Is this an example?

The trope is about what characters make it into the game, not in which order they're announced. It's not like game companies are obligated to announce the most popular and obvious choices first.

Reposting from the previous pages, so it doesn't get lost:

Is the following example from Freaky Friday (2003) being used correctly?:

• Unintentional Period Piece: All the gizmos Tess puts in her purse and has to juggle on a daily basis would definitely not have been included had the film been made in The New '10s. Even just entering the next decade, she would have had a single smartphone to replace all of it, which might have made the theme of her workaholism keeping her away from her family harder to convey.

I have a question for those familiar with The Testament Of Sister New Devil. I originally posted this on ATT, but I'm reposting it here.

In Basara Tojo's backstory, his Traumatic Superpower Awakening when he stopped the demon who stole Brynhildr inadvertently killed several of Basara's friends at the worst possible time and understandably caused him to be exiled from the village. As such, would that be considered a Nice Job Breaking It, Hero, an Unwitting Instigator of Doom, both at once, or a different trope altogether?

edited 14th Jan '18 5:23:25 PM by gjjones

So I recently went on the Star Wars – Resistance Heroes and found that someone had listed Love Dodecahedron under general character tropes. The issue I found with the application was that three of the four "romantic attractions", Poe and Rey, Finn and Poe, and Rey and Kylo (that last one includes a character that's not even featured) listed were not canonical. From examples I've seen under the page for the trope itself, Love Dodecahedron seems to only apply to canon romantic interest multiple characters have in one another. Is this correct?

Tropes, unless otherwise specified, are not about fanon. If it's not in the work itself, it's not a trope.

Removed this from GameBreakingBug.Role Playing Game, because I've found no info on it actually breaking the game. Replaced it with the Game-Breaking Bug entry from the work page.

But, is it an example of Sequence Breaking? I don't know if it allows progression of the main quest out of order or anything.

That's not Sequence Breaking, since it doesn't allow actually playing the majority of the game early. It's a bug that accidentally reveals two plot points long before they're supposed to be revealed, but I have no idea if there's a trope for that - I can't think of one.

It is a variant of Interface Spoiler I believe, which it says it includes sidequests with plot points available too early in the plot to know about those plot points and those red Templar are part of a side quest, but I would be for running that through YKTTW as a trope in itself.

edited 15th Jan '18 10:53:42 AM by Memers

I'm not sure Interface Spoiler is supposed to apply to bugs, though. (And those Red Templars spawning way too early is definitely a bug, because it doesn't happen for everyone).

^ - Any ideas for the name of the TLP? Event Out Of Order Bug? ... Seems like some relation with You Shouldn't Know This Already

Can a Flaw both be informed, and yet Fatal at the same time? If its Fatal, its presented, not just informed, right? ... Goodnight. Gonna set quotes tomorrow.

Informed Flaw - Literature:

Characters.The Camp Half Blood Series Servants Of The Gods - Bianca Di Angelo:

edited 16th Jan '18 4:15:40 PM by Malady

Could I get feedback on this, please, so that I may finalize the entry transplantation (if there's any left)?

It's one of the one-or-the-other cases, I believe. Characters.Slow Start:

• Held Back in School: Hana's case is a justified instance in that she missed her high school entrance exams on account of mumps and so, begins high school a year later than expected.

I read some East Asian publications describing similar situations as a case of (modern) Rōnin. But which is more correct? For background purposes, in Japan students usually change schools when they enters high school (10th grade in the US).

I found a weird example of Rule of Symbolism in Godspell that goes as follows:

There's a sub-indented reply labeled as Fridge Brilliance (I know, it should be removed from the work page) that seems to be a Rhetorical Question Blunder:

What should I do with this? I don't see the symbolism.

edited 16th Jan '18 2:00:24 PM by Gosicrystal

Is it fair to say Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow is an example of Extremely Short Timespan? The whole game takes place during a total solar eclipse, meaning Soma couldn't have been running around the castle for longer than seven minutes.

I wouldn't put it in unless the game specifically points out that he'd been running around for a very short time.

Can a non-tomboyish girl have an Unmanly Secret?

The character in question is Ilmeria from Atelier Firis: The Alchemist and the Mysterious Journey. She isn't that much of a tomboy: she wears a dress, has long hair with a ribbon in it, and uses a Magic Staff to fight from afar instead of melee combat.

At several points in the game, she expresses interest in cute stuff, but tries to hide it. For example, when you visit the snow field, she'll make a snow rabbit, but then ask that you don't look. And in one event where she goes shopping, she expresses interest in a cute stuffed chick, but insists that she's only appreciating the material it's made from. It's not until after you finish most of her events that she admits to loving cute stuff.

If she was male, or a tomboy, then I wouldn't hesitate to add Unmanly Secret to her character sheet, but right now I'm not sure.

- Well, it might be Year Inside, Hour Outside? I'd assume, but don't know, that Extremely Short Timespan works on in-character perception of time needing to be really short, so if it were literally Year Inside, Hour Outside, then it wouldn't be Extremely Short Timespan, because a year's events did actually happen, to the character, even though, its just been an hour for everyone else?

- So, she's a Tomboy with a Girly Streak?

edited 16th Jan '18 8:28:23 PM by Malady

I don't think she's enough of a tomboy to qualify.

IIRC she sees it as being too kiddy instead of girly.

So it's been about 4 days, any chance I could get some kind of response to the example I brought here x18.

From YMMV.Steven Universe S 5 E 12 Jungle Moon:

• Counterpart Comparison: Stevonnie acting out as Pink may remind one of child Korra in the Spirit Realm with Iroh in Avatar.
• Fridge Brilliance: The dialog between Yellow Diamond and the Nephrite suggests that the latter could actually be Centipeetle, years before her participation on the Earth invasion.
• Fridge Horror:
  • For all we know, Pink might have still been a child by Gem (or Diamond, since they're obviously different from the rest of the Gem race) standards when she was shattered.

For the last one, Gems don't have a concept of aging like we do; they come out of the ground fully formed and don't experience any "physical" growth afterward, but I figured I'd put it here with the others.

Dubious examples from StrawmanHasAPoint.Vegan Artbook. The trope is "this strawman's argument is actually strong", not "I happen to agree with the non-strawmanned version of the strawman's view".

• One panel has a disabled person state that she can't go vegan because her carer decides what she eats, so she has no choice in whether or not to go vegan. Dolly retorts that she should be able to tell the carer that she wants Vegan foods and, if her carer refuses, then they should be sued. The problem is that a carer's job is to make sure their patient is healthy, which means giving them the food they need, not what they want.

If the strawman had said something like "I asked my carer about vegan options, but she told me I need meat because it contains <insert nutrients here>", she would've had a point. The strawman's actual argument just makes it sounds like she never bothered to tell her carer about her preferences. Of course her requests might be denied because they're not healthy enough, but since the comic suggests that she didn't even try to discuss it (or decide against discussing it because "the carer knows best"), I'd say she has a weak argument.

• In one particular strip about Brie/Plausibell giving out vegan food without telling people what it is◊, Shawn points out how deceptive it was of his sister and Legua defends this saying you can't trick someone into eating something they already eat. This makes Shawn retract his point, and his Butt-Monkey status is enforced. However, Shawn was Right for the Wrong Reasons on why this was alarming, because Brie's/Plausibell's fake meat could have potentially caused an allergic reaction in his friends who wouldn't know what they were fed until it was too late.
  • Additionally, Legua's argues that you can't trick someone into eating something they already eat. Yes, you can. If you take an orange, disguise it as an apple, and then give it to people while telling someone that it's an orange, it doesn't matter if the people you sell it to already eat oranges, you're still tricking them.

The second (incorrectly indented) bullet point is valid, but didn't we figure out that strawmen being Right for the Wrong Reasons doesn't count? Besides, the comic says that the meat eaters who were tricked already eat vegetables, so allergies shouldn't be a problem unless there are strange additives in the vegan food or something like that.

Is it an example if the strawman makes a statement you agree with, but with a weak justification (e.g. a pro-marijuana troper adding "Weed should be legal because it counteracts the Illuminati's mind control")? How about when someone says something true, but uses an incorrect justification (e.g. "2+2=4 because <insert nonsense here>")? I believe this one falls under one of the categories I described:

• Cunton's views on hunting saving animals is treated as being nonsensical propaganda that is contradictory and hypocritical. However, her point about hunting is not wrong, because it causes animals to be seen as an asset and provides revenue for conservation. Plus without revenue of hunting, poaching cannot be policed and can go unchecked. Also in certain parts of the world hunting provides revenue and meat for the native people as well.

Cunton's argument that hunting is for the animals' own good may be right, but her justification had nothing to do with turning animals into assets and protecting them from poaching.

Also, does it count if the strawman makes a valid argument despite being a hypocrite about it?

• In one panel, Diva goes on a rant about how people are murdering others. Then Dolly steps in and says meat is murder, and Diva scolds her for misusing the word. While the narrative treats Diva as a Straw Hypocrite for chastising Dolly, she is right that saying "meat is murder" doesn't fit the definition. It is defined by many dictionaries (which Diva herself was stating before her speech ended in gibberish) as, "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another".

The problem is that Diva describes animal killers as "murderers", and then hypocritically scolds Dolly for her comparable misuse of the term.

Edit: And one from the trope's main page:

• In The Little Mermaid, Triton is the intolerant Jerkass telling Ariel how cruel and evil humans are, and Ariel's idealistic views all turn out to be right. But given humans have been exploiting the oceans for millennia, along with using it as a giant garbage dump, and as seen in the prequel, are directly responsible for the death of his wife, as far as he knows humans really are evil.

We see humans eating fish in the movie, so the "humans exploit the ocean" argument does hold. I don't remember if pollution is ever mentioned in the movie, but it shouldn't be on the page unless it is. As for the death of Triton's wife, it's not like humans went out of their way to kill her. She was crushed by a ship because she was stupid enough to put herself in harm's way to save a music box.

edited 19th Jan '18 7:59:07 AM by MathsAngelicVersion

If the arguments aren't actually presented by the strawman, it's a normal strawman who's wrong, even if the real version of that argument would be wrong. The trope is about the actual strawman, as presented, being right.

With that in mind, the "hunting saves animals" is actually correct, even if not enough detail is given to it. Just because it sounds silly doesn't mean it's incorrect. So that example fits.

The rant about the definition of "murder" is also correct. The argument was about misusing the word, which they do.

The rest of them are misuse the way I understand them, including the The Little Mermaid one. "Humans are evil" is a generalisation that doesn't hold up. The argument isn't that some humans are (which is true), but that all humans are, or humans by definition are. And "as far as he knows" doesn't matter. It might justify his belief, but it doesn't make it true.

edited 19th Jan '18 3:15:01 PM by AnotherDuck

I deleted the example about the carer, the Right for the Wrong Reasons one and the one from The Little Mermaid. In the "meat is murder" one, I emphasized Diva's status as a Straw Hypocrite while maintaining that the argument she uses against Dolly is true. After all, Diva's hypocrisy does nothing to disprove her point.

Should I rewrite the hunting example to something like this? The problem is that Cunton's original argument is good even though her justification is weak. (I left out the part about hunting providing revenue and meat for the native people. It's a good argument for hunting, but it's irrelevant to the question of whether hunting is good for animals, as Cuntons claims.)

• In this comic, Cunton correctly points out that hunting can benefit animals. Although her justification for this view is weak, her main argument holds because hunting turns animals into assets, provides revenue for conservation and can protect from poaching.

Is this Musicalis Interruptus or The Day the Music Lied?

• Starship Promise: In Jaxon's season 4, the protagonist is thrown during the fight with Kreave and hits her head. The action music comes to an abrupt halt.