Mohs Scale of Hardness Cleanup

as JFF. I don't see it as a trope.

Also, the rating part is unnecessary and slightly strict for lyrical hardness.

Especially more for rock and metal hardness, which suggests rock and metal should be rated strict for... being rock and metal.

Edited by callmeamuffin on Mar 28th 2021 at 5:31:39 AM

I don't agree with moving these to Just for Fun. Despite the increased tendency of folks to use that namespace as a dumping ground, they are not mere joke pages, they are analyses of how tropes apply and genres work.

We've discussed in the past how to handle such pages and while nothing concrete came out, that does not suddenly make it OK to shoehorn them into JFF.

I'll be honest, I have no idea what JFF is even meant to be for anymore since every proposal to move anything there is rejected as being a shoehorn. This probably doesn't belong there, but at this point I don't know what does.

I see that, but IMO it's mostly because people no longer write genuine joke pages and thus all new proposals are shoehorns like JustForFun.Holy Shit Quotient or these.

I see it as a JFF. It's less of a trope and more just a ranking of something from soft to hard. It does appear on pages from time to time, but only to give it a ranking. It's not something within the work itself, and I don't think it's trivia.

from me.

My personal opinion is that these aren't strictly Just for Fun material in that they aren't joke or humor pages, which AFAICT is what JFF is/was meant for.

What I think the Mohs scales are, are rather poorly thought-out sliding scales that have very poorly defined criteria, too many subcategories with too little distinction between them, an abundance of ZC Es. The Mohs scale's format only works in the real world because it's a measure of something replicable and objective, not a willy-nilly ranking of things that are largely subjective and can change on the whims of whoever happens to be writing the example.

IOW, they're not "fun" pages so much as — as things currently stand — shitty trope pages.

I suspect the main reason they still exist is because they're old. I guess you could move them to Darth if anything, but I don't know that they're even worth that much trouble.

Edited by HeavyMetalHermitCrab on Apr 6th 2021 at 4:04:51 AM

These are JFF pages to me. It's mostly because it appears to be a page the tropers made for fun.

Bump.

IMO. Mohs Scale tropes aren't actual tropes. Any action could be done to the pages, and that action works.

On April 9, 2021, Orangutans moved any form on on-screen rape from level 7 to 8 seemingly without any discussion with other tropers. While I do understand Rape Is a Special Kind of Evil and did not like tropers rating works level 7 but not above for any kind of on-screen rape scene, even graphic ones, I was okay with the mildest form of on-screen rape being a 7.

Just bringing this here because this revision seems to be made without discussion.

Edited by PrincessPandaTrope on Oct 11th 2021 at 7:54:41 AM

I vote to revert.

bump

Since rearranging onscreen rape is a major change, it should be reverted.

I don’t know where to discuss the age rating part, but it’s Americentrism, since it only focuses on the Motion Picture Association ratings.

Edited by callmeamuffin on Dec 29th 2021 at 10:37:39 PM

Sorry for the late post here. I wrongfully assumed that the link on the main Mohs Scale of Violence Hardness page would go to the "crowner" thread for it. Sorry about that. Anyway:

All regarding the Mohs Scale of Violence Hardness:

1. I concur that the correlation chart between the levels and the MPAA ratings may need to go.

2. I concur that onscreen rape should probably go back to starting on level 7. I basically gave the go-ahead for the unilateral change after it took place, but I now know that that was a mistake. Yes, Rape Is a Special Kind of Evil, but I think the scale worked better with more "mild" depictions starting at level 7.

3. The current situation with implied/offscreen and attempted sexual violence seems a little blurry/wishy-washy at the moment. It too used to be different before a unilateral change. Now, implied/offscreen rape starts on level 5 and attempted acts start at level 6. This strikes me as a little odd, as I think that they should both start on the same level (they both used to start on level 5 when the scale was first launched).

4. This is probably uncontroversial, but I think that an extra sentence to the level 4 paragraph should be added saying "Mild depictions of impalement (when an object protrudes from both ends of a person) generally start on this level." I don't think that this will be controversial, as I can't think of any works that would have to be reshuffled for this.

5. I think another "important note" should be added underneath the "Important Note" about using notes to give context. It would read "Another Important Note: For the sake of readability and keeping things concise, try to only describe the violence that got it placed on the level that it's at, although one can describe violence in it from one level lower (perhaps two levels lower at most) if it's important and necessary." I haven't really noticed any problems with this, but I figured it might become an issue in the future, so might as well address it now (to prevent future Tropers from describing every single act of violence in a note, including, say, level 2 ones on a level 10 work).

Thank you.

I agree. Though in regards to listing lower level violence, the Harry Potter movie entries seem to do this

Regarding the Violence scale, how would we go about for video games, especially given their interactive nature?

Yeah, it mostly isn't much of an issue (yet?), with the exception of the Harry Potter film notes and the Joker (2019) note, which briefly mentions people being non-fatally kicked in a level 8 movie. Not too big of a deal, but it shouldn't be the norm. Are you in agreement with the other points I listed?

Good question. When I was originally devising the Mohs Scale of Violence Hardness, I actually thought it should only be used for movies, with a separate scale for video games, TV, etc. (this was when it was in its pre-launch form). However, I was overruled, I suppose.

For what it's worth, it probably works fine for video games, with the understanding that being in control of much of the killing (for games that involve the player killing people, at least) are generally going to be a tad higher than if it was in movie/film form. This isn't written on the scale, but I suppose a sentence towards the top of the main page saying that first-person-style killings in video games will perhaps rate a notch or two higher than if the acts were depicted in less interactive media could be added, if you think that it's necessary.

Regarding TV shows, the written rule is that they're generally rated for the level of violence that an average episode would contain, but I'm pretty sure this rule isn't followed very often. I suppose not all TV shows are created the same. Some are completely episodic (like The Simpsons), and others have a continuous story line to keep up with. Some only last one season, and others have been around for eons (The Simpsons, once again). Perhaps these elements should be factored into TV show ratings? I'm basically spitballing here.

I know this is unrelated to the current topic, but I feel like the entry for Invincible (2021) on the Western Animation page is really gushy. I mean, sure, the show is really violent, my brother showed me the two most infamous scenes (don't bother asking why he did, maybe he just wanted to give spoilers), so I know from experience, but even Bone Tomahawk and Martyrs on the Film - Levels 8 to 10 page don't come with flexes that they makes fellow Level 10 movies look like Dora the Explorer

I noticed that, too, and, although I haven't seen the show in question, it seems to be the sort of hyperbole that the page doesn't really need. Do you think some sort of note on the main scale page is necessary to prevent users from using this sort of exaggerated language when discussing the violent content of a work?

Yes, I think so

I don't want to alter anything unilaterally, so maybe we could all come up with a consensus on the following issues, all regarding the Mohs Scale of Violence Hardness:

1. Remove the MPAA-MSOVH correlation chart.

2. Move onscreen rape back to starting at level 7.

3. Move attempted rape back to starting at level 5, where it would sit alongside offscreen/implied rape starting there.

4. Add a sentence to level 4 saying "Mild depictions of impalement (when an object protrudes from both ends of a person at the same time) generally start on this level."

5. Replace "Important Note" at the bottom of the page with this:

" Important Notes:

-For editors going to add examples, please explain why it is placed on some level and in what year it was released. This will help us avoid Zero-Content Examples.

-For the sake of readability and keeping things concise, try to only describe the violence that got it placed on the level that it's at, although one can describe violence in it from one level lower (perhaps two levels lower at most) if it's important and necessary.

-This is not the place to use hyperbolic, exaggerated, or "gushy" language to describe violence in works. Stick to the facts as much as possible. Works with higher levels of carnage are not inherently better or worse than works with lower levels. "

6. Add a sentence towards the beginning of the sliding scale page stating "Video games and other interactive works may be given a slightly higher rating than if they were simply films or television shows." or something along those lines.

Anything else anybody wants to add? I'm open to more ideas. I think some sort of consensus is necessary before the six changes above are made.

For the point:

-For editors going to add examples, please explain why it is placed on some level and in what year it was released. This will help us avoid Zero Content Examples.

Year released should be the year of first release anywhere in the world since many works have different release dates depending on the jurisdiction.

In addition, there should be a seventh point regarding Values Dissonance between cultures. Some cultures consider violence towards humans as more repulsive than violence towards non-human animals, some consider violence towards real-life animals (humans included) as more repulsive than violence towards obviously fictional species (such as fantasy races and humanoid extraterrestrials), and some consider violence towards protected groups as more repulsive than violence towards heterosexual WASP adult males with the means.

Edited by Nen_desharu on Jan 14th 2022 at 10:18:27 AM

Thank you for your response!

Regarding adding dates to works, I personally think it only really needs to be standard practice for movies (it's a common practice to do so, considering the literal hundreds of thousands of films that exist and how they frequently share exact titles with each other). I will alter the phrasing to say that the year of first release (almost always what IMDb says) is what should be listed. I also added a first draft for your seventh point on Values Dissonance.

So far, things look like this:

1. Remove the MPAA-MSOVH correlation chart.

2. Move onscreen rape back to starting at level 7.

3. Move attempted rape back to starting at level 5, where it would sit alongside offscreen/implied rape starting there.

4. Add a sentence to level 4 saying "Mild depictions of impalement (when an object protrudes from both ends of a person at the same time) generally start on this level."

5. Replace "Important Note" at the bottom of the page with this:

" Important Notes:

-For editors going to add examples, please explain why it is placed on some level and in what year it was first released (for movies, television shows, and video games, it's generally the date listed by it on IMDb). This will help us avoid Zero-Content Examples.

-For the sake of readability and keeping things concise, try to only describe the violence that got it placed on the level that it's at, although one can describe violence in it from one level lower (perhaps two levels lower at most) if it's important and necessary.

-This is not the place to use hyperbolic, exaggerated, or "gushy" language to describe violence in works. Stick to the facts as much as possible. Works with higher levels of carnage are not inherently better or worse than works with lower levels. "

6. Add a sentence towards the beginning of the sliding scale page stating "Video games and other interactive works may be given a slightly higher rating than if they were simply films or television shows." or something along those lines.

7. Add a sentence somewhere in the article bringing up Values Dissonance, saying something along the lines of "Different cultures may view acts of violence against certain targets to be more repulsive than others. Some cultures, for example, may find violent deeds committed against humans to be more reprehensible than those inflicted on animals, extraterrestrials, or fantasy races."

Does anybody feel like adding anything else? Are we in agreement on these seven points to add?

Edited by TheHestinator on Jan 16th 2022 at 7:02:56 AM

Looks good to me

For Point #5, it should be inclusive of all works, not just films. Television shows, music, and video games often have different release dates in different countries.

Okay, I edited the post listing the changes to make to the scale's main page to reflect the need to list release years.

Does anybody else want to chip in?