Role-Ending Misdemeanor cleanup

I've added it back with more explanation as to what Phil said.

Can we cut WebVideo.Pro Jared since he did an apology video claiming his ex-wife made up the whole thing and has since regained favour, albeit not with Normal Boots (he's still not allowed on it) and supporters of Heidi? Or should we keep him since there's still a Vocal Minority who sided with Heidi.

Edited by Klavice on May 8th 2021 at 9:43:33 AM

He lost his job at Normal Boots so I think that's enough for a REM in relation to Normal Boots.

The troper Bubblepig suggested adding James Charles (who is already talked about on Tati Westbrook's entry), so I made this mock-up. Any thoughts?

• However, Charles' reputation would turn pear-shaped again in February 2021, when a 16 year old TikTok user accused him of sending nude photos and sexting even after being told he was underage. While Charles quickly dismissed the allegations, two other teenagers came forth with similar allegations. on April 1st 2021, Charles released an apology video titled "holding myself accountable", in which he confessed to having sent sexually explicit messages to two 16 year old users and that he would be taking a break from social media. As a result of the video, YouTube temporarily demonetized Charles' channel and makeup brand Morphe announced they would be ending their partnership with him.

Might want to change the first line. Examples shouldn't reference other examples.

Can we re-add the Role-Ending Misdemeanor entry to Creator.John Barrowman if we cut the "and time will tell if there will be any other repercussions" line? It's otherwise valid since he got removed from an official event due to his behavior.

We should probably wait a few days on Barrowman for the situation to cool down; it's obviously valid, but it's easier to write examples when you're not writing them as they happen.

I am inclined to think that if the estimated cooldown time is "a few days" it's too recent to be ready for inclusion.

There's a reason there's no waiting period on this one; the "events" (lost roles, etc.) have already happened. The only reason to delay adding it is for concerns about maintaining a somewhat neutral POV, and that only really applies to obviously politically charged examples.

On Creator.Alison Viktorin, the note about her decision to retire was removed by Glitchy Boy 77 (a new troper) with the following edit summary:

There's also an ongoing discussion about this here. That said, I have a question: should we put it back or leave it out?

Edited by gjjones on May 16th 2021 at 10:56:09 AM

For Alison Viktorin, Okay, So she wasn't able to play young Kyo Sohma again, she was still busy focusing on her family, I don't Blame her, I had a feeling she get replaced on Young Kyo, But that Doesn't mean that she could come back, We still have Shouta, Gasper and Kuroku, Whenever Their New Seasons will be upcoming, let's just wait a little bit more longer, I still think her retirement is temporary until things cool down, maybe she'll still come back for those roles. let's just not add that retiring information yet, it was very easily predictable that she would get replaced for Kyo, but that doesn't mean she might sill have a to her other voices, so let's please wait. some retirements are temporarily, she needs to just be with her family right now, she would come back for a reprisal, the answer would be told when we have Dragon Maid season 2, Shouta, When that is about to get dubbed, let's find out, Let's not add the retiring info yet, We can find it out when Dragon maid season 2 dub cast is about to be revealed.

Edited by GlitchyBoy77 on May 19th 2021 at 8:53:21 AM

The original entry contained "While Funimation never directly stated that she was terminated from working with them, she apparently saw the writing on the wall when considering that most of her colleagues are anti-Trump liberals and decided to quit voice acting in anime a short time afterward." According to GastonRabbit, I cut it because it was Speculative Troping.

Edited by gjjones on May 26th 2021 at 2:22:10 PM

From what I can tell, the two criteria for Role-Ending Misdemeanor are (assuming it's applying to a person, the rules are a little different for businesses):

1. "Role-Ending:" The creator is removed from a role or prevented from gaining roles. (Quitting doesn't count unless it's explicitly a case of either "quit or be fired" or "forced to quit.")

2. "Misdemeanor:" It is because the creator (actually or allegedly) did a "bad thing." Despite the name, it doesn't need to be an actual crime, nor does the "bad thing" need to be something actually bad by reasonable modern standards.^note The definition of "bad thing" is intentionally kept vague since I have no idea how to define it.

I'd define "bad" as "draws significant negative attention from the press or from their crewmates." Then it's not about our own perceived morality, but about objective descriptions of what others perceive.

RE: Alison Vitkorin, given the evidence that she may of just retired to focus on her family, I'm also in support of removing it. As-is it feels as though we're just speculating that her comments were the reason behind it.

The podcast confirming her retirement from anime is here.

Well, yeah. We know she retired. But we don't know why she retired. Sort of assuming it's because of some comments she wrote on Twitter rather than anything more reasonable is speculation.

Just stumbled across all of this through ask the tropers and gave a quick look through the Anime & Manga page (for the record I support the consensus here that there is a lot of speculation with the removed entry and it shouldn't be brought back). When looking through the entry on Vic Mignogna I saw the line "However, the controversial behavior of some of the people involved on both sides ended up causing a major divide in the anime dubbing community." This looks a bit too much like a "Both Sides" kind of argument, but more to the point is irrelevant to entry at large and I feel should be removed. The last bit of the whole entry could use some rewording but I feel that it'd probably best to wait until the appeal verdict is handed down before reworking it.

That entire shitshow is a ROCEJ mess and I'd rather we don't touch entries related to it at all. Certainly a lot of people came out looking like like clowns or awful individuals.

In this case, I think we should trim it down.

I removed it, citing it as a potential ROCEJ violation.

Edited by gjjones on Jun 14th 2021 at 7:33:23 AM

It's an extremely clear-cut example of the thing the page is about . If we're not listing cases of Role-Ending Misdemeanor that involve controversy, we're gonna have to cut a lot of examples on the page.

Edited by TheMountainKing on Jun 14th 2021 at 12:30:50 PM

It should just be about people losing their roles due to controversy. We can describe that without taking sides or name-calling.

I may be biased given how closely I followed the case, but it was also lopsided in terms of which side was misbehaving, so the both sides bit in the entry read a little bit like a trying to paint a distorted picture of what happened. That said I fully agree with the ROCEJ decision, even if I would like to see more detail about how badly Vic and his lawyers handled the case (Vic admitted the hair pulling incident he was suing for defamation actually happened and gave a video example of how he did it, him getting busted trying to hide his assets after he lost, how his lawyer was publicaly very cocky about how easy the case would be despite never having done a defamation case before, Vic's own character witness saying that he had abused his fame to obtain sex in shameful ways, etc.) for what should go on the page it should pretty much be what's there, with the last bit redone to state that he tried suing for defamation but had his case dismissed as meritless (a simplification of how bad it went for him but a full explanation would be irrelevant to hte point) and he lost his appeal (the decision hasn't been passed down yet but his lawyer did such a terrible job with the appeal there is no legal grounds for the appeal to pass).

On Creator.Dan Schneider, TV Guy 2001 mentioned that details about the controversies should be kept silent.

Given that, should the following entry be kept or removed from RoleEndingMisdemeanor.Live Action TV?

• Producer, writer and actor Dan Schneider was involved in over 20 years of live-action comedies on Nickelodeon including All That, The Amanda Show, Drake & Josh, Zoey 101, iCarly, Sam & Cat, Game Shakers, and Henry Danger. By 2018, however, Schneider and Nickelodeon decided not to extend their production deal after the network received many complaints from cast and staff members about his aggressive and inappropriate behavior, which mainly took the form of desiring photos of children's feet and as a result of this, he would have no involvement in the Henry Danger Sequel Series Danger Force and the 2021 Paramount+ revival of iCarly.

Well, TV Guy 2001 is not a mod, so they can't decide what we are "allowed" to discuss.

And since Schneider was legitimately kicked off of those shows over the allegations, I believe Schneider can stay.