Misused: Berserk Button

That's also true. But since renaming is off the table, I'd assume that something even more disrupting, like a disambig, is also off the table.

Disambiguating is essentially cutting the trope so yeah that would be equally disruptive even if it's needed. Honestly, I'd be surprised if more people seriously voted to do that over keeping the trope and expanding the definition.

It just makes me think, that's all. For a trope with so much misuse and such a vague, yet specific definition, we usually make huge changes. Like Five-Man Band.

But it would definitely help if we could find examples of the current definition happening in the wild. The only one that comes to mind now is the current image provider.

Not every character with a Berserk Button has to be nice so it isn't necessarily redundant to Beware the Nice Ones. "Nice" is different than "not constantly angry about everything." I just think the Berserk Button should be something that is shown or said to be reoccurring and causes a more furious reaction than anything else.

Like, off the top of my head,, The Nostalgia Critic has a Hair-Trigger Temper, but he has such a disproportionate reaction to the "Bat Credit Card" meme and the Doug theme song (though that's also Trauma Button) that he snaps into anger without even hesitating, even more than he gets angry at other stuff. But it isn't Beware the Nice Ones cuz he ain't nice.

Edited by mightymewtron on Mar 1st 2022 at 4:09:08 AM

Copying over my post from the LTP thread:

I also agree with on being distinct from Beware the Nice Ones.

Edited by Nightshade92 on Mar 1st 2022 at 4:16:37 AM

We did do major changes to Five-Man Band but that trope still probably had less than twice the wicks kinda be like trying to do something major to Big Bad to me (which was also in the TRS at least once)

Oh I was just going by the description when I said "nice character". I agree that we don't have to limit it to that.

EDIT: Blargh grammar

Edited by MacronNotes on Mar 2nd 2022 at 1:23:39 PM

I agree with what was said about it being distinct from Beware the Nice Ones.

The main issue Big Bad has is the ZCE one, which can be corrected by finding and adding sufficient context. This trope has a severe mismatch between what the description says the trope is and what the wicks say it is.

Actually it's a misuse issue and there's a (never used) cleanup thread for it, but that's a topic for a different time.

Are you referring to the 74 ZCEs or the other foldered misuse?

Yes, this trope also has a ZCE problem, but just from looking at the “examples”, I suspect that at least some of them would also fit the misuse if they were expanded.

So are we all good with the expansion?

Not yet, and we need at least three days of consensus to enact anything.

I support the expansion

Yeah, we need three days at least. Also, a concise plan on how the definition should be expanded and how the description should be rewritten before we make a crowner so that people know what exactly they are voting for.

Edited by MacronNotes on Mar 2nd 2022 at 1:35:15 PM

That too. Vague "expand" crowners never work out.

Agreed 100%, not having a definitive expansion definition was why we had to redo the Loads And Loads Of Characters crowner.

One way to do it would be to make each expansion point its own crowner bullet.

We pitched more than one option to expand, so we need to lay out how we want to expand it. Current options:

• Relaxing the "must be irrational" requirement
• Relaxing the "must be recurrent" requirement

I know the former's the one with more consensus but it might help to add both. And maybe add a third option that allows both A and B.

Isn't the third option is unnecessary if people upvote both options?

It's because, hypothetically, both options may gain consensus due to people upvoting them separately, but those people may not want both options to coexist. This will prevent us from ending up with a trope that's too broad if people just wanted one of two options. But I guess downvoting would help with that...

I don't have a problem with having three mutually exclusive options, with one option involving the other two options' changes being made. It would make it more clear whether a voter who wants one change to be made does or doesn't want the other to be made.

Also, I think it would be a good idea to have a concrete plan for what relaxing the requirements means.

Yes, concrete ideas of how relaxed we want it to be would be good. Too relaxed and we get (more) examples like "trying to kill this person's loved ones makes them angry!" which is just... normal human behavior.

It should still be disproportionate compared to the character's normal demeanor. This thing should be the thing that makes them snap like nothing else makes them snap. They might get angry at other shit but this stuff makes them explode, turn violent, outright dissociate with anger, etc. But if they're generally nice then just them snapping and turning mean is enough.

Edited by mightymewtron on Mar 2nd 2022 at 10:11:46 AM

And I also still think that it should be seen as exaggerated in-universe. Something that doesn't bug the other characters but gets one person riled up should count even if we don't consider it "minor".