Ron the Death Eater Cleanup

Well, what I've suggested IS "one example, one bullet point". It mentions one character from one work who receives the treatment for what reason and how. An actual general example would be using one bullet point to mention multiple characters from different works who share a trait, like simply white-haired guys being used as an example. Forcing people to use specific fan works to prove their point breaks our no notability policy and ultimately makes them objective examples for those fan works rather than YMMV for the official work, which misses the point of YMMV stuff. Other YMMV pages are fine with simply mentioning a character who is given a treatment without mentioning fan works. The fandom does X a lot to one character is not a general example especially if given context, the fandom does X a lot to a character group related but trait is, other pages forbid such examples. I think that you all are trying to add a problem which admittedly exists, but you're taking it out of proportion and way it's meant to be used.

Edited by Piterpicher on Dec 27th 2019 at 10:24:31 AM

Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods of Incremental)

Thought, Death Eater and Leather Pants is supposed to apply to fan works criticized for their Adaptational X, it's the same as Canon Defilement.

Proposed fix:

1. Move all example from fan works whitewashing/vilifying them under Canon Defilement if applicable (as that covers the audience reaction that separates it from Adaptational X)
2. Move use of trope to the source material if we can figure out a fix for the no general examples thing.
3. If we can't fix it, make Ron the Death Eater and Draco in Leather Pants like Character Derailment, only allow trope examples under the tropes pages, which is where we can concentrates all examples giving them enough examples to prove this is a widespread enough phenomenon to be trope worthy.

What I'm trying to say is that there is no general examples problem here, since as far as I know, these are not actual general examples that would break "Examples are Not General" on How to Write an Example, and I find that making these YMMV items require specific examples in fanworks makes the tropes break TINSTN and ultimately seem objective. Most YMMV items don't require fan works to prove them, so I feel like we're making this too hard by not allowing simply characters who are often vilified/heroised in fanworks. Though I think that the problem is also with laconics making these two items inconsistent ("A morally good/neutral character in a work is portrayed as evil or a jerkass in fanworks, often due to the fans' personal opinion of them." and "Fandom downplays or cuts out the villain's evilness, often due to their looks.", and I'd ultimately make both pages go for the second-ish definition for both). Can people at least address this, as explained in my previous two admittedly long posts? I'll shut up about this issue once I feel like this is satisfied, you have my word.

As for proposals, not sure about Canon Defilement as it doesn't allow examples. As for the others, we'll see, though ultimately leaning toward 3.

Edited by Piterpicher on Dec 27th 2019 at 10:50:36 AM

Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods of Incremental)

If I can just put my opinion in here and add to Piterpicher's point, if RTDE and DILP examples that discuss ways that fans twist the personality of a character without citing specific fics are considered general, what exactly keeps stuff like Memetic Psychopath or Memetic Badass from falling into the same issue? Based off of those, it doesn't seem too general to me because it's talking about a specific character and a specific way that fans twist their personality, in an ideal example anyway. Maybe we could adjust the requirements for RTDE and DILP to say that groups cannot qualify and that tropers must explain how and why an individual character qualifies.

<(0_0<) <(0_0)> (>0_0)> KIRBY DANCE

... Requiring examples to be from specific fan works breaks the principle that any work is tropable?

Trouble Cube continues to be a general-purpose forum for those who desire such a thing.

Damn... It doesn't. Well, I partially thought that our no notability needed policy would cover whether sources are needed for examples, but it doesn't. Stupid me. But this is only one argument, I still have the one that requiring fan work sourcing makes the example objective for a fan work rather than YMMV for the official work which kills the point of YMMV, plus other stuff.

Edited by Piterpicher on Dec 27th 2019 at 11:44:51 AM

Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods of Incremental)

I don't know if it kills the point of YMMV to make a "this happens in fan works a lot" YMMV item into a "this happens in this particular fan work" objective trope.

If the pattern is objectively happening in the fan works, what benefit is there to focus on the fact that it's a subjective reaction to the original work?

Trouble Cube continues to be a general-purpose forum for those who desire such a thing.

The problem seems to be DILP and RTDH have two incompatable uses, fandoms whitewashing/vilifying a character (YMMV) and fan works whitewashing/vilifying (becomes non-YMMV as it's intentional in the work). We need to figure out which one it is before deciding on a cleanup action.

Considering how the latter is redundant with Adaptational Villainy and Adaptational Heroism, I think we should go with the former use.

<(0_0<) <(0_0)> (>0_0)> KIRBY DANCE

Definitely the former.

Illuminate!

---

~Piterpicher, this is great context for Alternative Character Interpretation, which is about fans/fandoms who create multiple interpretations about characters. Ron the Death Eater, however, requires that such an interpretation makes its way into a Fan Work. That's where Examples Are Not General gets involved; Making a blanket statement on the behavior of Super Evil Bros. Fan Works assumes all of those works do the exact same thing for the exact same reason, much like "all '70s Live-Action TV" use a trope in the exact same way. Specific examples would derive from fics, and it follows logically that they should go on the articles for those fics, rather than for the original work.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

The thing is, YMMV is supposed to be an overview of a fandom, as far as I know. Examples are expected to be general in terms of the fandom, to an extent. Trying to actually require examples from objective fan works makes them objective tropes for those fan works rather than YMMV for the official work, which then leads into redundancy with official tropes like Adaptational Villainy. Take something like Memetic Molester. Not everyone is going to see a character as a molester and/or turn them into one in fan works, but obviously some fans are. If it's expained why they would want to do it, there's nothing wrong with that, though the subpages are full of Zero-Context Examples right now. The benefit of YMMV pages is that people are generally more interested in the official work, but those who actually want to find out more about the fandom in brief would go to YMMV. Plus most of our articles on fan works are of lesser quality than official works, so it's probably good to have a general fandom-describer on higher quality work pages' YMMV where it's easier to see. Besides, there are so many fan works for popular official works that not everyone may be willing to sit through them all and see every single instance of a random fan who wants to portray someone differently, as there could exist thousands of such people. Overall, Examples Are Not General should not apply to YMMV items unless they refer to multiple characters from different works related by a trait or something.

So yes, to me, Draco in Leather Pants and Ron the Death Eater should be YMMV about fandoms whitewashing/vilifying the character, while Adaptational Heroism and Adaptational Villainy should be objective tropes for official works and fan works whitewashing/vilifying the character (former idea). It would make stuff much easier.

Edited by Piterpicher on Dec 28th 2019 at 3:17:19 PM

Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods of Incremental)

RTDH and DILP are distinct subtropes of Alternate Character Interpretation because there is a notable trend in the fandom to that supposedly unfair interpretation.

Question, why does Memetic Molester, a subtrope of RTDH, not require sources? Is it a distinct enough form of vilification?

This leads me to think the best fix is to move RTDH and DILP examples to ACI/Canon Defilement, and only allow examples under RTDH and DILP page where we can give enough examples to prove it a trend (and we should explain their why it's a trend).

If I'm going to be honest, Memetic Molester isn't probably quite vilification or a subtrope of Ron the Death Eater. Villains themselves can fall under it (you could say it's amplifying villainy, though not always). Let's take something more neutral, like Memetic Badass. Fans can portray someone as badass, nothing wrong with that, if the example explains that well as explained in my previous post. A character of any morality can be given badass treatment. If anything, I'd consider Alternative Character Interpretation a super-trope (or super-YMMV, whatever) and stuff like Draco in Leather Pants, Ron the Death Eater, Memetic Badass, Memetic Molester etc. subtropes, with ACI maybe listing examples that don't fit any of its subtropes.

Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods of Incremental)

I found other DILP and RTDH cleanups.

This has a mod state DILP and RTDH should only apply to the actual works doing such as it violates general examples otherwise.

This is a similar discussion about DILP/RTDH vs. Adaptational X. It ran into the same problems we're having but has important points. (Alternate Character Interpretation is different from DILP / RTDH as it deals with changing their motives while DILP / RTDH changes their morality.)

Both threads have the mod calling for cutting examples from the source work as its about fanworks doing such and general examples otherwise. Should we start zapping examples under the source works that don't cite specific works per mod recommendation? Anything commonly causing DILP / RTDH could be moved to Never Live It Down.

And should we add any original thoughts we have on this thread to them?

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Jan 1st 2020 at 12:48:11 PM

Fanfics are always weird about general examples. My first thought is to say "yes, zap them," but this might need a bigger thread to decide if the policy needs a fanfic exception. Or not quite an exception, but a "saying this is a common trend in Harry Potter fanfics is specific enough to not be a general example."

Also, a bit of a side point, I'm having a little trouble telling the difference between a couple Adaptational Villainy and RTDE examples. There's a RTDE example on the page about how one character (who is nothing but a fun Bumbling Dad in canon) is turned into a rapist in a fic, apparently just because. I thought the point of RTDE is that the Ron is getting villainized in order to prop up another character, usually for shipping purposes. Is that wrong?

Per Bad Writing Index (which suggest it shouldn't be a fan reaction as it's under writing tropes):

• Draco in Leather Pants: Have an acceptable reason for making a truly evil character suddenly be nice. "He or she is hot!" will not do.
• Ron the Death Eater: Have an acceptable reason for making a truly good character suddenly be mean. "I hate him or her!" will not do.

What is "acceptable"? The Ron the Death Eater page says "It doesn't have to be a result of disdain towards the character. Some writers find role-reversal stories to be interesting, need a character to be evil for some plotpoint to make sense, wish to present a drastic For Want of a Nail scenario or are doing stuff like that purely for comedy." That rules out the seeming definition of fans feeling they're unfairly vilified.

Looking over Draco in Leather Pants page suggest it isn't necessarily making them no longer evil (if so they can keep Evil Is Cool), but every work guilty of Ron the Death Eater does make them villains, or at least sources of conflict. That might be an important distinction.

The other pages pointed out out fanworks aren't necessarily adaptations, which is why DILP and RTDH can be separate concepts. I'll add more on that tomorrow.

Here's the difference between fanworks and adaptations that separates Draco in Leather Pants and Ron the Death Eater from Adaptational Heroism/Nice Guy and Adaptational Villainy/Jerkass respectively.

Adaptations by definition are alternate continuities to the source work thus characters being made more/less evil are within exceptions. Fanworks are expected to be so we can pretend they take within the original continuity of the source, even Alternate Universe Fic at least until the point of divergence or stated/shown otherwise.

Thus arbitrarily making them less/more evil comes of as the writer trying to force their opinion of the character onto audiences, hence why it's considered bad writing.

Any fanworks so radically different from the source material to the point they're considered adaptations don't get this backlash, showing DILP and RTDH only applies to what is a supposedly canon compliant portrayal

Such, DILP and RTDH applies instead of adaptation when it's:

• Unexplained: It's not this if given sufficient For Want Of A Nail or other explanation why they turned out differently than in canon, or the work is so radically different there's no expectation they're keep their canon portrayals.
• Serious: If it's Played for Laughs it's disqualified as it's not trying to insinuate that it's the correct, canon portrayal and falls under the radically different point above. (When the popularity of theses exaggerated portrayals effects fan perception of the canon portrayals that's Misaimed Fandom).

This means any DILP and RTDH examples should be removed from the source work (explores can be moved to Misaimed Fandom or Never Live It Down). Shall we commence that part of the cleanup as three cleanup threads agreed to that?

Maybe? I mean, I still feel like YMMV is more for a fandom overview than anything and so called "general" examples should be allowed, but if fan works are apparently considered distinct enough from adaptations, DILP and RTDE can be different when it's unexplained and serious and done as part of author's opinion as you say? I mean, official adaptations can make a character worse so Adaptational Villainy can exist (like in Green Eggs and Ham (2019), Sam-I-Am is turned into a scam artist, but is still portrayed as friendly and eventually does a Heel–Face Turn, I suppose that RTDE usually wouldn't do that?)

Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods of Incremental)

General examples would fall under Never Live It Down (moments that cause fans to unfairly exaggerate negative traits) and Misaimed Fandom (fans unfairly whitewash them). RTDH and DILP respectively is when those opinions seep into fanworks which fans criticize for breaking what's expected to be canon consistent or the writer forcing their option of the characters on audiences insinuating it's "correct".

Thought. RTDH and DILP applied to fanworks seems to be The Same, but More Specific to They Changed It, So It Sucks regarding the character portrayals in question. Is there anything worth keeping them separate for? My belief is that fanworks are supposed to be so you can pretend it's (somewhat) canon and RTDH and DILP is it's own trope for breaking that immersion.

Other cleanups [1] [2] [3] seem to argue for only allowing examples under works doing it, not the source. Is this enough to star cutting examples from source works? RTDH can be moved to Never Live It Down (how the vilification are unfair exaggerations), DILP to Misaimed Fandom (which seems the cause of this).

A similar question has been asked about Alternative Character Interpretation. If the work is built around a ACI, is it not and example as it's not the intended character interpretation as opposed to alternate?

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Jan 6th 2020 at 1:32:21 AM

I'm agree with Piterpicher and Kirby that it's not a general example if it names a specific character who is villainized/whitewashed by the fandom and why. I think they should be allowed on the YMMV pages of original works and am opposed to making them definition-only or moving examples. Fighteer's posts aren't automatically policy; we can take this to TRS if necessary.

Keet cleanup

EDIT:Apologies, I thought this was like the cleanup threads before the PM told me otherwise

Edited by Kylotrope on May 10th 2020 at 9:52:09 AM

Things are really about to get Fun around here

@Kirby0189: if the former, does that mean DILP and RTDH should no longer go under fan works portraying them as such? And does it actually have to oft make it into fanworks to count? And how would it be distinct from Misaimed Fandom? Should it be removed from bad writing if it is the fans reaction and not the writing?

@rjd1922Various RTDH pages require a cited work as proof of this. Any reason not to have his as a requirement?

And I realized another thing: DILP and RTDE could also arise from the work praising/bashing character without changing their characterization.

Per this and this, there seem calls to make DILP and RTDH only apply to fanworks doing such, as fans seeing them as such in the original work is Misaimed Fandom or Never Live It Down (a source of the DILP/RTDH treatments).

Is this enough to act on? Any reason not to say DILP and RTDH should only apply to fanworks doing such if we have Misaimed Fandom to cover fan reaction to the original work?

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Jun 24th 2020 at 11:17:36 AM

Like I said before, redundant with Adaptational Villainy and Adaptational Heroism, so it should go under those two tropes on the page for the fan work. If my understanding is correct, YMMV reactions have to happen frequently to be worth nothing, so yes to the second point. I can see this as a related trope to Misaimed Fandom. And why is it in bad writing? Didn't TRS make a cleanup of that index, or have they not finished that yet?

<(0_0<) <(0_0)> (>0_0)> KIRBY DANCE

I believe cleanup needs a decision on if DILP/RTDH applies to the fan works or the fandom before removing. I've asked them about this.

For the second point, should some kind of citation be required?

Should I ask for a crowner on if DILP/RTDH should be about fan works or fandom? (It's been going on for awhile. Might be time to take action to put it to rest.)