH skipping good aesops on purpose, as a parody? Also, don't the first two Naruto entries go against the "No real life, including Executive Meddling" rule (the first was about the translations, not an actuall moment, and the second one was about cutting something from Manga to Anime)?

Mighty Kombat: I keep trying to add a bit to the Zero Punctuation bit about the Smashbros review where I call out those who conveniently forgot that they bothered Yahtzee alot to do the review, yet the example doesn't show up. I don't know what the hell's going on.

Willy Four Eyes: Responding to entries, even on Darth Wiki, is generally frowned upon. The Discussion page should be used for that purpose.

Mighty Kombat: Strange how some responses get through unless I'm not reading clearly? In any case, all the fans and even some tropers, I'm not afraid to say, they complain about how vicious and screwed up Yahtzee's Smash Bros review was. Did it ever occur to them that maybe, just maybe, they kept going on and on at him to review it so much, that when he got round to it, he let them know they got on his nerves? I mean, okay, subjective trope and such but there's sensible complaining and there's just plain white-knighting.

Does anyone else think that Doug's reviews of Pokemon and District 9 aren't DMOS's, but just targets of fanboy bitching?

While Pokemon was aimed at hardcore fans, it should've at least made an effort to be accessible, since I guarantee you every single parent who got dragged to this movie had the exact same reaction as Doug. Serenity set up it's universe in five minutes, but Pokemon couldn't do it in ninety, and that's supposed to be okay because it's an anime? That's total bullshit.

Also, District 9's DMOS was apparently having an opinion different from the troper who posted it. Very mature.

Triassicranger: I myself have been wondering if all of the posts concerning the internet reviewers ought to be cut. The series are not fiction. Yes, I know these people are characters/personalities they have created for their series (at least that's what someone I knew off YouTube once told me), but the opinions of these people are real. I'd like to hear input from others.

As for people disagreeing with reviews, perhaps they should go in a Troper Tales page of He Panned It, Now He Sucks!?

Dragon Quest Z: How about the reviews themselves should be moved there, but any particular moment in the reviews could count for this. Yahtzee hating on New Super Mario Bros. Wii wouldn't be by itself, but proclaiming it "shouldn't have a right to exist" could, since he's making an arrogant proclamation of what games should be made.

Mighty Kombat: If they have a moment with any form of media sans reality that REALLY sucked, its a D Mo S whatever the media, and I suppose reviews can also have these. That said, I'm not the mod here, so do whatever.

SNES Master KI: Can we remove or at least edit the Futurama Robin Williams entry? I know it's subjective, but insisting that making fun of characters Robin Williams played means the Futurama writers legitimately hate him is ridiculous and basically a real life example. The "cartoon vs real person" idea that basically says Robin Williams should get more respect for being an actor instead of working on an animated series (saying Futurama is just a show, but Mork and Patch Adams deserve respect equal to real people because an actor played them) is also annoying me.

Lurkerbunny: As the writer of that entry (yeah, who's surprised), I guess I should point out a few things: When that scene in Bender's Game was on YouTube (for about 10 minutes before FOX made the person who uploaded it delete it, natch), it was titled "Futurama Robin Williams". Not just Mork, but Robin Williams. And elsewhere on the internet, including this very wiki, it's been described as a take that to Robin himself, not just the character of Mork. So I'm not the only person who sees it that way, but I am probably the only person who was disgusted by it. Why? Well, it does in fact affect me in some way. It is not easy being a Robin Williams fan in this day and age, because Robin has such a Hatedom these days mostly due to the fact that the public hates many of the movies he's done in the past decade (I myself don't find the, too bad. Hell, RV is a Guilty Pleasure of mine. I still can't bring myself to watch Lisence To Wed or Old Dogs though). There are whole blogs and Facebook groups dedicated just to hating him! People who hate him tend to hate his fans as well (e.g., me). And television shows bashing him just encourages the online bashing of both him and his fans. Now, I know Futurama's not the first show hate on, but it's the first show that I know of to do it so violently, which is one reason I put it here. The other reason is simply that everyone loves Futurama. Everyone. And when a show everyone likes targets someone, its fans tend to hate that person too. It's a disturbing group mentality. I seem to be the only person who didn't fall victim to it. Which is probably why I didn't add that entry sooner (I had been holding it in for about a year!); I knew the Futurama fans were going to jump on my ass for it. I tried to explain I liked Futurama, but I can't bring myself to watch it anymore, even the episodes from before the movies. (I hope this reply is coherent, if not it's because I'm typing this at 1:39 IN THE MORNING.)

SNES Master KI: Barely any of that had to do with the actual segment. Just because you've seen people who hate Robin Williams doesn't give you the right to make assumptions about the motives of a segment that was much more likely made entirely because Mork rhymes with orc. Someone saying it was a personal attack on Robin Williams on Youtube doesn't in any way prove it was, you're listing the moment because of assumed real life intent, and stating the assumed intent as fact. Current Simpsons episodes have at least as much of a hatedom, and I didn't remove any of the unbelievably petty Simpsons entries, I even said it wasn't justified. But your entry is as cruel and unreasonable to the Futurama writers as you interpreted the scene as being to Robin Williams, and I really do think it's breaking the no real life examples part. I haven't gone out of my way to make this into a fight, I've seen nearly identical complaints about that episode elsewhere, presumably from you, but this one went beyond opinion or personal berzerk button into unfounded and seemingly displaced attacks on the Futurama writers.

Lurkerbunny: I'm pretty sure that segment wasn't made just because Mork rhymes with orc. I think you've forgotten the dialog in that scene:
Fry: Maybe it'll go away if we just don't laugh at it.
Bender: IT DOESN'T!
(I think that's it, I'm not going to go search out the clip for sure.) My point is, there was Robin-hate behind it. And I can deal with general Robin-hate, but this was violent and disturbing. And until I actually get some sort of proof the writers don't really hate Robin, I'm going to keep thinking that. I'll take out the references to the writers, but I still think that the scene was disgusting and unnesscessary and the entry should be kept.
Ray Ayanami: Is this page broken, or am I "hellbanned" Something Awful style? I've tried to add this example 10 or so times and it'll show up in the history, but not in the page itself.
  • DJMAX Technika's Core Sound course has "Para Q", a song regarded by much of the fanbase as So Bad It's Horrible. But that isn't the end of it; it's also one of the three highest-scoring songs on it, so if you want an optimal score, you must include it in the 3 songs you pick and subject yourself (and people around you) to such epic failure.

Triassicranger: On a related note, I saw a number of faux-examples last week that didn't show up on the page when I went to edit them off. As for your entry, it's not based in fiction.

Ray Ayanami: Then Dethroning Levels Of Suck (i.e. my Gradius III example) don't qualify either?
Triassicranger: Regarding the Scrappy Doo entry, I did some more reasearch and while Welker was not the voice of Scrappy, he coined the phrase "Puppy Power". To (more) work...
Demetrios: I think it's time we should divide up the page into subpages for each category (Anime, Film, etc.). The list is getting so long, it seems like even though I see a new entry in the Page History list, I can't find it anywhere on the main page.

Dragon Quest Z: I was just about to suggest that. If no one else will do it, I will tonight.
HG 131: Wow, just wow. People are too sensitive (as well as, at times, stupid). How can people be stupid? Well, not remembering Yahtzee actually is purposely hypocritical and rude for laughs, and I never though Tropers were so sensitive. Well, just my opinion, Flame Shield up, though.
Mullon: I think something should be added to each page's disclaimer about the difference between this trope and Wallbanger, but I'm not sure how to phrase it.
Santos L. Halper: From the Western Animation page:
"The third Futurama movie, Bender's Game. Up 'til then, Futurama had become famous for putting clever, original, pitch-perfect spins on old sci-fi cliches. Then, they decide to throw thousands of unfunny, done-to-death cliches at us for an hour and a half. How amazing, they're playing Dungeons And Dragons. Oh wow, Fry acts like Gollum. Look at that, Farnsworth and Igor are reciting the Luke I Am Your Father speech. "

While I can understand how the whole "Slaying of the Morks" scene mentioned above counts as a DMOS for Futurama, this entry just sounds too much like Complaining About Shows You Don't Like
Why are gameplay mechanics being included in the videogame page? We have a perfectly good Scrappy Mechanic page for that! Case in point these examples:
  • The Aegis Cave mission certainly counts, mainly because it's the most frustratingly tedious mission in the entire game. And, yes, it is mandatory. Basically, all you do is try to solve three word puzzles by spelling out the words ICE, ROCK, and STEEL. To do this, you have to collect stones with the correct letters on them from the Unown (Trust me, you'll run into plenty of Unown). Unfortunately, only 1/4 of the time will Unown drop a stone and even rarer will they drop the very stone you need. Which basically means you'll be going through the same parts of the dungeon over and over and over again until you slowly lose your sanity trying to collect whichever stones you need so you can get out of the blasted cave.
  • To this troper, the D Mo S was way back in S3/S3&K, the infamous "barrel of doom". No way around it, Guide Dang It to the max, already in a crappy level. Even worse, the level after that is ice caps zone! Sega, what the hell where you thinking? (Great Pikmin Fan)

Also, should these examples be removed?

Triassicranger: Yes.

Dealt with that and put a notice on the Video Game Dethroning Moment of Suck page to not put game mechanics on there.
Mighty Kombat: There's been something thats been bothering me about the D Mo S pages. This might come across as me being a dick, but I feel that i should jsut get it all out before I completely forget to. Okay...WHAT PART OF "DO NOT DEFEND MOMENTS" IS SO IMPOSSIBLE FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND? If the D Mo S someone puts down is clearly wrong, it makes sense but half the time, I can't see any NEED for a Justifying Edit. Not to mention that said rule is CLEARLY WRITTEN ON THE MAIN PAGE. Might just be me maoning, but we might as well write said rule in invisible Swahili for all the good it does.