During the investigation of recent hollers in the Complete Monster thread, it's become apparent to the staff that an insular, unfriendly culture has evolved in the Complete Monster and Magnificent Bastard threads that is causing problems.
Specific issues include:
- Overzealous hollers on tropers who come into the threads without being familiar with all the rules and traditions of the tropes. And when they are familiar with said rules and traditions, they get accused (with little evidence) of being ban evaders.
- A few tropers in the thread habitually engage in snotty, impolite mini-modding. There are also regular complaints about excessive, offtopic "socializing" posts.
- Many many thread regulars barely post/edit anywhere else, making the threads look like they are divorced from the rest of TV Tropes.
- Following that, there are often complaints about the threads and their regulars violating wiki rules, such as on indexing, crosswicking, example context and example categorization. Some folks are working on resolving the issues, but...
- Often moderator action against thread regulars leads to a lot of participants suddenly showing up in the moderation threads to protest and speak on their behalf, like a clique.
It is not a super high level problem, but it has been going on for years and we cannot ignore it any longer. There will be a thread in Wiki Talk
to discuss the problem; in the meantime there is a moratorium on further Complete Monster and Magnificent Bastard example discussion until we have gotten this sorted out.
Update: The new threads have been made and can be found here:
Please see the Frequently Asked Questions and Common Requests List before suggesting any new entries for this trope.
IMPORTANT: To avoid a holler to the mods, please see here for the earliest date a work can be discussed, (usually two weeks from the US release), as well as who's reserved discussion.
When voting, you must specify the candidate(s). No blanket votes (i.e. "![[tup]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/thumbs_up_emote.png "[thumb up]"){kind=small}
to everyone I missed").
No plagiarism: It's fair to source things, but an effortpost must be your own work and not lifted wholesale from another source.
We don't care what other sites think about a character being a Complete Monster. We judge this trope by our own criteria. Repeatedly attempting to bring up other sites will earn a suspension.
What is the Work
Here you briefly describe the work in question and explain any important setting details. Don't assume that everyone is familiar with the work in question.
Who is the Candidate and What have they Done?
This will be the main portion of the Effort Post. Here you list all of the crimes committed by the candidate. For candidates with longer rap sheets, keep the list to their most important and heinous crimes, we don't need to hear about every time they decide to do something minor or petty.
Do they have any Mitigating Factors or Freudian Excuse?
Here you discuss any potential redeeming or sympathetic features the character has, the character's Freudian Excuse if they have one, as well as any other potential mitigating factors like Offscreen Villainy or questions of moral agency. Try to present these as objectively as possible by presenting any evidence that may support or refute the mitigating factors.
Do they meet the Heinousness Standard?
Here you compare the actions of the Candidate to other character actions in the story in order to determine if they stand out or not. Remember that all characters, not just other villains, contribute to the Heinousness Standard
Final Verdict?
Simply state whether or not you think the character counts or not.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Aug 31st 2023 at 4:14:10 AM
I nominate Decima/Samaritan operative Martine Rousseau from Person Of Interest. Most villains on the show have some redeeming, human qualities that keep them away from this trope, but Martine is a full blown Sadist and Blood Knight who lives to kill as many people as she can. To go through the points,
The character is truly heinous by the standards of the story, which makes no attempt to present the character in any positive way.
Yes. All we know about her is that she's working with Decima/Samaritan and that killing is fun and games to her. Unlike Greer, she is given no flashbacks or Freudian Excuse to explain her sadism.
The character's terribleness is played seriously at all times, evoking fear, revulsion and hatred from the other characters in the story.
Yes. The show becomes a lot darker when she's around. The episode "Prophets" is one of the darkest, and scariest in the series. There's a scene where she enters a hotel to look for the POI of the week and haplessly guns down the desk clerk for little reason at all. While no one really knows much about her and therefore rarely talks about her specifically (she's just one agent), she stands out, especially after what she did to Sameen.
They are completely devoid of altruistic qualities. They show no regret for their crimes.
Oh hell yes. It's clear she's having the time of her life when she's causing Mayhem. She also has no personal attachments to anyone and absolutely no understandable motivation.
The show is still running so there's always time for some sympathetic backstory, but from what we've seen of her, I don't see how she can have any positive qualities at all.
edited 28th Feb '15 10:23:01 AM by rage24
Unofficial Wiki Curator for Complete Monster
Well, who is she? What has she done?
CM Dates; CM Pending; CM Drafts
Here's what you need to explain: The background of the show, who is the character, her evil deeds and how she stacks up to other villains.
Also, if you know Person Of Interest, does Alonzo Quinn count?
We should probably look at the Webcomics section, the entries are very short.
jjj
Alright, here are the total votes so far for Sykes and McLeach, including the votes I could find from previous discussions.
Sykes:
- 4 Keep: 32 Footsteps @1620 (page 65), Mag Bas @10444 (page 418), Forenperser @36112, Scraggle @36137.
- 12 Cut: Largo Quagmire @7924 (page 317), willthiswork @10428 (page 418), Beast @36085, myself @36095, bobg @36097, Irene @36135, Ambar Son of Deshar @36171, Austin DR @36173, Camberf @36180, Morgenthaler @36233, holders @36242, lightysnake @36252.
McLeach:
- 9 Keep: Krystoff @1622 (page 65), Largo Quagmire @7924 (page 317), Klavice @36091, bobg @36097, Forenperser @36112, Kyle Jacobs @36113, Scraggle @36137, holders @36242, lightysnake @36252.
- 8 Cut: 32 Footsteps @1620 (page 65), Idisagree @19661 (page 787), Beast @36085, myself @36095, Irene @36135, Ambar Son of Deshar @36171, Camberf @36180, Morgenthaler @36233.
- 1 Unsure: Austin DR
If I missed anyone or made any mistakes, please let me know and I'll edit the results accordingly. Sykes can probably safely be cut since there are so many more cut votes than there are keep votes. Still, any additional votes would be helpful, especially with McLeach as the keep and cut votes are practically tied so far.
edited 28th Feb '15 11:38:11 AM by OccasionalExister
I'll say cut Sykes, but keep Mcleach.
Oh, btw, OE, check your messages, need your help
Lizzid people!
I'm undecided on McLeach.
My argument for him is pretty simple. I think it could be argued either way if Mcleach knows the animals are sentient (he wouldn't care either way, that is clearly obvious, and his pet lizard Joanna is treated more like a partner who responds to curiously specific verbal commands), but the fact is...
Mcleach is a poacher, one of the worst professions on the face of the planet for profit. When his operation is uncovered by Cody, a child, Mcleach takes him hostage and enjoys tormenting him, with clear intent to murder him once he's done. When the time comes, Mcleach chooses to kill him by tying him up, attaching him to a rope and dunking him into crocodile infested waters. This is a death is ridiculously beyond the pale. It's an incontrovertibly horrible way to die, never mind the psychological torture one would undergo from being dunked in and out while knowing the crocs are closing in. He then proceeds to drop him in, only stopped by the keys being removed.
This is a ridiculously cruel attempted murder of a child that is entirely unnecessary even for self preservation purposes, and Mcleach is loving every second.
Addendum: Okay, there's evidence Mcleach knows the animals are sentient. Joanna responds to his questions by nodding and shaking her head to specific questions like "did you know a razorback is in my truck?"
Unofficial Wiki Curator for Complete Monster
While normally one murder isn't enough, the fact that it's a child, who isn't the hero, and the method...if he didn't care for Joanna (and it seems like he didn't), I'll vote ![[tup]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Thumbs_up_emoticon_3268.png "[thumb up]"){kind=small}
.
Undecided on Sykes.
Here's a cleaned-up entry:
- The Rescuers Down Under: Percival C. McLeach is a sick and twisted poacher. He starts by kidnapping Cody, a child who confronts him about his poaching, and then tricks the authorities into thinking Cody is dead by throwing Cody's backpack to the crocodiles. From there he tosses knives at Cody, locks him in one of the cramped cages he keeps the animals he's captured in, and to top it all off, ties Cody to a crane and lowers him into another river filled with crocodiles, only to raise him back up, then almost does it again just to toy with him. When the power on his half-track goes out, stopping him from lowering Cody, McLeach takes out a gun and shoots the rope holding him above the river. Finally, he is seen abusing his "pet", Joanna the Goanna.
edited 1st Mar '15 5:00:19 AM by ACW
CM Dates; CM Pending; CM Drafts
Usually one murder wouldn't be enough. It's the ridiculously sadistic attempt for it.
Unofficial Wiki Curator for Complete Monster
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
My thoughts exactly. AND the fact that it's a child who's not even the hero.
Btw, this Freezing arc is nearly over...remember how I said I'd writeup Isabella Lucas and Isuzu sawatari once it was done? Yeah, get ready for that very soon
Lizzid people!
Since when did he care for Joanna? I saw it more as him just using an animal to benefit him than anything.
Unofficial Wiki Curator for Complete Monster
Never said he did. Just said IF he DIDN'T.
Lizzid people!
@ ACW: No, Mcleach does not care for Joanne. Here is a list of things he does to her:
- After she accidently knocks him into a pit (while attacking Cody after she sees the rescuers mice in his backpack (I think that's why she did it)), Mcleach emerges from the pit saying "I'm gonna kill her, I'm gonna kill that slimy lizard" and points his shotgun at her ready to kill her, he only spares her because he sees the feather Cody got from the eagle, which he would not have seen if Joanne had not thrown Cody's backpack off of him, he lowers the gun telling her "good girl Joanne".
- When Mcleach is trying to eat some eggs, and Joanne is trying to steal them from him to eat for herself, he sees her rumeging through his toolbox looking container that has his eggs in it and slams the opening of it down on her fingers. When he sees she already got the eggs and ate them before he could stop her, he goes to hit her with the box, only stopping because the talk of "eggs" gives him an idea.
- He tells Joanne that she's a dumb salamander and he's much smarter than her.
- While he does allow Joanne to eat the eagle's eggs in a bit of a Pet the Dog moment, he yells at her for taking too long to eat them (the shells were too hard for her teeth to bite through). Joanne ends up just knocking the eggs off a cliff with her tail (seemingly just to be mean), and lets Mcleach think she ate them. (And if I remember correctly, Mcleach taunts Cody about this knowing he cared about the eggs)
- When he sees that a Razorback was in his truck, he yells at Joanne for this.
edited 28th Feb '15 12:10:07 PM by bobg
jjj
Given he flat out punts her off the edge of a cliff (she's admittedly on a rope) when she's scared to go down and eat the eagle eggs, I'm inclined to say his care of her is pretty slim.
also, letting Joanna eat the eggs isn't acare for Joanna. He wants to insure there are no more giant golden eagles so his captured bird stays the rarest and thus the most valuable
edited 28th Feb '15 12:10:30 PM by Lightysnake
Lizzid people!
I changed my vote back to a for McLeach.
McLeach.
@ Lighty: Actually, the chicks in those eggs would have died of starvation\ dehydration on their own without their mother, so that was a bit of a Pet the Dog moment for Joanne. However, the rest of his abuse toward her overrides this one moment.
jjj
I'm only saying what Mcleach said. he said he wanted to make sure Marahute stayed the rarest, hence giving the eggs to Joanna.
![[tdown]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Thumbs_down_emoticon_3571.png "[thumb down]"){kind=small}
on Sykes.
Like I mentiooned before, I'm having computer issues. I'll be on writeups once they're resolved. It just might be a little is all