NSFW/Image Macro: And The Fandom Rejoiced.Anime

For use of the Reaction Guys meme.

This image was formerly listed on the OP of the IP policy thread as an exception to the "no meme" policy, but was removed by admin decision.

Thus, removed the image.

Good call. Not sure how we'd go about doing this.

You could use only the last panel, since it pretty clearly shows a group of people watching something they are interested in and rejoicing... or is that too close to 'using the meme'?

That is kind of like suggesting "base are belong to us" might be okay because it's not the whole sentence.

It's more like suggesting only the single panel instead of a column consisting of the entire dialogue. It's a bit of a poor analogy, though, because AYB is a text-based meme and any page it would be appropriate for could use it as a page quote rather than an image... But yes, I would in general advocate trimming out all the parts of the meme than the part that actually demonstrates the trope. That was the argument against demotivators and such in the first place, yes?

edited 11th Nov '12 4:15:59 PM by Noaqiyeum

"It's more like..."

No it's not, because the source is very recognizable. Most readers don't need more than one image to identify the "reaction guys".

edited 11th Nov '12 4:16:20 PM by rodneyAnonymous

Umm. So? Maybe I'm not understanding the policy correctly, but I thought the point was to eliminate anything that isn't necessary to demonstrate the trope or that only demonstrates it to a group of people with prior knowledge.

edited 11th Nov '12 4:22:47 PM by Noaqiyeum

Looking like an image macro is bad. Only part of the "reaction guys" still looks like an image macro.

I'm not familiar with the meme outside this thread, and I don't think it looks like a meme.

The opinion of someone who is not familiar with the images is not relevant to concerns about people who are familiar with the images.

Also: https://www.google.com/images?q=reaction+guys

And memes are highly fanmyopic.

Your preference does not signify! :P

Clock is set.

The thing is that the reaction guys thing would demonstrate the idea perfectly well even if they weren't a meme. If nobody had ever heard of them before, it would still be illustrative. It is technically a meme, but it doesn't rely on the fact that it's a meme to illustrate the point. It's not an Image Macro either because it lacks the redundant text caption. My point is that it would still work if it were another group of people being happy rather than the reaction guys, nobody would have any issue with it as long as it was illustrative.

I mean, if we had selected a picture using them before they went memetic, would we pull it solely because it turned into a meme even though it shows the trope?

edited 11th Dec '12 12:54:03 PM by JapaneseTeeth

The problem is the "even if they weren't" isn't true.

In other words, we pull memes for being memes, and not for being bad images? It's sort of like pulling an image that's also used in a demotivator for the reason of being a demotivator.

Yes, they are pulled for being memes. The problem with image macro images (like the reaction guys) is that they look like an image macro. Demotivators with the border/caption cropped off do not look like a demotivator. So no, it's not the same.

edited 11th Dec '12 3:25:43 PM by rodneyAnonymous

An image macro image doesn't look more than an image macro than a demotivator image looks like a demotivator.

edited 11th Dec '12 3:23:38 PM by AnotherDuck

Yes it does. Obviously it won't look like that to someone who hasn't seen the image macro before (which you said). A closer analogy would be something that looks like an example to someone who doesn't know the work, but is not actually, to people that do. Which is a strike.

edited 11th Dec '12 3:29:18 PM by rodneyAnonymous

But a demotivator image looks like a demotivator if you've seen the demotivator. Which isn't a strike.

I think we can agree that the image is a meme and needs to go away on these merits.

If we pull memes for being memes, all else not considered, then I already said so, Jeopardy style.

Assumptions, I don't see how it's relevant, and it's pointless.

edited 11th Dec '12 4:30:10 PM by AnotherDuck

"But a demotivator image looks like a demotivator if you've seen the demotivator"

No it doesn't. As far as I know, there are no images that are consistently used as a demotivator. If someone saw one and recognized the source, they might think "hey I've seen that image in a demotivator". They are unlikely to think "that image used to be a demotivator". The same is not true of image macros. The imagery is immediately recognizable to anyone familiar with the macro. The reaction guys, philosoraptor, advice dog, the "me no gusta" face, etc do not appear in anything but image macros. "Condescending Wonka" might be arguable, because it does.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/reaction-guys-gaijin-4koma

edited 11th Dec '12 4:08:09 PM by rodneyAnonymous

@Rodney: 2 things:

1. There's a difference between a meme and an Image Macro. The reaction guys are not an image macro. Image macros have superimposed text. It's just a picture of four guys that happens to be used as a meme.

2. I really don't think it's relevant whether or not people recognize it as a meme if it illustrates the image either way. If they recognize it, they'll understand what it means. If they don't recognize it as a meme... they'll still understand what it means because it's illustrative. I don't know why the fact that this particular image is memetic should override how illustrative it is. If it were a different picture of four guys doing the exact same thing, we wouldn't have any problem using it.