Real Life section maintenance (New Crowner 19 Feb 2024)

If Permanent Elected Official really is about officials who *cannot* be removed as opposed to those who *are not* removed, we'd need to scrap at least Mayor Quimby since a lot of the short-term plots *do* feature him being replaced by somesuch or somesuch even if it is usually temporarily. In addition, it'd require a revision of the trope page in question since the description is misleading compared to the "true" trope you propose. For one, it explicitly says the trope applies so long as said person will not and really never will be thrown out of office, even if that is only due to excessive corruption and other arrangements making them politically bulletproof in any election. To quote:

Perhaps because there's no one to fire (the Permanent Elected Official)(who fires the King of a Kingdom?), or perhaps because no one will run against them. Or maybe their corruption is part of the reason they can cling to their office. Lastly, they may simply use the population's general apathy.

Secondly, even if we *do* adhere to that and that alone, there are still a number of other Real Life cases that undoubtedly and legally do or did exist, and which can be added without further controversy. For one, the "Elected King" bit is exactly what happened- albiet usually with the election being by and amongst only the elite (though there were exceptions, like Ireland's Clan leaders and Iceland's Goðorð)- particularly during the Medieval era. So no matter which way we choose to go, it's hard to justify keeping it suspended.

Regarding The Empire: that isn't the justification given for why The Empire is on the page. Just that it is a "Natter Magnet." Furthermore, even the "Evil Trope" example is not justified, since the trope description itself specifies cases even in fiction where The Empire is not evil (similarly to the Type Four The Emperor doing the same on that page). Couple that with the fact that the Real Life section that existed on The Empire only listed and gave an overview of them without passing judgement- calling them "Evil" like the justification for suspending it says- and that also handily disposes of that argument.

edited 7th Oct '12 3:39:34 PM by Turtler

The issue with The Empire is that it is usually associated with "evil". Also, I can't see the "not necessarily evil" bit anywhere.

Note to self: do not go off of your own memory, since it tends to leak and not be up to date.

You're correct, particularly with the clarification on the main page that having the word Empire isn't enough to qualify for the trope. Of course, that raises another question regarding that, given how many people tend to attach things like the Tamriellic Empire of The Elder Scrolls (particularly after Skyrim) as one. I have the feeling a re-write proposal might be in the cards there, though I'd guess that would be for the respective Trope page.

Still though, can "usually" associated with evil justify rubbing an entire trope out? If so, that principle has been woefully enforced if it even exists. Former Regime Personnel are also usually associated with evil, but to the best of my knowledge nobody's seriously considered attaching it to this page. So even if The Empire does deserve to say on here, I wouldn't be so sure it's because of that principle alone.

edited 7th Oct '12 3:54:32 PM by Turtler

I don't think "usually associated with evil" counts. It probably means you're going to have to be careful about it if you're using Real Life examples, but not a complete ban on them.

I would like to nominate "Mildly Military". Being that the trope is about media depictions of the military being a milder version than the real military, I don't think that real military should be under it. How people think the military should run and how the military actually runs are two completely and totally separate ideas.

Not to mention, one of my biggest pet peeves is when military members bash on other branches of the military. They're supposed to support each other and work together for the good of their nation and the world. It's not supposed to be a contest on who is better, stronger, tougher, etc. Each has a different role to play, and they cannot be compared. That said, the Real Life section on this page is filled with examples of people dissing other branches of the military because their ranks, conduct, level of comfort, department of government, etc. don't line up with what they think a military branch should be. I know it's par for the course for people to judge other branches and countries by their own ideas of what military should be, or by what their branch of the military does, but it's still disrespectful.

Examples:

1. Calling the Navy a "blue collar task force" is not acceptable. They are still active and skilled in combat. Also, all branches of the military see each other as "not as military as us".
2. Just because the Coast Guard is not under the Department of Defense in peace time doesn't mean that they're not military: As per Title 14 of the United States code, they are a branch of the military.
3. The JROTC and the like are kids, and, due to the complaints of parents and people who don't understand the military, won't have as many restrictions as the non-junior branches.
4. The Lighthouse Board may have had a home with their families, but current military bases all (at least those that I'm aware of) have family dwellings.
5. There is no military in the world whose members don't act out when they are off duty. It's what happens when one is under strict discipline for far too long: hijinks ensue when off duty. The Israeli Defense Force is no different. Just because everyone in the country is required to serve for two years does not make them a civilian force.

In other words, the Real Life section ought to be thrown out, if not because of the definition of the trope, then because of examples like these. This isn't about who's better, stronger, faster, tougher, more experienced, more disciplined, etc. It's about depictions in the media of military acting as the military never would, and getting away with things the military never would. I believe that it's disrespectful to the service women and men of the world to include Real Life examples on this page. I'm surprised that the page hasn't erupted into an edit war already, with people deleting and re-adding examples.

edited 7th Oct '12 8:20:11 PM by MoonChild02

Interservice rivalry will always be with us, I'm afraid. But nevertheless, you had me at this part:

Sorry, but I'd like to oppose the Mildly Military nomination, and from where I stand it seems like it's more of a complaint with how the various services fight with each other than the actual trope. I'm not going to deny that the interservice beatings should get cut, but that's as professionalism and ethical thing rather than dealing with the trope itself.

Furthermore, there are indeed some real life military outfits that could safely be described as Milidly Military. Special Forces comes to mind, as my Grandfather spared no amount of time hammering into my head. There also tends to be varying degrees of the case in a few countries that haven't seen actual armed conflict in decades and which tend to have strict neutrality. Secondly, even outside of that there are several outfits in Real Life that are Mildly Military which *aren't* part of the armed forces but which usually crib at least some things from it. Militias, Warlord troops, Guerrilla/Insurgents (pretty much by their very nature), and statelets too poor to kit out a proper military tend to also be like this (case in point: Transnistria. Or heck... the early US Continental Army.).

Instead, I propose we go through the Real Life Section on that page and trim out the objectionable parts for the sake of avoiding a flame war and keeping things duly respectful.

I for one would volunteer.

edited 7th Oct '12 10:20:50 PM by Turtler

I'd say cut the natter, garbage, and ill-fitting examples from Mildly Military, and then we have another look. For the purpose of the page, I think it may actually be a good idea to have a Real Life section as contrast/comparison to the fictional examples. It's one of those tropes where it actively helps the page, rather than being a side note.

The second to last paragraph is Troper Tales, and the USS Enterprise example has sections that begin with, "Actually", "To be honest, what I consider", and "Frankly", which is poor writing.

edited 8th Oct '12 3:47:55 AM by AnotherDuck

Calling:

• Sliding Scale of Villain Threat, added 4th Oct '12 at 6:27 PM. 15 votes total, 6.5:1 yes/no ratio
• Evil Matriarch, added 5th Oct '12 at 08:19:42 PM. 11 votes total, 4.5:1
• Wicked Stepmother, added 5th Oct '12 at 08:20:01 PM. 11 votes total, 4.5:1

Also, on another note can we please re-write the rationales for a lot of the items ont he list? A lot of them come off as being superior, rude, insulting, sarcastic, and generally holier-than-thou when they have absolutely no right to be. Particularly since on topics this controversial I'd think we'd need to remain professional and impartial even if it's just explaining *why* we're not going to talk about something.

In particular, I don't think the legitimacy of the page or the site, or the moderators and others who advocated it is served by phrasing the rationales in such divisive and frankly often meanspirited ways. Heck, it might even cause opposition to this page and its' items to be more severe than it'd be otherwise, and that's a dang problem since I think we can all agree this page has a very, *Very* important role.

This isn't a court of law; it's a wiki. There's nothing wrong with being informal. And quite frankly, a lot of the RL sections are a fucking mess, or were before we started this process.

^ I think ^^ meant more that Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment should be applied to the NRLEP reasons to cut down on stuff looking like it's trying to pick a fight.

(I haven't looked closely at them, so no comment on the issue.)

edited 9th Oct '12 7:39:49 AM by Nohbody

The crowner can be cleaned — there are only called entries, plus three 'ignore, mistake' entries.

Real Life

First, it refers to real people as "jerks", which is generally not a good idea and rather subjective.

Secondly, even if the first were true, there were a lot of the Pet the Dog moments than true Heart of Gold (Dov Charny, Kanye West)

It just needs to be deleted or a massive cleanup.

I suggest we remove all Zero Context Examples first. However, many of the entries clearly state that that's how the people are perceived by those who don't know them very well, and then goes on to explain that those who do know them think they're great people. I don't see that as insulting.

edited 9th Oct '12 10:30:25 AM by AnotherDuck

To quote some of the more "out there" justifications with commentary when necessary, do you really think we should keep things like this up?

I Have You Now, My Pretty - Oh my goodness, no!! This is too creepy. It feels kinda redundant to complain about this, but of all the equally horrifying rape tropes you randomly stuck "Oh my goodness, No!!" in and said "This is too creepy?" At best it comes across as gratuitous, at worst it sounds like all the other rape tropes weren't worth the author's outrage and quick which we *know* would be damn offensive for good reasons.

The Women Are Safe with Us - Really? Yes, Really, mein herr. At least the rest are helpful in explaining things. This is just a vaguely worded explanation because apparently someone couldn't help but muster the outrage to type this, but couldn't muster enough to actually make it helpful. Also arguably demeaning the actual military units in history that were disciplined enough to avoid excesses like that.

Dystopian Edict - Ummm, no!!!

Umm, great explanation. Even though it comesd on the tail of two other Dystopian examples with reasonings, it's still pretty dang gratuitous and unhelpful.

Visual Innuendo - We do not need to hear how dirty your mind is, troper! : Gratuitous and potentially offensive.

Sexy Discretion Shot - This is specifically about camerawork, which does not exist in Real Life. Poorly worded at the very least and potentially offensive; I understand the point they were trying to make, but still I'd hate to tell my shutterbug Dad that camerawork doesn't exist in real life just because there's no overarching camera filming our lives.

Also, just about every example that ends with ",okay?" or some variation thereof, which is A: utterly unneeded and B: comes across as someone trying to sound superior or some such. It's not needed, and it just makes the rest of the-usually all too reasonable- rationale tainted because someone felt the need to add it in.

I could go on, but those are the ones that stick out to me at present.

I would have infinitely more sympathy towards your position had I not actually read some of those real life sections prior to their demise.

I'm not sure which part you're responding to, the two I've actually proposed be rehabilitated, or the general proposal to clean up the rationale on the index.

In either case, I'm not saying in the least that the RL segments of the articles weren't royal messes. In some specific cases I'd argue against you (The Empire is one) but not in general. I wasn't around for when many if not most got the can, but I've seen enough to understand why.

However, I fail to see how the fact that (Some/Most of) the Real Life segments in question were ungodly abominations *justifies* either removing any that could possibly be subjective (The Empire in particular seems to be a victim of this rather than anything that was in its' Real Life section) or what I can only call making a mess of the justifications.

Guys, let's be frank here: this site needs this index. It's worth doing. I don't know about anybody else, but I think that means it's worth doing *right,* including trimming and fixing the justifications.

The part about the justifications. Given the historical nature of lots of these sections (in particular sex-related tropes like many of those you just cited), I can't find it in myself to try and be nice about prohibiting them.

Ahh, thanks for the clarification. As for that, We're not being nice about prohibiting them, particularly if anybody decides to resurrect or stick an example on the actual example. What we should do is just be *thorough* and complete about prohibiting them, even if that means cutting down on the nasty to do it better.

I don't see how "Really?" fits that when "Unfortunate Implications", "There are bad apples in every barrel and stereotyping is bad", or something else would do the same thing but far better.

Let's put it this way: you know too much about those articles to feel kind about them, and having seen a lot I can't blame you. But what about those who don't know as much, and haven't seen them? Don't we have to explain why we listed those?

edited 9th Oct '12 8:48:34 PM by Turtler

It'd be easier to understand why you don't like the wording, Turtler, if your responses to the wording weren't merged with what you quoted with nothing to mark or separate them.

its like trying to read something with no punctuation or capitalization

edited 11th Oct '12 4:37:03 PM by ArcadesSabboth

My apologies for that. I thought it had been sufficient. Apparently I was wrong.

I Have You Now, My Pretty - "Oh my goodness, no!! This is too creepy."

It feels kinda redundant to complain about this, but of all the equally horrifying rape tropes you randomly stuck "Oh my goodness, No!!" in and said "This is too creepy?" At best it comes across as gratuitous, at worst it sounds like all the other rape tropes weren't worth the author's outrage and quick which we *know* would be damn offensive for good reasons.

The Women Are Safe with Us - "Really?"

Yes, Really, mein herr. At least the rest are helpful in explaining things. This is just a vaguely worded explanation because apparently someone couldn't help but muster the outrage to type this, but couldn't muster enough to actually make it helpful. Also arguably demeaning the actual military units in history that were disciplined enough to avoid excesses like that.

Dystopian Edict - "Ummm, no!!!"

Umm, great explanation. Even though it comes on the tail of two other Dystopian examples with reasonings, it's still pretty dang gratuitous and unhelpful.

Visual Innuendo - "We do not need to hear how dirty your mind is, troper!"

: Gratuitous and potentially offensive.

Sexy Discretion Shot - "This is specifically about camerawork, which does not exist in Real Life."

Poorly worded at the very least and potentially offensive; I understand the point they were trying to make, but still I'd hate to tell my shutterbug Dad that camerawork doesn't exist in real life just because there's no overarching camera filming our lives. .

These explanations aren't offficial, they are added by tropers after the adding to the NRLEP index.

If they're not official, than why are they being left on an official, Administrative-ville Index? Sorry, but that sounds like having it both ways when you really can't. If this is the official index that the authorities have put out to catalog and explain the restrictions, it makes sense that some level of quality control'd be necessary.

I just noticed that Psychopathic Manchild has a Real Life section. I can hardly put my disgust with this fact into words.

edited 13th Oct '12 2:57:29 PM by Prfnoff