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
So in other words, can we cut Xavier and Edwhatever?
Also, A New Man, can you please stop?
edited 17th Aug '13 1:56:57 PM by SeptimusHeap
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Why? Can you force someone to stop arguing a point just because you don't want to see it/don't agree? Or do you have a different reason?
Of course, for every strawman argument there's always "people that are really like that". There really are posters that are inconsiderate of the rules and are just trying to push the villains from their favorite shows as dark and serious. But personally I'm more patient on the issue because everyone has to start somewhere and go through the process of learning the definition. That's kind of the point of this thread.
edited 17th Aug '13 2:04:17 PM by Crowley
A total has-been.
Also, A New Man, can you please stop?
I'd like to, but people are saying stuff that makes it too easy not to. 
I guess Eddy's Brother is going to get cut after all this time of staying on the page. Oh well, it was nice while it lasted. Alas, poor Eddy's Brother. I still give you a solid ![[tup]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Thumbs_up_emoticon_3268.png "[thumb up]"){kind=small}
in my book.
@Ambar: I will look at Fortis.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
He was added without any consensus by a random troper. He never qualified in the first place.
Mostly everyone wants Eddy's brother cut as well.(of the majority, specifically) No, he is not heinous enough in this case. If all of it was onscreen, I might agree.
Also, thank you for answering that(if the problem was stated onscreen or not), but my vote remains unchanged.
Lastly, very much yes, this trope needs to have very high restrictions to prevent pet peeve-based additions. Everybody has their own opinions of who is a true monster or not, but that doesn't really make them one by default. Another good way to put it is biased views. I am not saying anybody is doing this specifically, but these are reasons to keep the high standards for the trope up. Also, that's a TRS problem, and I don't believe there's a good reason to make the standards low either. Otherwise, the word "Complete" would be worthless. Anybody can be a Monster, but not just anybody can be a Complete Monster.
A total has-been.
No, he is not heinous enough in this case. If all of it was onscreen, I might agree.
WHERE are you getting Offscreen Villainy? That was never an issue. It was right there, on screen! I have yet to hear this answered and it's getting on my last nerve. 
Anybody can be a Monster, but not just anybody can be a Complete Monster.
But even that is becoming exaggerated. People seem to think a "Complete" Monster needs to be a completely Chaotic Evil and/or Stupid Evil villain with zero traces of depths or any hint of what could be seen as a humanizing quality. In short, the trope must be for paper-thin cartoon characters. Don't believe me on this? Look back at the arguments over Amon Goeth, Luca Blight, Ashnard, Griffith, or even Captain Vidal. In no website, wiki, or universe should these characters status as Complete Monster be in any doubt, and yet that's exactly what happened due to the over-emphasis on "Complete" in these criteria and standards.
edited 17th Aug '13 2:14:40 PM by ANewMan
Should we add Eddy's brother to the "Never Again" list too after this?
Definitively.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I'll take this to PM so I don't clog up the thread, but it does bother me how there is a real trend of "argue this and you don't get it" and the constant passive aggressive insults towards people who disagree.
Anyways, since my examples/rewrites have been okayed and nobody else is contending them, I'm going to have them requested and change the YMMV page.
Since we also ruled Fortis to qualify, here's a provincial writeup:
- Fortis of In Time is the leader of the Minutemen. In a world where peoples' lives are measured by their remaining time, quite literally, Fortis leads his group of thugs to terrorize innocent people, and steals their time for himself, despite being rich enough to live quite comfortably on his own. When one of his victims saves up enough time to buy a gun, Fortis shoots him in the back out of nothing but spite even though it wastes the man's remaining time. When hunting for the heroes, Fortis lines up random people and drains them of their time to death until he gets useful information. When he finds them, he demands the hero Will Salas fight him fairly....though even if Will wins, Fortis's men will still kill him. Should he refuse, though, Fortis makes it clear he'll kill him anyways...and then rape and kill his girlfriend Sylvia. While the system in the film is corrupt, Fortis is not part of it. He's nothing more than a sadistic bully whose claims of enjoying 'fair fights' come off as ultimately hollow.
edited 17th Aug '13 2:27:22 PM by Lightysnake
@Crowley
Septimus isn't asking him to stop arguing about the example. He can do that until he's blue in the face. He's asking him to stop bitching about the definitions, which he's been doing on and off since he first started posting here. He's not presenting any new arguments, or making a very compelling case for why the definitions should be changed, and listening to him go on about it gets very, very old.
As to your second point. I have no issues explaining things nicely the first time. However, when somebody who has been here for months ignore the rules for the umpteenth time, or better yet, turns an entire argument into complaining about the rules (which isn't even within our purview) again, you start to lose patience.
@Anew Man
Hey, if you want to talk about repairing MB, I'm all ears. The trope's nearly as bad as this one, and that's despite the fact that the criteria are a hell of a lot clearer (not a Manipulative Bastard, a Chessmaster, and a Trickster all in one? Get out). For whatever reasons, this trope is highly prone to vandalism. Therefore there is a repair thread. You don't like it, take it up with Eddie or one of the mods. This isn't the place to complain about it.
As for my definition of a bad example...yeah, absolutely. My definition of a bad example is anything I disagree with. Oh wait, that's not it at all. My definition of a bad example is one that a majority of people in this forum concur fails to meet our criteria. Period. I'll note that for a guy who likes to complain about not being treated fairly, you are remarkably quick to throw out accusations of bias on the flimsiest of evidence.
As to the notion that we spend all our time arguing about plausible examples...so in your mind we should just allow anybody who has a problem with the rules, to add any example they feel is "plausible" while we focus on the really bad ones? Tell me, who's going to define "plausible" for us? You? I don't think so.
Griffith, Amon Goeth, Ashnard, Captain Vidal...you mean all those characters who, after reasoned and careful debate, we decided qualified? How exactly do you expect things to work, Anew? That we'll just go—"oh, he thinks these guys qualify, let's put them up and not even have a discussion." I mean seriously, there's nothing stopping complex characters from qualifying. That said, by the virtue of their being complex characters, they will inevitably require more examination and debate than the flat characters.
And finally—heinous means exactly what I think it means and if you hate the word that much you're probably in the wrong forum.
Will's girlfriend's name is Sylvia, not Sophie. Sounds good otherwise.
edited 17th Aug '13 2:26:12 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
How'd I make that mistake? Thanks, ambar, fixed.
As a sidenote, I'll also vote to disqualify Peter from Final Destination.
Since we're voting for Hoffman, he needs a new writeup. How about...
- Detective Mark Hoffman Of the Saw franchise is Jigsaw's second apprentice and surpasses both his Well-Intentioned Extremist mentor and Ax-Crazy Broken Bird alumnus Amanda in evil how the lines he is willing to cross. Unlike Jigsaw's traps, which tended to give a chance for survival, Hoffman places his victims into traps simply to kill them to satisfy his own sadism and cruelty. He frames Agent Peter Strahm for his crimes and then arranges his horrible death by being crushed by compacting walls. To cover his tracks, Hoffman begins murdering innocent people and then goes on a rampage in the police station, killing every officer he finds before placing his rival and Jigsaw's wife Jill in a trap to kill her horribly.
edited 17th Aug '13 2:38:47 PM by Lightysnake
@Camberf: Unless they somehow have Eddy's Brother appear again and he's far more heinous and all of it is onscreen, yeah, never again list. He just doesn't become heinous enough for standards of the series whatsoever.
edited 17th Aug '13 2:50:49 PM by Irene
A total has-been.
@Amber: Yeah Magnificent Bastard has seen less misuse these days, maybe because Complete Monster came along and took it's place. All the same, I'm certain there were some examples that were "eh?" and some that have gone entirely unqualified.
I don't believe that even any example that doesn't agree with the (problematic, as I've stated) criteria is necessarily a "bad example." Characters who are just jerkasses who say bad stuff and commit misdemeanors like popping footballs? THOSE are the truly bad examples. If there even is debate about examples you claim to be "bad", then clearly there's some merit there. They just get shot down by majority vote.
And I'm not saying that we should stop debating plausible examples. Only that those debates shouldn't have to take up so much space and time that we let the really bad ones slip by unnoticed. And who does define "plausible" for us? Who defines "heinousness" for us? Who defines "standards of the story?" Who defines "redeeming qualities?" Who defines "sympathetic?" Who defines "love?" Who defines anything? Because clearly we all see things in different ways here.
Example: heinous. The definition of the word being "really terrible and bad. Shocking, hatefully evil. Revolting." That sort of thing is really vague and all-encompassing for evil. Different works will declare certain things heinous by their standards, but different people will find different things heinous by their own standards of what "baseline heinousness" is. And we're supposed to define the trope as both of those? Really, if anyone were to speak of Complete Monster as "the most heinous villain", then what immediately comes to people's minds is pretty much what it already was before. Basically, heinous means what you think it means, but it means what I think it does too. It's a matter of where and what your standards are.
Unless they somehow have Eddy's Brother appear and he's far more heinous and all of it is onscreen, yeah, never again list. He just doesn't become heinous enough for standards of the series whatsoever.
(Biggest facepalm ever.) He DID appear, it WAS all on-screen, and it is perfectly arugable that he IS heinous by the standards of the Ed Edd And Eddy series! I'll ask you one last time: ''WHAT MAKES YOU THINK IT'S OFF-SCREEN VILLAINY AT WORK HERE? IT IS NOT!''
No, I'm not really that angry, but I need to get Irene's attention somehow.
edited 17th Aug '13 2:44:33 PM by ANewMan
You know what? I quit.
Pretty Cure has several examples that haven't been brought up yet. Keep in mind that while they're part of the same franchise, each show is in a different continuity.
From Futari wa Pretty Cure Splash★Star:
- Complete Monster: Lord Akudaikahn and Gohyaan.
- Let's start with Akudaikahn, first. He seems like he's merely just like the Dark King from the original series at first, though notably a bit angrier and more forceful. This comes to a head when Michiru and Kaoru betray him after Saki and Mai show them how tyhe world works and they give the gems for the fountain of win willingly to them, he proceeds to Blast them to death, then bury's them in the bottom of a lake. This alone shows how horrible he is.
- Gohyaan, on the other hand, is even worse. He seems like a subservient, if rather sly right hand man to Akudaikahn. Then he crosses the Moral Event Horizon detailed below, in which he tortures the mascots to get information out of them. This is bad enough already, but then it's revealed he created Akudaikahn, and is pretty much responsible for what Akudaikahn Did, and all he wants to do is destroy the universe to be the only life-form in existence out of disgust for it all. Until the likes of Joker came around, he is easily seen as one of the most horrifically monstrous villains in the entire franchise.
Akudaikhan is the apparent Big Bad of the show, but Gohyaan ends up being the real one. Akudaikhan is mostly just a Generic Doomsday Villain and ultimately doesn't match Gohyaan, so he should probably be cut. Seeing as how Gohyaan is trying to kill everyone in the universe, screws around with his own Dark Fall agents that he created, tortured the mascots Flappy and Choppi, and some other stuff, he's the most heinous guy in the show. He's amusing while he's pretending to be a subordinate, but he's got no redeeming qualities. I say he's a keeper.
From Yes! Pretty Cure 5:
- Complete Monster: The Director of Eternal is one nasty piece of work as compared to Despariah from the previous season. He forcefully had many treasures stolen from various places, with no regards of the sadness caused from it, because according to him, they're valuable (and he thinks he's doing them a favor, while not regarding what they think). If they're not living up to his standards... then he'll remorselessly destroy them... this includes the whole world. Flora tried to reach out to him by sending a flower seed to him so he can grow it and see the infinite possibilities of life, but on finding this out, the Director just say that they're also worthless.
- Shadow from the first movie. This guy/girl/whatever single-handedly lay waste on the Mirror Kingdom solely for his/her/whatever desire to obtain the Dream Collet to make him/her/whatever the ruler of the world, with no backstory or reasons to do so, so probably because he/she/whatever can (and unlike Despariah, Shadow did it without reasonings like fearing for something or anything). When Dark Dream covers for Cure Dream and dying because of it, he/she/whatever took his/her/whatever's time to gloat that not only she's useless, it's also a befitting fate for a traitor. Within the earshot of Cure Dream.
- Kawarino from the original also qualifies: He worships despair too much and enjoys way too much kicking dogs way too much along with applying manipulations for no apparent reason. He backstabs his former superior Bloody once he thought the latter has outlived his usefulness, and it is also noted by Bloody that even the Nightmare group was a lot better before Kawarino came in charge, where there's at least teamwork. Also, Girinma, Arachnea, Gamao and Hadenya are jerks, but still show their loyalty to Nightmare... and Kawarino drove them to death by giving them the Black Cards all while claiming that his voice is Despariah's. When Despariah contemplates on a Heel Face Turn, Kawarino is extremely flabbergasted at the idea, which hammers the point home that he's even more evil than even Despariah, serving her not out of loyalty unlike the other employees. Nozomi didn't even get to declare him beyond redemption, Bloody came back from the grave to drag him to Hell along with him. No wonder Joker is heavily based on him.
Shadow is a movie villain who wrecked the Mirror Kingdom off-screen and wants the Dream Collet to cement his rule over it. Aside from that he's mostly just a dick. He was a bigger dick when he killed his former minion Dark Dream and mocked her, but he really doesn't cut it compared to the other two guys. Cut.
Kawarino is The Dragon of the first season. He's trying to get the Dream Collet for his boss Desperiah, and he doesn't care who he has to sacrifice or what he has to do. In the backstory he was the one who tricked Nuts into opening the gates of the Palmier Kingdom and caused its destruction, and almost all its residents were brainwashed by Nightmare. He Mind Rapes the Pretty Cure, though that's to be expected. Towards the end he starts forcing the Black Mask on his subordinates, which drives them completely insane for some extra power, even on his former superior Bloody. It's noted that he's the one that's been causing Nightmare to lose most of the teamwork it once had. When Desperiah makes a Heel–Face Turn, he's not happy, though he doesn't get a chance to do much before he's killed. I'm on the edge about him. He's arguably the most evil person in the show, but I'm not sure if any of his own actions really push him over the edge. He's loyal to Desperiah, but it's not really clear if he actually cares about her.
The Director is the Big Bad of the second season. He wants everything valuable added to his collection, most notably the woman Flora from the Cure Rose garden. Everything else he wants to destroy. He cares for no one. He kills two loyal subordinates after they're no longer useful to him, though to be fair one of them sabotaged his attempts to get Flora. When he gets to the Cure Rose Garden, he starts blowing up when he finds it unworthy, which seems to damage Earth, the Palmier Kingdom, and other worlds. It seems that he's destroyed several worlds while gathering his collection. Flora and the Pretty Cure attempt to reach out to him, and he rejects them instantly. I'm inclined to say he's a keeper.
From Smile Pretty Cure!:
- Complete Monster: Joker, who's probably worst villain in the franchise yet, and that is really saying something. Let's just say that one too many people wanted to beat him up for what he did to the Cures in episode 22.
- If not that, then certainly revealing what he did to Wolfrun, Akaoni and Majorina in episode 45. Adding things up, he's not even redeemed in his death. He's evil from start to finish, and he's not even bothering in hiding it and just everything he does boils up in... For the Evulz.
Don't confuse him with The Joker, though you'd be forgiven if you did. He's The Dragon for his boss Pierrot, though since Pierrot needs energy to be revived and do anything, Joker ends up being the main villain for most of the series. He thrashes the pretty Cure and collects their despair energy to revive his boss, kidnaps the mascot Candy when he thinks she's got what he wants, manipulated Wolfrun, Akaoni, and Majorina to serve as his evil minions, and tried to kill them when they stopped being useful. His goal is to revive his boss Pierrot and send the world into a Bad End, which puts the whole world in a state of despair. Reviving his boss will probably also destroy Earth, which he's fine with. For a long time he attempts to find the Miracle Jewel that grants wishes, which turns out to be Candy. Turns out it doesn't grant wishes, but Joker still wants to kill Candy just because he can. He manages to put the entire world in a state of despair, and even when he's dying he's laughing at the prospect of Pierrot reviving and destroying the world. He's loyal to his boss, but that seems to be more for what he'll do and not genuine loyalty. I think he's a keeper.
From Doki Doki! PreCure, which is currently airing:
- Complete Monster: King Jikochuu. At first he's portrayed simply as an evil overlord who takes over the trump kingdom. Evil, yes, but not monster level territory at first. As the series goes, however, the emotional impact this has on both Makoto and Joe is shown in full detail, which increases this possibility more. However, he goes full on into this territory, Akudaikahn style when he finally has his first speaking role, except even worse. The way he treats his own minions, and especially his own daughter, Regina, is something to behold. In Episode 21, when Regina defies his orders, he electrocutes her, with absolutely no remorse whatsoever, just to make sure she stays enslaved to his will, as well as constantly yelling at her with more and more intense anger as the episode goes on, threatening to electrocute her a second time as she gets ready to leave him to be with Mana and co. Once she finally does so, he completely loses his shit and tries to kill her and the rest of the gang as they escape the ruined Trump Kingdom, and it's implied in previews for the episodes after, he'll only get worse from there on out.
- Immediately in the following episode, After Regina starts feeling love, he "apologizes" for being mean to her.....by brainwashing her. It's subtly implied it wasn't the Royal Crystals that caused Regina to initially go crazy before hand, it was King Jikochuu himself doing it from afar.
- Though he at least knows when Regina has taken enough damage and puts her on the sidelines to rest up, that's not saying much considering his behavior up to that point and possibly in future episodes.
King Jikochuu/Selfish/whatever you want to call him, is the apparent Big Bad and leader of the Selfish, who are pretty much just trying to destroy all the worlds. His forces destroyed the Trump Kingdom, and we actually saw its destruction in a flashback. He got sealed during the invasion, so he hasn't done much since. What he has done involves his "daughter" Regina, who he seems to dote on. Then Regina befriends the Pretty Cure, and he zaps and disowns her when she tries to talk him out of attacking Earth. Later he tries to win her back, claims he cares about her, and brainwashes her. He hasn't appeared since. He definitely doesn't care for her, and I also doubt she's really his daughter for various reasons, but that hasn't come up yet. Since the show is ongoing and he could theoretically gain some redeeming feature, I say cut him for now.
That was a lot. Anyway, several of these guys are going, but for a children's show there are some pretty bad guys here.
edited 17th Aug '13 9:32:31 PM by Sterok
A total has-been.
Thank you for, Sterok. Let me go through them
For the Pretty Cure franchise:
Cut Akudaikhan. Keep Gohyaan.
Cut Shadow. How does Kawarino act after Desperiah does the turn? and keep the Director
Keep Joker Cut Jikochu for now until the show is done
Reposting here: Since we're voting for Hoffman, he needs a new writeup. How about...
- Detective Mark Hoffman Of the Saw franchise is Jigsaw's second apprentice and surpasses both his Well-Intentioned Extremist mentor and Ax-Crazy Broken Bird alumnus Amanda in evil how the lines he is willing to cross. Unlike Jigsaw's traps, which tended to give a chance for survival, Hoffman places his victims into traps simply to kill them to satisfy his own sadism and cruelty. He frames Agent Peter Strahm for his crimes and then arranges his horrible death by being crushed by compacting walls. To cover his tracks, Hoffman begins murdering innocent people and then goes on a rampage in the police station, killing every officer he finds before placing his rival and Jigsaw's wife Jill in a trap to kill her horribly.
edited 17th Aug '13 2:43:35 PM by Lightysnake
Sounds OK, except that it needs a correct namespace.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
@A New Man: Check my edit. I meant to say "appear again".
Likewise, you're the one who brought up he had offscreen stuff too. You're being extremely confusing about your reasons for keeping him on. It's inconsistent and too impossible to actual debate by this point.
Likewise, the majority are still unconvinced by this point. Let's just drop it because it's clear he isn't heinous enough in the end and needs to stay off the list now.
He should be on the never again list anyway. He just isn't honestly heinous enough for the standards of the setting. Being a slightly better sadist in a sadist show, and the fact he's being taken seriously(this second part does not make any difference whatsoever since that's irrelevant anyway, since it doesn't make it extremely heinous. It just means at best he'd apply for You Monster!).
A total has-been.
Likewise, you're the one who brought up he had offscreen stuff too. You're being extremely confusing about your reasons for keeping him on. It's inconsistent and too impossible to actual debate by this point.
That's inconsistent and impossible? As opposed to, y'know, the heaps and heaps of criteria and standards that have been laid upon this trope? I know we all think it's for the best that the trope by strict and limiting, and at this point in time it is, but I cannot count the ways in just how self contradicting and confusing the criteria has gotten. It makes the trope almost laughably impossible.
He just isn't honestly heinous enough for the standards of the setting. Being a slightly better sadist in a sadist show, and the fact he's being taken seriously(this second part does not make any difference whatsoever since that's irrelevant anyway, since it doesn't make it extremely heinous. It just means at best he'd apply for You Monster!).
It's time like these where I question why we even have the "heinous by the standards of the story" criteria. Let's just rephrase it the say "heinous on the level of mass murderers and rapists" and be done with it.
I honestly don`t understand how the criteria itself is contradictory or confusing.
That's because it isn't.
Likewise, changing the criteria so a character can get in is not exactly a good argument.
He needs to fit the criteria, not the other way around.
@Anew Man
The meaning of "baseline heinousness" versus "in-universe heinousness" has been repeatedly explained to you (and to various others during the time that you have been here). I've done it, Lightysnake's done it, Shaoken's done it, 32_Footsteps has done it. If you still aren't getting it at this point it's not from lack of trying on our parts.
As to the rest of your post, you're still demanding less examination, less scrutiny, less discussion, and less argumentation. Aside from the fact that you can't tell people what they can and cannot talk about (a point that Crowley previously tried to make in your defence) you are arguing for a relaxation of standards that isn't going to happen, not least because this forum has no control whatsoever over the standards. We deal with the criteria, we don't set them. Most people seem to be able to accept that and deal with the standards as they are. Of all the regular and semiregular posters here, you're the only one who regularly tries to object to the standards themselves, instead of actually trying to demonstrate that a character meets those standards.
Finally, your complaint about how any character who does more than popping footballs merits discussion and are just being shot down by the evil tyranny of the majority? Please. It's that attitude that screwed the page up in the first place. If you couldn't get the votes to get a character on the list in an open forum like this one, you either made a terrible argument or the character doesn't qualify. Under the current system you have a voice and a vote (this could easily have been a closed panel). Why you think that your voice and vote should matter more than that of the majority that voted your example down, I'm really not sure (especially given your complaints about everyone from njrxll to myself being "elitist").
"It makes the trope almost laughably impossible."
Translation: it makes it impossible for you to get Eddy's Brother (and diverse others you've tried to make a case for) onto the list. Too bad.
@njrxll
So long.
@Sterok
First time in a while we've seen a post that size. I'll join with Lightysnake in thanking you for bringing this to the forum's attention. Going off of what you've said (and assuming that there's no redeeming features that you've missed), I'd say keep The Director, Joker, and Gohyaan, and cut everybody else for now.
@Tommy Fresh
Yeah, I really don't see Anew Man's issue here.
@Irene
Precisely. People always seem to want to do this—to change the criteria once an example they want kept is going to be cut. But as you've pointed out that isn't how things work and that can't be how things work.
edited 17th Aug '13 3:37:41 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
A total has-been.
Ideas like how "X is still a Complete Monster despite his actions not comparing to X's due to their scale", even though I recall candidates being disqualified for "failing the heinous standard" compared to a bigger monster in the story, how a Complete Monster cannot be pitiful even though some very well are, the constant issue of The Joker that keeps coming up about villains who are insane, funny, or enjoyed/seen as cool by the audience, the fact that people seem ready to jump all over the slightest hint of a redeeming feature for some obvious examples just because it disproves him as a COMPLETE Monster, the conception that their goals should not be more complex beyond For the Evulz, how Offscreen Goodness is as equal a disqualification for heinousness as Offscreen Villainy, how success is or is not a factor in deciding heinousness, and ESPECIALLY the whole notion of how a Complete Monster must be both the most heinous villain by the standards of the story AND meet a baseline heinousness standard that is mentioned nowhere on the main trope description itself, and that this usually involves comparisons to completely unrelated villains from unrelated works with different standards whose actions have no bearing on anything from the villain in question's story and standards, who just happen to be on the same CM subpage.
Likewise, changing the criteria so a character can get in is not exactly a good argument.
I have never suggested nor indicated that we change criteria so that a character can get in. I argue the opposite: we must stop changing criteria so that a character CAN'T get in. The criteria should be left as is and the character given a fair trial by those criteria.
The meaning of "baseline heinousness" versus "in-universe heinousness" has been repeatedly explained to you (and to various others during the time that you have been here). I've done it, Lightysnake's done it, Shaoken's done it, 32_Footsteps has done it. If you still aren't getting it at this point it's not from lack of trying on our parts.
Because it's really hard to get given that BOTH "baseline heinousness" and "in-universe heinousness" are required to qualify a CM. By not just settling with one, this creates all sorts of inconsistencies and logic that's hard to follow. The argument is basically that all Complete Monsters have to commit an epic Moral Event Horizon crossing action, and it has to be on the lines of mass murder, rape, severe torture, cannibalism, and genocide. Basically, if a work doesn't have a character who does that stuff, then it has no Complete Monster. That's all well and good. The problem is, that's not what's suggested by the trope page's definition. It just says "truly heinous by the standards of the story, which make no effort to portray the character in any positive way." This can be interpreted a different way from what you intended because the thing about baseline heinousness and the specific crimes that must be committed by the monster goes conveniently unmentioned. Not that I have a problem with that, since going into detail about the monster's actions turns the trope into an action trope on the line of Moral Event Horizon, making it essentially redundant.
As to the rest of your post, you're still demanding less examination, less scrutiny, less discussion, and less argumentation.
I'd like a little bit of that, but I'm not making any demands...
You are arguing for a relaxation of standards that isn't going to happen, not least because this forum has no control whatsoever over the standards. We deal with the criteria, we don't set them. Most people seem to be able to accept that and deal with the standards as they are. Of all the regular and semiregular posters here, you're the only one who regularly tries to object to the standards themselves, instead of actually trying to demonstrate that a character meets those standards.
Who does set the criteria and standards then? Fast Eddie? I thought we weren't his tools. I can usually deal with what I have to work with here, but there are occasions when enough is enough. Those are when, as Lightysnake pointed out, people disregard our own criteria, try to twist them around to serve their arguments, or even make up new standards out of thin air just to make sure a candidate does or doesn't get on the trope. And when people take the elitist attitude of "you just don't understand" (without the slightest trace of irony.) I did try to demonstrate that a character met the standards as they are, but I get drowned out by cries of "not heinous enough!" Maybe it's just me, but I'm a believer of the torturer being much worse than the murderer, and while Eddy's brother was small scale given the series, he was still a torturer and an abuser, both physically and psychologically. In a way none of the other Jerkass kids on the show ever were. That is what I was trying to get across, but everyone was too fixated over his nonexistent body count or "offscreen villainy" or whatever.
Finally, your complaint about how any character who does more than popping footballs merits discussion and are just being shot down by the evil tyranny of the majority? Please. It's that attitude that screwed the page up in the first place.
And there's that attitude again. "Oh noez! The very thing that screwed up CM and caused all this! It's Brony99 all over again! Help!" This fear of what the trope has turned into does not help matters, especially when you're trying to apply logic in debates over a character's qualifications. It only makes things just as bad. Hopefully not worse off in the long run, but still not changing all that much.
If you couldn't get the votes to get a character on the list in an open forum like this one, you either made a terrible argument or the character doesn't qualify. Under the current system you have a voice and a vote (this could easily have been a closed panel). Why you think that your voice and vote should matter more than that of the majority that voted your example down, I'm really not sure (especially given your complaints about everyone from njrxll to myself being "elitist").
Whether or not the character qualifies is a matter of opinion (and yes, it is and will stay that way even after the official vote is made) and I'd like to think that I didn't make a terrible argument given the thought I put into it. Why I think it should matter at all is because my voice and vote are not being heard, considered, or taken seriously. Not one person seemed to look over my argument on the matter of why the character could qualify because they had their "a Big Brother Bully = small potatoes, not heinous enough to be a Complete Monster" goggles on.
Translation: it makes it impossible for you to get Eddy's Brother (and diverse others you've tried to make a case for) onto the list. Too bad.
And you get on my case for an attitude problem, yet I have not been nearly as confrontational and assuming to an individual as you've been, and always have been on this thread. Please cut it out?
People always seem to want to do this—to change the criteria once an example they want kept is going to be cut. But as you've pointed out that isn't how things work and that can't be how things work.
I think people are just looking for some clarity. When an example previously thought to have hit all the right criteria suddenly gets axed, people want to know "Why? Because he didn't cross the Moral Event Horizon hard enough? I thought this was a trope for heinous characters who would or do commit actions that are heinous by the standards of the work, not just unanimously-thought-of-as-heinous actions and the characters who commit them." It's clear people have different ideas about this trope, and they're all thinking that if their idea of it is not what the trope is, then...what IS the trope, really? If this isn't Complete Monster, than what IS?
edited 17th Aug '13 4:19:43 PM by ANewMan
The fact that it's supposed to be a very restrictive trope is a good thing overall. It means that not just anyone can qualify, but they need to be hardcore heinous.
Is it really worth it, though? Where's this special treatment for other tropes? Remember when Magnificent Bastard was the most problematic to define? Where's the cleanup and restrictions for that? And by making this about being "hardcore heinous", it often seems to veer into becoming just "characters with the worst Moral Event Horizon crossings", essentially Moral Event Horizon Up To Eleven.
It's a Sadist Show. The guy is a Sadist in itself. He isn't overly worse than the regular show either. Being played seriously doesn't change this either.
And by the standards of the Sadist Show, he still stands out as heinous. Sometimes standing out as the worst in a series filled with bad people and bad stuff is as notable as standing out as the worst in a work of any other kind. Like Chaka in Black Lagoon, for instance.
Half of it is offscreen.
Nothing was offscreen in the moment with Eddy's brother. He just said one line about having done the thing he was currently doing ON-SCREEN for as long as he can remember. That was it.
Is it simply implied he's the problem with Eddy's life, or is it directly said it's the reason Eddy's life is terrible? Because that severely matters.
Yes, Eddy pretty much states that the whole reason his life shot downhill was because of his brother.
I hate to break it to you but these arguments about relative heinousness that you so disdain? They're what keep the bad examples off.
Are they all "bad examples"? Or "examples you don't like and disagree with?"
And before you go on complaining about how we're trying to keep everyone out—take a look over the subpages. Really take a look over the subpages. They're still huge. There's still far too many villains on them who haven't done anything near enough to qualify. We also still regularly add new villains to the list. When there's no subpages left, and all the examples are on one page, then you can complain that we're being too tough.
Problem is, the cleanup takes slow because everyone fixates on arguing plausible examples rather than seeking out and removing the examples that anyone could plainly see are bad (ie: the Candy Candy examples I brought up.) The day when there's no subpages left is a long time off, and I doubt the day when this trope will not be YMMV will ever come. I don't mean to be unreasonable, but I had to voice my concerns somewhere here.
He just isn't heinous enough at all.
He's nowhere near heinous enough, on a general basis, or by the standards of the show.
You all have no idea how much I'm hating that word "heinous" right now and wish to quote Inigo Montoya.