Misused: Worthy Opponent

I support the redefinition as posted in the sandbox.

Agreed. The sandbox is basically what I've always seen it wicked as and seems closest to the colloquial definition.

Suggestion:

When the hero and the villain clash repeatedly, over time they may develop respect for their opponent's abilities. After all, their adversary is able to keep rising to oppose them battle after battle. Only in the heat of battle is the hero or villain's true capabilities and determination revealed.

If romance is a possibility, this often is a first step towards Dating Catwoman. Even without real romance, Foe Yay will get involved when one or the other starts insisting on a relationship.

I think you mean Villainous Crush instead of Foe Yay. I'll consider adding it to the sandbox when I have time. (I also have another tweak I think I want to make.)

No, I meant Foe Romance Subtext. I had missed the redefinition. Now I need to go through the works I watch and clean them up.

I'm saying I think the current definition is consistent with the examples, and your interpretation of the trope is a based on a misreading of the Example as a Thesis.

In this case the intro paragraph describes a typical way for the trope to play out, giving readers a reference point that helps them identify other instances of the trope. However, because Tropes Are Flexible, many examples won't play out in that exact manner.

Both the current definition and the laconic have a key element in common, and that's the character having a code of honor. In practice, this means examples, if written correctly, would explain or at least mention said character's code of honor.

They don't, so either a lot of the examples are incorrectly written, or there's misuse. I'm really not sure how you can deny there's a problem when one of the core elements of the trope keeps not showing up in examples on other pages.

Me bump, you no thump.

I added Foe Romance Subtext as per the suggestion, and made my final tweak.

I think you thought I meant Villainous Crush because you're not making a distinction between "romance" and "relationship". The word "romance" would be a textual indication of sexual interest. The word "relationship" is a subtextual indication of the same.

• Foe Romance Subtext: "Venom... I've been all over this city looking for you! You never call, you never write... It's like I'm the only one interested in making this relationship work..."
• Villainous Crush: "Just fear me. Love me. Do as I say, and I shall be your slave. "

Also, I had suggested a change to the first paragraph because using "After all" in two consecutive sentences looks bad.

edited 22nd Jan '14 6:48:19 PM by crazysamaritan

Good catch on the double "after all", my bad.

On the other issue, I thought I phrased it to cover that. After all, romantic subtext (at least, of the intended variety) isn't really possible if outright romance is out of the question.

At what point would most people consider romance between two characters to be off the table? (rhetorical, setting the stage for my next statement)

Foe Yay Shipping covers when fans assume that the subtext of Foe Romance Subtext means there is a romantic relationship. FRS applies even when both characters are robots without a sex drive. FYS is the reading of a romance when it isn't explicit.

It is sexually-charged dialogue between two foes.

edited 23rd Jan '14 7:31:37 AM by crazysamaritan

After a few days of thinking it over, I've concluded the best option (at least for now) is to remove the mention of romance related tropes. Given the recent Foe Yay split, it's likely to just confuse people, and this already is confusing enough.

Thoughts?

I don't even understand how any form of romance worked itself into this trope, kill it.

Reasonable.

Done and done.

Does anyone else not named Troacctid have any problems? (Seriously, I really don't see the point of a crowner if it's just one person protesting the change versus several people in favor of it.)

If this wasn't a redefinition (that is, if we were replacing Example as a Thesis with a real definition) then the discussion belonged in the Trope Description Improvements thread in the long term / perpetual forum.

Because of precedents, I prefer having a crowner. Especially when someone has an objection. :)

It might be one person sure but it doesn't mean The Complainer Is Always Wrong.

Crowner, waiting for da hook.

Hookage.

I have an issue with the first line of the trope description.

Why do we need to mention "clash repeatedly"? All that's going to do is either lead to confusion over whether or not an example fits, or it's going to cause the next TRS thread to question call any two opponents who just met "Misuse".

Because it's a common element (although not required) of the sandbox version of the trope?

While they don't have to fight multiple times as such (I use "fight" loosely here, since not all confrontations are settled that way), one character has to come to respect the opposing character's abilities. That's not likely if they "just met", so nine times out of ten that would be misuse.

Not really. Off the top of my head, I can name several examples of that. Especially in anime.

It's just bad form to assume that something is "common" or not in a trope unless it's necessary.

Downvoted the sandbox. The first paragraph has a problem with Example as a Thesis.

I think the "redefine" option should simply be to redefine it rather than to redefine it as per the sandbox page. The Sandbox page may need further work before it is ready.

One week check-in on the crowner.

The "rewrite according to Sandbox" option is at 10:3, with all other options very heavily in the red.