Characters Rooster Teeth Discussion

Collapse/Expand Topics

12:10:08 PM Nov 1st 2014

I haven't been on this page in a while, and I guess I'm missing something, but: where did Gavin's entry go?
12:16:22 PM Nov 1st 2014
he got his own page
11:34:30 PM Apr 23rd 2014
So considering she now runs Rooster Teeth's news division - spun off into a YouTube channel called "The Know" - I'm starting to think Ashley Jenkins should get a character entry. According to the YouTube credits, she both writes the spots and anchors. Likewise the other news anchors who aren't already members (Gus, Ryan, and Barbara already have entries).
01:32:31 PM Jul 8th 2014
How does she not have an entry already? Yes, if she doesn't have one she definitely should.
09:20:35 AM Oct 28th 2013
Is anybody else thinking that we should split the AH guys into their own character page? It could work staying here, but if you open all folders Team AH easily makes up most of the article.
02:38:44 AM Nov 23rd 2013
To expand on my previous post, most edits for this sheet are for AH.
08:00:32 PM May 1st 2013
I guess I'm going to bring up one trope at a time here for discussion, based on what is inappropriate. Feel free to discuss. I'll just make a new topic for each trope so this can be slightly organized:

To start off: Epic Fail. Why Epic Fail is on No Real Life Examples, Please!:

Epic Fail: Real life doesn't have waa-waa trumpets and fantastical chains of calamity but it does have people who will misuse a chance to get in a Take That!.

And from the description of Epic Fail:

A failure so ludicrously, unexpectedly awesome that, despite its status as a failure, it manages also to be admirable for its uniqueness and irreproducibility.

A lot of the Epic Fail potholes are used for Take That!. For example:

  • Thread The Needle. Either Jack has poor eyesight, poor knowledge or a poor choice of words.
Jack: We have to land in that circle there?
Ray: That's a square, Jack.

  • Gavin does not do well in Lets Play Black Ops 2 Part 2. Several times Ray runs over to revive him and he dies a few seconds later.

  • A pretty blatant example in Let's Play Minecraft 37. He fails at making a simple jump near the end of the course. Geoff cannot believe what happened. (for Michael)

I feel like there are some genuine examples of Epic Fail moments listed here (Gavin's screw-up at the end of the Clouds episode for instance) but I think a lot of these need to be selected based on how they're treated by the other AH members. If others treat the moment as an Epic Fail (rather than just a regular fail) then it can probably qualify, and even better, can be elaborated upon beyond what the audience thinks is a screw-up on the guys' part by adding how the other members react.

06:29:34 PM Apr 9th 2013
Okay, I'm starting a HUGE clean up of the character page! From Welcome to TV Tropes!:

Our articles on real people should not be used to talk about them as if they are characters in a story. Nor should they be biographical; that's Wikipedia's job. We are interested in them from four perspectives:
  • Useful Notes: Real people who frequently appear in media can get a Useful Notes-style article where common facts about them can be collected for reference.
  • Creators: People who write or produce media may have a list of tropes frequently found in their works and may have a list of wiki articles for their works.
  • Actors: People who act in media may have a list of tropes common to their roles and may have a list of wiki articles for the works they appear in.
  • Public Domain Characters: The use of a fictional person (Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster) as a stock character.

Basically, the Rooster Teeth cast aren't characters in a story, and most of what they do isn't scripted. They're real people acting as they normally do. The exceptions to this are Immersion and Rooster Teeth Shorts, so character tropes relating to how they're portrayed in those works are fine. I'm not sure if there should be a new character page for each of these works, or if this one should mention that character tropes will only apply to those shows.

Anyway, I won't get started on that right now. My first goal is to cut everything related to No Real Life Examples, Please!.

Feel free to discuss what's going on! If you have questions or concerns, I'm happy to talk about it with you!
01:31:42 PM Apr 10th 2013
edited by LucyZephyr
So if there was a Reality TV show that had a character page, then you'd cut out all of those too, right? Because that's the exact same thing; the RT podcast and RT Life present the staff as characters in a sort of workplace comedy.

They are real people acting like they normally do, but are doing so explicitly for public consumption. It is not remotely comparable to someone, say, creating a huge character page on a celebrity based on tabloid.

I'm all for clean-up, but we're talking about people who are performing. Burnie has said outright in a recent AMA that the people at the company, when they share parts of their live, it's meant for the public eye, just like how they reserve some parts of their live for private lives.
03:30:23 PM Apr 10th 2013
edited by Butterfinger
From the No Real Life Examples, Please! page:

Documentaries and Reality TV shows are a special case, as while they purport to be factual depictions of Real Life, in practise there is almost always some slanting to support a certain viewpoint, ranging from subtle ways in which facts are presented, to the creators actually going on-camera to tell the viewers what they should think. For this reason, Real Life examples are generally permitted in the context of Documentaries and Reality TV shows, though an extra-large helping of the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgement is expected.

Basically, there's a slant involved in Reality Shows. The RT guys aren't really making the audience identify with anyone or telling the audience what to think in the podcasts and RT life. They're just giving the viewer a glimpse of their lives. As such, they can't really be viewed as characters. I don't have a problem covering the tropes they discuss on the main page, however. And a lot of what was on the character page are about moments rather than tropes applying to the person.

I'm on a mobile device right now but if you want I can elaborate upon some of these points when I get to a computer.
07:21:19 PM Apr 10th 2013
edited by LucyZephyr
There's no point.
07:45:09 PM Apr 10th 2013
edited by LucyZephyr
Actually nevermind, there is a point. I don't understand how we can use examples to back up tropes for Old Media that approaches the same sort of Obvious Personalities that RT does but in this case they're Real Life Examples. These tropes and justifications come directly from filmed and edited videos. These people are performing when the cameras are on and Burnie has said that outright.

Maybe I'm just pissed because, for example, the only things we apparently have to say about Jack Pattillo now is that he crossplays and is snarky.

ETA: Is there a way to get the old page back? At least the source for it? because I'd like to have a copy of it if it's going to be nuked forever. I got many of my friends into RT through this page.
07:53:03 PM Apr 10th 2013
To quote Burnie Burns in the AMA: "But don't be fooled — social media is not personal lives. People will cherry pick the best moments of their lives and present them on Twitter and Facebook. They even polish them to look a little better. Don't get too wrapped up in other people's lives and compare yours to theirs. We all have our own joy & sadness, our share of heartbreaks & happiness. Only one-half those moments tend to make it onto a Facebook wall."

If you're going to argue that there's a slant involved in reality shows, you're going to also have to acknowledge that the RT guys themselves have pointed out that same slant in their own work, in a particularly adept piece of metacriticism, with regard to this being an incomplete and creator-controlled depiction of their lives. This doesn't change because their channels of distribution are not "conventional", heavy air quotes, the way television-broadcast reality shows are. This is not raw, unedited footage. What goes up has been cut and reworked. Just because it doesn't have a political slant, for example, doesn't mean it does not have an underlying purpose. What that purpose is, precisely, is subjective - you can argue for it being humor, or entertainment in general, etc. etc. But to argue that there is no purpose - and particularly that they are not striving for audience empathy - is utterly disingenuous, especially given their own awareness of it.
07:56:47 PM Apr 10th 2013

Also, if it helps— if the page is restored to before the edits, I will spend the weekend cleaning it up as much as humanly possible— removing natter, getting the once-off tropes moved to the main page, etc. I really had a lot of affection for this page and would like to preserve it's actual usefulness and fun.
08:38:19 PM Apr 10th 2013
edited by Butterfinger
The point with the reality shows was specifically with how it's shot. Oftentimes, you have a narrator telling the audience what's going on and how to feel, and as a result the audience is able to distance themselves from the people enough to identify them as characters rather than real people.

With the podcast, there's no editing. Of course you can have tropes about what they talk about, it's kind of like Stand Up Comedy (not quite that, but something similar). Actually, RT Life is really like a bunch of sketches, which are fine to trope, but the people in them aren't acting out as characters.

I'm all for troping their works! It's just that the people are real and not characters, and the rules are strict about how the wiki should treat real people. I don't think that quote by Burnie Burns is suggesting that you treat them as characters rather than real people.

As for Jack, I'm sorry. I really shouldn't have even left the tropes though since tropes without an explanation are frowned upon, but I felt bad about leaving him with nothing. As a note, I commented out tropes with no description so others could add descriptions to the tropes.

I mentioned this on the forums, but maybe everything would be better if there were separate work pages for each of their works? Like one for the podcast, for the Let's Plays, and maybe one for Minecraft specifically. As of right now, their works are listed on the creator page, and I feel that that page could be used as a main page for describing the company and general tropes associated with it, and then listing the various series associated with it.

As a final aside, No Real Life Examples, Please! are to stay removed. Period.
08:51:36 PM Apr 10th 2013
edited by Serocco
I removed the entire character page until further notice. We're going through a revamp of the entire franchise, so it's better to leave it blank for now.
09:02:30 PM Apr 10th 2013
edited by LucyZephyr

So that's a no on an archival copy? I hate to see a ridiculous amount of content just cut.
09:06:14 PM Apr 10th 2013
edited by Serocco
There's the history of the edits. You can access it here.
09:16:46 PM Apr 10th 2013
Okay, a rebuttal from Serecco about why the AH guys should be considered characters:

I disagree. In Achivement Hunter, Gavin is the Butt-Monkey, Cloud Cuckoolander and the Troll (reflected in his Creeper skin), Ray is The Ace and the Nice Guy, Geoff is the Bad Boss, Ryan is the Sixth Ranger, Jack is another Butt-Monkey and Michael is the Hot-Blooded guy.

Those characters are rather straightforward. What they do away from the Let's Plays, we won't categorize.

I was actually going to go through this trope by trope from the NRLEP page, but the reasoning behind Butt-Monkey actually perfectly describes why I'm against troping real life people as if they were characters:

Butt-Monkey: Can lead to objectification. Plus, this trope is about cartoon characters who are the butt of the jokes, which makes it impossible in real life anyway.

In trying to categorize each person with one trope that describes a person playing a role in a story rather than a character trait, you're simplifying them in a way that almost makes it seem like they're almost not a real person. Even taking into account that we only see half of their personality at times, that's still a lot of the person we're seeing, and trying to fit each person with one trope honestly seems like a disservice to the person.

I did keep Nice Guy for Ray when I did my initial edits because it was more "personality" than "role in story" based. I removed The Ace using the same logic. Hot-Blooded wasn't there for Michael (which strikes me as odd, but whatever), but I probably would have kept it there because again, personality over role in story. I removed Cloud Cuckoolander for Gavin, but that may actually be fine. I'm still thinking about it.

Anyway, if they were intentionally acting differently in their Let's Plays then they would have a different persona and thus could be troped (think That Guy with the Glasses). I have seen nothing to suggest they act differently for the Let's Plays; they're just playing video games with their friends.

As an aside, I really like that everyone is getting together to fix the pages. Although that's more in response to me, but I'll take what I can get.
09:24:21 PM Apr 10th 2013
edited by Serocco
I've said this before. People have characters. The word you're looking for is archetype.

Actually, Butt-Monkey can apply to every last one of them. Ray has his issues, Gavin has his issues, Jack has his issues, Geoff has his issues - there's way too many times where everybody is the butt of a joke.

The Ace is actually zigzagged for Ray. A lot of the time, he's an absolute beast, but he gets some moments of mediocrity to balance that out. Maybe Bad Ass fits more.
09:34:58 PM Apr 10th 2013
edited by LucyZephyr
Except these tropes are purposefully invoked in the narrative these people are building.

Gavin is absolutely the Butt-Monkey of the AH Crew. I have heard enough from Ray and Michael on their own podcast to know— when the camera is on, they absolutely playfight and emphasize Gavin's dumb moments for comedy and entertainment. Off-camera, they don't continue to treat him like that. That'd be a hostile work environment. Similarly Michael, who in his off hours is a somewhat crass but overall calmer person, plays up his Hot-Blooded persona for the camera.

I outright disagree with your premise. These people are performing. Their Lets Plays are edited. The audio podcasts are edited (that's Lindsey Tuggey's job at the company). The narratives they built are based on their own lower-case personalities but at the end of the day, the product they release stars upper-case Personalities, which are exaggerated and emphasized in such ways that create better entertainment.

This page needed clean-up, not deletions.
09:36:43 PM Apr 10th 2013
edited by Serocco
Zephyr made my point for me. We should treat their incarnations in Achievement Hunter as characters, because they play things up a lot there.

Take Geoff. He plays up his Bad Boss persona for Achievement Hunter. Ray is very much The Ace at video games, ala Black Ops where he becomes the One-Man Army.
09:38:37 PM Apr 10th 2013
People have characters? Isn't it people have character, singular? I feel like there's a distinction I'm not getting here. But okay, archetype.

For Butt-Monkey: You forgot the second part of the disqualifier: you apparently have to be a cartoon character. From the Butt-Monkey page:

With the exception of sports (where examples are kinda obvious) Please don't add any real life examples.

Who knew?

And Bad Ass would probably be better. Is there a specific Bad Ass trope that could be used? I've seen Bad Ass like tropes on other Creator pages, and I think with specific explanation it should be fine. I'm still thinking of this from the perspective that they're Creators rather than characters.
09:41:30 PM Apr 10th 2013
edited by Serocco
Well, there's the issue. You're focusing on the creators bit. Let's talk about how they act in their Let's Plays. Forget about everything else and focus on the tropes they present/embody in Achievement Hunter.
09:45:11 PM Apr 10th 2013
edited by LucyZephyr
Considering Butt-Monkey has 21 subpages across media.... no.

Serocco: If you agree with that assessment, can we get a roll back? I will work to get the page more suitable because I agree that it got out of hand.

I am very, very against the idea that we should cut many different people's huge amount of work in making this page and starting over. That feels disrespectful to those who contributed, to just say "well, we'll just hit the reset button on this page." There was a lot of good stuff there.
09:46:35 PM Apr 10th 2013
What assessment?
09:47:25 PM Apr 10th 2013
edited by Butterfinger
My internet lagged as I was typing up a response to that. They don't act differently enough to be considered entirely different people when they're doing stuff for Achievement Hunter. You could note that they exaggerate certain tropes when doing Achievement Hunter stuff on a creator page. For example:

Hot-Blooded: When recording for Let's Plays and Rage Quit, Michael plays this up. He's considerably calmer in real life.

^^ Wait, WHAT? Oh come on, at least bring it up in Ask The Tropers first.
09:47:40 PM Apr 10th 2013
edited by LucyZephyr
That these people intend to be treat as characters, albeit characters that was exaggerated versions of themselves?

ETA: I would argue they act differently enough to warrant a cohesive, useful Character page.
09:50:41 PM Apr 10th 2013
I would argue otherwise, obviously. Not really sure where to go from here with this discussion.
09:53:30 PM Apr 10th 2013
A vote. We decide it with a vote.
09:54:32 PM Apr 10th 2013
edited by Butterfinger
Yeah, that seems incredibly fair with two people representing one side and one person representing the other. Just take it to Ask The Tropers then.
09:55:44 PM Apr 10th 2013
This feels like you're saying that (for example) Stephen Colbert's persona on his show can't have a Character page because Stephen Colbert is a real person. Saying that Michael Jones on-camera- is the same or too similar to Michael Jones off-hours is factually incorrect. Spend any time listening to his other work like the Internet Box or his private channel's Lets Play— it's a different persona being worn, to the point that I once heard him express a dislike for being called Rage Quit (his AH nickname) on his private channel because they are separate entities.

... Can I at least get a chance to fix up the old version of the page because you leave nuking the page and all the effort of the people who worked on it to a vote of whoever happens to care about this issue and is able to see this in time?
09:57:05 PM Apr 10th 2013
edited by Serocco
It's all subjective. He doesn't feel they're different enough to warrant a character page. You feel that they do.

At least two others agree with him, while a couple others agree with you. This will never be resolved. Lock the character page, transfer the enforced tropes to their respective pages and leave it at that.
10:01:52 PM Apr 10th 2013
Stephen Colbert is scripted. The character Stephen Colbert is troped. Note that Stephen Colbert doesn't have tropes. And wait, there isn't even have a character page for the show! What are you even arguing here?

And I'm failing to see where all of your points can't be fit in from a creator perspective rather than a character perspective. The reason I started this, by the way, was the use of morality tropes to define someone as good/bad. Defining each person as a creator rather than a character would avoid that.
10:03:31 PM Apr 10th 2013
Michael Jones is scripted.
10:05:08 PM Apr 10th 2013
edited by LucyZephyr
You are telling me that it's okay to delete thousands of words of content because of a subjective opinion?

Like, Butterfinger, I see your point of view and where you are coming from, but I do not think that alone warrants this kind of deletion spree. Especially when it's something as open to interpretation as this. Three people in this thread believe that RT's people are to some degree presenting personas in their content that was different from their Real Life selves. You disagree. That's fine! It's a subjective interpretation!

Can we agree that some of use interpret RT's work differently and err ont he side of preserving a shitton of hard work, time, and effort?

ETA: If morality tropes started this— again, can I please get a roll-back and a chance to fix the page before it's chopped to pieces? That is literally all I am asking for.
10:05:45 PM Apr 10th 2013
How so? He may have an idea about what he's going to say about a game before he plays it, but it's not like he has rehearsals before he records.
10:07:01 PM Apr 10th 2013
edited by Butterfinger
^^ I asked about this on Ask The Tropers before I did anything. You think I didn't realize I was going to do a lot of cutting? Like I said a couple posts back, take it up there.
10:07:46 PM Apr 10th 2013
"Michael Rage Quit Jones" is a personality Michael uses for specific things. You do not see him in all of Michael's work. You do not see him when you meet him outside of work.

He is an improvised character that is emphasized in the videos via clever editing. It's a persona.
10:18:34 PM Apr 10th 2013
Which can be covered through describing him as a creator. As I said, mention him exaggerating these certain tropes for Rage Quit.

For example, you could list Catch-Phrase as such:

  • Catch-Phrase: In Let's Plays he tends to have several:
    • "Shut up, Gavin".
    • "Suck my wee-wee!"
    • "Booyaka Booyaka 619!"
    • "Yid on me!"
    • "Bye, Gavin!"
    • "COME ON!!"

Can you also try finding a persona covered as a character separate from the person, and not an Author Avatar or something like that? I honestly tried looking but nothing came up.
10:27:30 PM Apr 10th 2013
The way you're enforcing it, you wanna remove almost everything regarding their character tropes.
10:28:43 PM Apr 10th 2013
That is more of a limitation on TVT's format than the page itself. New Media like RT doesn't follow the same conventions as Old Media. Having a "Character" page may be ultimately inaccurate but since the Creator page currently serves as the Main page for RT, it is less suited for an informative who's who. How about restoring the page with an added disclaimer about that differentiation?
04:23:54 AM Apr 11th 2013
Have you considered that not everyone agrees with your subjective interpretation, Butterfinger? Because that's basically what your entire argument is resting on, with zero room for leeway apparently.
04:24:55 AM Apr 11th 2013
Could we not have discussed this in more detail BEFORE we deleted a year's load of editing and work? Thanks very bloody much.
05:15:47 AM Apr 11th 2013
edited by Sledgesaul
Star Sword and Septimus Heep both agreed on nuking the page back at Ask The Tropers. That's three who support the nuking of the sheet.

Now, the page has been restored to its previous state before Serocco deleted it. The discussion is what other tropes should stay, now. Take it up at Ask The Tropers.
07:53:44 AM Apr 11th 2013
I am trying to restore the page to before all this happened so we can all actually see the tropes up for discussion.

This is... very difficult to fix, jfc.
08:44:06 AM Apr 11th 2013
ALL RIGHT. The page is rolled back. Just in time for me to run out on errands.

I plan on fixing the page up as much as possible this weekend, when I'll have time to do as much. I'll be looking to consolidate, move one-off examples to the main page, and put some clarity in re: RT folks on-camera personalities vs off-camera. Hell or high water, it'll get fixed.

But let's not nuke the entire damn thing again, okay? Okay.
10:01:15 AM Apr 11th 2013
Sounds good to me.

Just one question, why did Adorkable get removed for all but about six people? Far as I know, it isn't one of the NRLEP (and if it was, that would be a little extreme). For the company as a whole, I understand that, but not for quite a few people.

Also, a lot of people working for RT are in the Promoted Fanboy (or Fangirl) category, most notably Gavin. Why was his example removed?
10:36:50 AM Apr 11th 2013
Copied/pasted from Ask The Tropers for Lucy Zephyr:

Sledge Saul: When such tropes are shown within the Lets Plays, I think it counts, as they are enforced/invoked. It doesn't matter if they are creators of a work. If a trope is confirmed to be enforced by the guys on the podcast, or if they're clearly invoking tropes to add to the humor (Gavin being a Hate Sink, a Troll and a Butt Monkey), it counts. Butterfinger: I'm fine with that! My issue was with the morality tropes and "role in the story" (such as hero and Big Bad) tropes. If there was clarification that this is how the RT guys treat each other rather than how the audience is evaluating them based on the audience's standards, that would be better.

Basically, can you clarify in the description for eac hexample how these tropes are shown in their works, and avoid calling someone good/bad according to the standards of the audience? Karma Houdini comes to mind as an example that should be avoided.
02:08:59 PM Apr 11th 2013
Captainmarkle: Not intentional. Restoring that page manually was a pain in the ass. More than those probably got dropped just because I sometimes had to guess where there edits went. Stuff was definitely lost in the shuffle.

Butterfinger: I saw that and will be keeping it in mind.
07:28:22 PM Apr 12th 2013
edited by
I think the Laser-Guided Karma examples should stay. It's an overlaying theme that, when the guys do something bad, something bad happens to them.

All of the Trolling examples should stay, as well, as they're all invoked in the Let's Plays. Butt-Monkey should stay when it's clear that they're the butt of a joke, like Ray being subjected to that pool of cakes in his house. The Ace should stay for Ray, because the guys keep addressing how he's the Bad Ass for the crew. The Smart Guy should stay when it applies to an Achievement Hunter, like Gavin for Minecraft (who has more experience with it, designs most of its courses and even goes Mr. Exposition for some of its mechanisms). Ryan is the web designer, Ray is The Ace (so he knows how most games work), Jack is the editor - plenty of examples there as well. Michael can count as The Big Guy due to how reactionary he is.

The Hero should stay when it's clear that an Achievement Hunter is clearly carrying the crew through a Let's Play. Take Ray in Black Ops 2, Michael in Mari0 Part 1, or Ray again in Nuketown. The Leader applies to when an Achievement Hunter, well, leads the team through a Let's Play, like Gavin when they were looking for the Mooshroom biome, Geoff as the head of Achievement Hunter, Burnie as the head of the original five, or Ryan during Minecraft Left 4 Dead Part 2. The Lancer is, in essence, the foil to the leader, which counts for Jack as he's much less of a trash-talker than Geoff.

Karma Houdini, unfortunately, is a villain-only trope. Gavin counts as a Hate Sink in Minecraft, but I'm not entirely sure he counts as a villain so much as an antagonist and a Token Chaotic Teammate.

Now, does Geoff invoke the Arc Villain, The Bad Guy Wins thing during the Tower of Geoff episodes, or is tehre another trope for that?
08:39:46 PM Apr 12th 2013
I disagree with everything above except Butt-Monkey, Hate Sink for Gavin, and MAYBE Troll. My issue with all the trolling examples is what's outlined in No Real Life Examples, Please!: far too many examples. Perhaps Troll could be a general trope applied to all the members, with the description along the lines that everyone has trolled each other at some point or another?

I'm waiting to see what changes LucyZephyr makes over the weekend before providing a counterargument for each of the "role in the story" tropes.
08:49:45 PM Apr 12th 2013
edited by
I already outlined the reasons for The Ace, The Hero, The Leader, The Lancer, Laser-Guided Karma, The Smart Guy and The Big Guy, and you're still unsatisfied? Come on. I think my examples for those there

Butt-Monkey, Hate Sink for Gavin and Troll, at least, we agree on. We'll signal Gavin in particular for how frequently he does it, but we should apply it as a general rule for Achievement Hunter like Vitriolic Best Buds.
08:52:24 PM Apr 12th 2013
edited by
Like I said, I'm waiting for LucyZephyr to make the changes before I present counterarguments for each individual trope. My previous arguments were general; these will be more specific.
02:49:26 PM Apr 13th 2013
edited by
Sorry for the delay on my editing. My family had a medical emergency. Tomorrow I'm going to sit through and see what I can do about editing this.

You might as well counterargument Serocco, because what they're saying makes perfect sense to me.
03:40:34 PM Apr 13th 2013
I'm waiting to see how you elaborate on the examples. The way Serroco described all the examples still seems that the examples are going to suggest a moral alignment as interpreted by the audience rather than acknowledged by the guys. For instance, in doing an example with Laser-Guided Karma, it shouldn't be left up to the discretion of the audience whether an event was justly deserved or not. It should be acknowledged by the guys as someone getting their just desserts (the ending of Clouds comes to mind as a good example of that).

And I'll be honest, a lot of these seem like trope misuse, so I'm just waiting to see how you can give a description that will show that these tropes are in fact the right ones to use.
04:51:09 PM Apr 13th 2013
So you are arguing that it has to be explicitly stated that X trope is being invoked and clear editor intent doesn't count. Do you not recognize that each video is edited with the intent of presenting a narrative of some kind?
06:05:11 PM Apr 13th 2013
No, I'm suggesting it be done as such. When you make the edits then I'll go into more detail with each specific trope.
06:39:25 PM Apr 13th 2013
.... So... are you somehow the arbitrator of what is and isn't okay? Because it seems like you're the only one who has this specific view of the lack of constructed narrative in the videos.

I'm going to clean the page. But that's not the marker I'm using, because that's a narrow interpretation that myself and others don't subscribe to.
06:46:13 PM Apr 13th 2013
As I've been saying, I'm still waiting to see the changes you make.

See you Monday. :)
07:13:43 PM Apr 13th 2013
07:20:20 PM Apr 13th 2013
And thank you for ranting about me on tumblr, by the way. I'm honestly giving you the benefit of the doubt here in seeing what the changes are.
07:29:11 PM Apr 13th 2013
edited by
Fuck it. I no longer care. Delete the damn page.

Funnily enough, when someone deletes a page, refuses to acknowledge that people interpret things differently than you, needs to be dragged into compromise, and then leaves passive aggressive smilies while acting like the gatekeeper of the page

yeah, it's enough to piss someone off.

You win. clap clap congrats yaaaay

(A++++ stalking you creepy piece of shit 8D)
07:37:34 PM Apr 13th 2013
...What the fuck? Yeah, because browsing through the Rooster Teeth tag on Saturday is TOTALLY stalking. I'm honestly a bit uncomfortable with all this drama. I'm sorry for happening upon your post, I suppose.
07:49:27 PM Apr 13th 2013
I didn't rant at you on a public tag 8) 8) 8) all I posted was a heads-up on the deletion. the rest was private and untagged. 8)

you think you're uncomfortable? oh man. that must suck for you. 8)
08:36:26 PM Apr 13th 2013
Zephyr, Butterfinger, I'm going to get a mod to suspend the both of you, and completely drop this entire conversation with no changes to the character sheet, if you keep this up.

One final strike for the both, and you're out.
08:37:18 PM Apr 13th 2013
Okay. I'm sorry about how I acted.
11:14:54 PM Apr 13th 2013
Let's just drop this entire conversation. Leave the character page alone. Nobody wants to compromise, nobody will compromise, so let it be.
06:02:23 AM Apr 14th 2013
I was and still willing to compromise and wait until Monday (or longer if LucyZephyr needs more time. If no edits are made, I'll go through the page and remove tropes based on improper use only that are unquestionably wrong in their usage (such as the Five-Man Band example, as there is a whole thread dedicated to trying to limit five man bands to the strict definition). After that, I'll start bringing up tropes for discussion.
07:20:26 AM Apr 14th 2013
edited by
I still think at least The Hero should stay. I've already explained why. You haven't.
07:56:12 AM Apr 15th 2013
"The Hero should stay when it's clear that an Achievement Hunter is clearly carrying the crew through a Lets Play."

This is a better explanation for The Leader rather than The Hero. From The Hero main description:

"This guy is a hero, pure and simple. He's almost always right, is a friend to all his teammates, and morally superior. He has a well-rounded skill set. He's not as strong as The Big Guy, or as smart as The Smart Guy, or as sensitive and socially adept as The Chick, but he's close. He can personally accomplish a variety of goals, but his real superpower is getting the whole diverse set of personalities under his command to focus and pull together. He'll always know who to ask for help, and when and usually how."

Basically, there's more to being a hero than just leading the group. Being a hero implies that the person is morally sound (or at least learning to develop solid morals throughout the story). The Leader is definitely a better fit for a scenario in which guys are playing video games and the victory comes from leadership.
01:23:36 PM Apr 15th 2013
I take The Leader more literally. Someone who commands and directs.

I see The Hero as less of the "always right morally good guy" and more of the "Bad Ass carries the team."
03:46:22 PM Apr 15th 2013
edited by
They're always the moral center when making decisions though. I'm not even arguing that this example doesn't apply because of Real Life, but that this example doesn't apply because of Square Peg, Round Trope. If you can explain why the AH guys don't fit just your definition of The Hero but the site's definition of the trope, then I'm okay with it. As it stands, the reasoning you're giving still applies more to The Leader than The Hero.
05:13:35 PM Apr 15th 2013
The site defines the hero as a morally good guy, and not just a badass who bails people out of a funk.

I still think the The Leader doesn't fit what Ray did in Black Ops 2 part 2. His two teammates, Jack and Gavin, were The Load. They were technically pit against Michael, Geoff and Ryan, who were doing a Body-Count Competition on the zombies. It got to a point where Ray ended up as the last man standing on both sides, and his total body count ended up being the highest even when you combine the other five guys.
06:19:43 PM Apr 15th 2013
Well, One-Man Army could work. Are you specifically looking for a trope that acknowledges the fact that despite the less-than-satisfactory effort from his teammates he still manages to survive against the seemingly neverending hoard of zombies, with the emphasis being on the others that held him back?
08:38:15 PM Apr 15th 2013
09:33:51 AM Oct 19th 2012
When did they say that Gavin was likely to lose his penis if he had one more STI?
Collapse/Expand Topics