Archived Discussion

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

McJeff: The Fragger. Does this article really need that? Reading it, it makes me think "run-of-the-mill troll" rather than "unique Fan Dumb type".

Game_Fan: Does anyone else see a poetic logic to the page quote? To have the ability to love something as much as possible you must have an intimate understanding of it; but that also makes it easier to see the flaws within the object of your obsession.

Sean Tucker: Repeatedly used on this very Wiki.

Morgan Wick: Pulled out

Of course, sometimes these fans are right.

as needing discussion, as it could be construed as trolling.

Twin Bird: Well...it's true. Anno has said outright that yes, he was out to get the fans.

Lale: ... In revenge for Fan Dumb. And who can blame him?

Bron Raven: Expanded the section dealing with the phrase "true fans." I've seen the term being thrown around as much among pessimistic Purists as among optimistic Tinfoilers.

Ano Sa: Actually, given that some cases of adaption decay are rather...impressive in the finale results, among other sins... Sometimes the purists have a point. However, I've also seen a few adaptions which ended up better than the source material, often by virtue of such things as judicious removal of undesirable extras. (It's about the only thing you can do when a rather good plot ended up in the hands of somebody who seems to be using the list of bad writing tropes as a checklist.)

Seven Seals: Took out this:

Of course, true tropers would never engage in something as petty as Fan Dumb. Frankly, I think the Wiki was better when there were only the three pages. They were very good pages! But no, this Wiki has been raped and butchered, and it's all Seth's fault.

As it breaks up the narrative and is insufficiently funny by way of too-obviousness.

Sikon: Doctor Who "ruined" by the new series? I've taken it out per the Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment. If it was supposed to be sarcasm, you could put it back and make it more obvious.

That Other 1 Dude: Peptuck, that Zero Punctuation quote has nothing to do with this, and we already have two quotes.

The Unsuccessful Cut-Listing Debate Of 2008(?)

Tanto: There are no examples. How is this flaming?

Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: This looks like a well-defined trope. Cosmetor probably thought the idea of Fan Dumb was insulting—he(?) also is trying to nuke Unpleasable Fanbase. I think this should stay, as it is well defined and it sometimes happens.

Cosmetor: It's flaming by definition. And it's constantly used as a flame all over the site. That is its only definition.

Tanto: Then change the flames. This is a real phenomenon, and as long as we don't have people actually saying "Man, those Fans of [Show X], what dicks, right?", I think we're fine. Let the readers draw their own conclusions. Everyone's met people who fall into these categories.

Cosmetor: A quick search reveals that there are hundreds of such occurences already. We need to eliminate them at the source. And besides, "stupid people I hate" is all the meaning this trope has anyway.

Tanto: You think just deleting it is better? Someone is still going to have to go through all the wicks and change them.

Nornagest: It's reasonable to have a trope about an irrational subset of fandom when it's trivially easy to dredge up examples of the same (five minutes at the Fandom Wank forums will do it). It's intrinsically confrontational, but so is So Bad Its Horrible, to name only one example...

Large Blunt Object: I vote keep on this one. Without examples, it's fine.

Seanette: I vote keep both this and Unpleasable Fanbase as verifiable occurrences that make for valid meta-tropes. Seems like some around here are getting awfully delete-happy lately. (Cosmetor is not the only offender.)

Cosmetor: People will keep using this trope to complain about fans they don't like (which, by the way, is its exact and only definition) for as long as it exists. Simply deleting individual occurences of this is futile. As for "verifiable occurences", that means nothing more than that people you don't like exist. This trope is barely defined.

Madacaek: I vote keep. If you delete this, you might as well delete Take That! because people are going to keep making potholes linking to it in such a way as to laugh at someone or something. I'm sure there are other tropes that have this "problem". It's fine the way it is.

Cosmetor: No. Take That! is about something that authors do. This is itself an insult and nothing more.

Idle Dandy: Good grief. Keep, with no examples, get rid of the flames around the rest of the wiki. And stop Cutlisting Tropes You Dont Like, for heaven's sake.

Fast Eddie: Consensus for the article seems to be "keep." The examples are at issue. Disputed examples should be moved to discussion.

Large Blunt Object: There aren't any examples for this one. That's why I think it should stay.

cosmetor: It is not a trope, real phenomenon, or anything but a vaguely defined insult. That is why it should be cut.

Large Blunt Object: Oh, just get the fuck over it. The consensus here and on Unpleasable Fanbase is that these are okay as they are and can stay, and though I hate these pages, general opinion is against me. If you want to try and remove the flaming and fanwank on this site, go through the wicks and fix them individually where you can make a good case for it. You're not going to achieve anything by saying the same damn thing again and again and again, and this page is plainly here to stay.

Morgan Wick: I'm thinking there should be some reference to this

either here or on a related page, especially the quote: "You listen here, fucko! I'm tired of you comic creators thinking just because you make something you own it! You don't! It's ours the minute we read it! And the fans know better than you do what's right, otherwise we'd be making comics, not reading them!"

osh: Yeah, I didnt' mean to step on folks toes (and I really don't think its a good idea to add people as examples, though I do wonder about the people taking it personally) but I've seen plenty of these and I dunno if them simply not being nice really excludes them from mention, but I think it's prevalent enough to stay objective and not fall into snarkiness. I've edited to be a little less vitriolic and a bit more objective (one reason I am not adding that Something Positive quote, for one)

Filby: Removed the second and third quotes because A) the first quote gets the point across perfectly well and B) we have enough fucking Yahtzee quotes already.

shatterspike1: Is there a place to put Troper Tales for fan dumb encounters? I know it would fill up quickly.

Filby: I think that would be pretty dangerous, not least because when we're talking about fan activity on the Internet, said fans could find their names here without much trouble. Furthermore, if and when people start adding examples from this very wiki, we'd just be asking for a fight to break out.

Garak/Tomalak OTP!

Chris X: Okay, after Gundam 00 finished its run... I found out that there is another type of Fan Dumb. A Fan Dumb who thinks that those who likes a certain character is an idiot and shallow fanboy. I'll just use Nena Trinity as an example. Yes, we all know she's despicable. But little do they know that there are those who does like her more than just her cuteness and tits. But for this Fan Dumb? All those got thrown out of the window. For them, anyone who likes her is a dumb, shallow fanboy who only sees her for the tits and cuteness, even if their reasoning is different.

Does this kind of Fan Dumb is categorized, or we can afford a new category?

Prfnoff: 67.159.41.120 wants to cut a whole bunch of fandom-subjective tropes. I don't think any of these cut requests has merit beyond Complaining About Complaining.

Madrugada: I agree with Prfnoff; this request has no merit.

Ganondorfdude11: Somebody's just whiny and wants to spoil any discussion of the negative aspects of fiction and/or fandom. The request is stupid.

randomfanboy: It's bad to say 'It wasn't made for you'? Really? I became less of a Hatedom partly because of the realisation that, perhaps, the masses weren't drooling idiots just because I enjoyed one thing and they another. Can't that be a legitimate statement?

Cosmetor: Of course it can. But this article isn't about fairness. It's about hurling abuse at anyone we don't like.

Wasn't there more to this article? Who nuked it? Why? Why nuke anything on this site? That's bullshit!

Doctor Nemesis: What's a Canon Dorf? And how does that explain that particular example better than 'Purist'?

McJeff: Canon Dorf is, apparently, a pun that isn't anywhere near as funny as the person who coined it thinks it is. I removed all mention of it from the article and restored mentions of The Purist.

BlueHighwind I'm not entirely sure where to bring this up, but this entire wiki seems to be obsessed with the very worst and most ridiculous complaints of every Fan Dumb. For example, Twilight Princess was a hugely successful game and got nearly universal acclaim from the majority of people who played it... and yet all we seem to focus on is how a few people hated it because Ganon was the main villain. Is there anything to be done here?

Archived Discussion Main / FanDumb