Discussion YMMV / MassEffectAndromeda

I would agree.

I don't even think this is something that anyone would oppose, but just in case, yeah...you've got my support.

By all means! I'm going to stay clear of this page from here on, but if anyone else has an idea of how to make it a bit more neutral, knock yourself out.

Went ahead and removed or re-wrote every one of the kett-based entries on the page that showed his influence.

Nice!

I scanned the page briefly, but I can't spot anything blatantly anti-kett, so I'd say that it's back to normal.

Yeah, it seems like Gameplay and Story Segregation or Welcome to Corneria.

I agree, but I am long past the point of burnt out when it comes to trying to restrain Skid Troper's behavior on these points. He wants it more, and he's going to get it or get himself banned trying. And, frankly, I don't want him to get banned over it.

I made some alterations to the Applicability entry because, frankly, I was personally offended by the way it was worded. I tried to make it more neutral.

Feel free to make alterations if my corrections are offensive in any way.

Just as a heads-up: The original entry wasn't bashing those religions. It was suggesting the *devs* may have been using the kett as a Take That! against those religions.

I think your edit was good, and I don't know whether you would have approved of the original entry if you'd known the context or not, but I figured you should know in case you'd want to put it back.

I see. I don't know whether the devs actualy wanted to bash religion in general or a certain religious group in particular, but I think that it should be left out. After all, one disgruntled employee who says "yeah, f**k religion" isn't the same as Bioware expressing the same view. That's my opinion, at least.

Honestly, trying to keep this page balanced is a pain in the neck sometimes.

I think the current version is perfect. I'm sorry for being so combative regarding the recent edits.

Skidtroper, if you're reading this, remember that reverting changes more than once without using a discussion page to debate the rationale is an edit war.

My thoughts: I don't see why a single minor villain being named after a religious rank in some Christian denominations makes the kett an assault on Christianity. It certainly doesn't warrant so many walls of text entries.

I don't think he is.

Should we remove the "Anvilicious titles directly lifted from real-life religions for the latter" part? It's excessive, it doesn't add anything "religous fanaticism" hasn't already covered, and it borders on whining.

I'm going to try to break down the issue, explain where I stand to everyone involved in this and everyone watching from the sidelines, and hopefully in the future bury the hatchet.

I was wrong about the game being an anti-religion message. I suspect there is a jab at Christianity by using the titles "Cardinal" and "Primus". I suspect there is a Double Standard where at least some people see Christianity as an Acceptable Target. This became evident when in numerous discussions, I put the shoe on the other foot and said to the people in question "what if this happened to titles from another religion like Judaism or Islam?" (The Gnosticism reference gets a pass in my opinion because the Archons of Gnostcism are antagonistic and the kett Archon is antagonistic). When I said that, out came the excuses, which revealed a prejudiced Double Standard at work. I don't think this is just a "we don't like what you're saying because you're grasping at straws". There's more to it than that; from where I stand, it looks like some people see me as grasping at straws, but more those people don't like me pointing out truths they don't want brought out into the open because it shows where they really stand. I see myself as discussing the elephant in the room.

If everyone disagreed with me about those points I raised, then they'd just erase all trace of them. But they didn't, so some of them agree with me to a point. And if everyone was so against me, they'd just report me to the moderators, but there's been no sign of moderator activity so, to reiterate, some of them think I have a point.

To use the hypothetical example pave17 used, even if anti-religious view were just harbored by one disgruntled employee, the fact remains that none of the others called them out on it and materials in line with such prejudiced views were greenlit by the leaders of the dev team, who had to see what was going into the game and approve it, and it made it to the game; at best that would be Getting Crap Past the Radar, at worst it would be an Author Tract.

Irrose; just to clarify, it wasn't a single minor villain as you said. It was two villains; the Primus and the Cardinal. Primus is a title in the Scottish Episcocal Church. The Primus isn't a minor villain, she's the Archon's second-in-command and The Stinger hinted she will be the villain in the next game. Also refer to my above remark about Double Standards.

The Andromeda Initiative has libertarian overtones, the good new aliens are emotional full of alternate sexualities with a religion resembling New Age spirituality and the evil aliens have Nazi parallels to name a few; that sounds like a left-leaning message to me and Bioware's track records indicates that these parallels cannot be an accident. I suspect that the reason my words have sparked backlash is because some of the people opposing what I say sympathize with those leftist sentiments (I know that is the case with two Tropers here who I shall not name).

I am drawing attention to these things here, not attacking them (except the idea of Double Standard prejudice) but to point them out calling out. This is not a personal attack, I am saying how it looks to me. In closing, I will leave those points on YMMV as they are, but I stand by my suspicions until someone from the dev team can prove what they were doing with the kett wasn't out of some sort of agenda. All I will do is add to the They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character by saying the Primus turned on the Archon partially because he was, in her words "hoarding the genetic bounty for himself".

"Primus" is Latin for "First". Considering that there are no religious overtones to her character, saying that she is named after a specific rank in one branch of Christianity is quite a stretch.

The kett's invasion of Heleus is loosely based on the European colonization of the Americas, which included forced conversion, which is why the Exaltation Center somewhat resembles a church.

I should also note that the kett's goal of making every living being in the galaxy the same is very similar to that of Star Trek's Borg, who are thinly veiled condemnations of communism.

Skid Troper:

You asked what would happen if the titles the Kett are using were lifted from another religion like Judaism or Islam instead of Christianity. Let me present you with a partial answer.

To put it bluntly: there's so much hate and fear towards Muslims these days that any association between extremist groups and the Islam is bound to carry negative connotations. This applies to a lesser extend on Judaism (see "the Jews crucified Jesus" for the negative connotations).

Christianity is not an Acceptable Target; it's one of the religious groups least likely to take offense and bring out the Torches and Pitchforks to an attack against them. Most of the time.

And I'll leave the discussion at that. I have no interest in this never-ending argument about religion. That can only end in Flame War or Edit War. Can't you just leave it neutral?

• Edit: I will concede, however, that the developers are at fault for not keeping the religious references vague like they did in the original trilogy. The fact that someone can associate the Kett to a specific RL religion is damnable in and of itself.

Perhaps mention that part instead?

It just...seems like bashing the game to this extent for supposedly being biased toward the left wing makes you (and by extension, your trope entries) seem rather biased toward the *right* wing.

But, believe it or not, I despise arguing about religion and politics, and I just want this whole saga to be done.

Irrose; you do have a point about Primus being Latin for first, since that is one of its meanings. This is the church the title is also in; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primus_of_the_Scottish_Episcopal_Church. I agree with the possible jab at communism, but given how there are leftist elements to the good factions I am uncertain that the game is criticizing communism.

pave17; I know about the Charlie Hebdo shootings and about unfair discrimination against Islam and Judaism. What you say infers the following, though I am not accusing you of anything, merely saying how the societal attitude looks to me; people avoid criticizing Islam due to fear of violent reprisals from extremists and to mitigate the Association Fallacy being used against Muslims. People avoid criticizing Judaism due to a history of violent persecution, mitigate the Association Fallacy and swing towards Positive Discrimination regarding Judaism. Most non-Christians don't care enough about Christianity to extend these considerations to Christianity (when they're not actively discriminating against Christianity) while some are bullies who consider Christianity a soft target for its followers being mostly sincere in its peaceful teachings. Your idea is good, and I have mentioned the problem being their direct reference to a specific religion; that's why I linked Anvilicious in the text on the Applicability entry.

Emu 0: You just showed your true colors with that use of the "Tu quoque" fallacy. I am not left, I am not sure where I am, maybe center maybe right; but I did not let my disapproval of leftism and communism stop me form pointing out the possible anti-communist aspect of the kett.

I was only trying to explain why I feel so strongly about this. I was trying to be straightforward with you. I'm sorry. I don't want to be this sort of person, I'm just bad at keeping my mouth shut. If I'm banned, fine.

I'll even randomize my password so I won't be able to log in again. I'm sorry for all the trouble that I caused.

I don't hate you Emu 0, I disagree with you; the proof was past conversations and when you insinuated that I am biased towards the right-wing. We both feel strongly about this but are coming from opposite sides (though I am not sure where I am, it's not left).

Also, pave17, that not keeping the religious references vague is a large part of my problem with the kett, and looks like compelling evidence of a Double Standard; the TV show Game of Thrones got accusations on anti-religious Author Tract for less blatant (but more frequent) references, as seen here https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/YMMV/GameOfThrones.

I agree with what you say about people being unwilling to criticize certain societal/religious groups for various reasons (let's not get into what those reasons might be, yes?), and that this often reaches ridiculous extremes. It's the difference between being politically correct (although political correctness often veers into Positive Discrimination) and Political Correctness Gone Mad.

I just think that we should leave the bashing of any kind out of this page.

Also, Emu 0, I think that there's no need for such drastic measures.

Emu 0, there's no need for that. When I said I disagree with you, I meant I disagree with some of your views and disagree with you on this matter concerning the kett. I'm not trying to get anyone banned, nor am I trying to drive anyone away.

For the record; I think that I (and a few other people) got carried away at times, so I informed a moderator about this discussion. Septimus Heap (a seasoned Troper, mellow and unbiased fellow, by my understanding). I didn't name names or point fingers, merely wanted an unbiased perspective. The fact that the page hasn't received an edit lock or bans haven't been handed out (to the best of my knowledge) means that maybe the matter isn't as bad as feared.

Yeah. I know I'm on that list, no need to beat around the bush.

I admit, my own perceptions ARE a bit colored for reasons I elaborated on several months ago. I don't want to rehash that argument; it went nowhere last time, and I don't expect it to go anywhere now.

To be honest, the "true colors" comment was kind of a knee jerk reaction, because I associate people who "show their true colors" with Bitch in Sheep's Clothing sort of behavior. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I just...don't know what it is I'm supposed to say anymore.

In this discussion, It's like, when I DON'T talk about my personal beliefs, they're treated like a dirty secret I'm trying to hide. That's why I was trying to be a little more up-front. I was trying to explain why I felt so strongly in the first place.

I'm trying to wrap up the argument now, not renew it. I actually think the Applicability entry, the way it is now, is an acceptable compromise.

Again, I'm sorry to come back after saying I'd go, but my last message was...bad. It was wrong of me to write it. I wanted this to be a PM, but they're not working.

• shrug* Emu 0, I think he's being unreasonable and thin-skinned, and I think you're in the right and he in the wrong. If I thought for one second I could actually change his mind, I'd be in here arguing with you.

Given the sheer amount of times this exact topic has come up on this Discussion page, I think it's provable that this is agenda-based editing at its most blatant.

This might be a good time to let the matter drop.

There's an argument to be made for the Nazi parallels, (not 100% sure about communism, but whatever, not like pseudo-Communist villains are rare in the media.). Both have been Acceptable Targets for decades, so not implausible.

And yeah, the kett have religious extremist trappings. Could still be Faux Symbolism, but the fundamentalist angle isn't so hard to swallow (or, as another troper pointed out, colonialism, which is almost definitely a theme and involved forced conversions). And the entry's less rant-y than it used to be.

The situation is about as stable as it's gonna get. I vote for both sides leaving it be.

Well at this point, Skid Troper has already made a lot of edits, so if we leave it be, we'd probably need to do some cleanup revisions.

I propose that the Applicability entry is reverted to this:

• Applicability: The kett being a combination of all four types of Scary Dogmatic Aliens lends itself well to being a negative slant on several things. It could be a jab at eugenics (particular racial hygiene), unregulated science experiments or imperialism. On a more controversial note, it could be a jab at extremist politics or religious fanaticism, given the kett's literal Assimilation Plot and choice of titles.

It really covers everything. Comparing the Kett to Nazis or Communists so openly is a case of an example being Anvilicious.

Besides, you don't need to be a Nazi/Communist to qualify for political extremist. See 1984, Fahrenheit 451, Equilibrium, V for Vendetta, etc.

I'll take it.

I'm on board with that version if Skid is.

I think that's miles better.

Since it's been a long time without anyone presenting any objections, I'm going to change the Applicability entry.

I'm fine with it.

Neevermind, back to the bloat it goes. I'll refrain from further editing.

I still don't believe it's more of a franchise killer than Assassin's Creed: Unity was to AC. Dismantling a studio means very little when you're a multi-studio conglomerate like EA, and Mass Effect brand has way too much money riding on it for EA to just let it drop dead that way. Whether Ryder's mini-series will continue is debatable, but the Mass Effect as a whole? That's a completely different beast.

Montreal only did ME:A. They didn't do the main trilogy. It's not like they couldn't give the series back to Edmonton, or to a different branch. The article itself also stated that there were multiple reasons for the hiatus, including their new IP. It's not just Andromeda's poor reception.

Plus, it's been less than a year. It's a little soon to say Mass Effect is *never* coming back.

Could that fall more broadly under the category of "you never technically get to fight him"? Honestly, it makes some sense if they hadn't finished cracking the Milky Way genetic codes (the kett used angaran EM abilities, not biotics, and had only started exalting krogan late in the game- you don't see exalted versions of any other species, and even Berserkers are rare). But you don't get to find out what he can do, period. That's worth mentioning.

You have a point Emu 0. After a quick look at the kett character page, two of the tropes in his folder are The Unfought and his genetics boast being an Informed Ability. I also added Non-Action Big Bad, but a downplayed example. After some research I found out you're right, there are no biotic kett (the ones who can levitate do so through element zero technology in their armor).

So which trope do you think that not finding out what the Archon can do falls under on YMMV? Apart from They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character, or any tropes already on his character page, I struggle to think of any.

They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character is fine, provided the explanation is concise and not *too* personal (more about opinions held by the fandom than about one person's grievances, again). I think, in that case, it's fine, since that's not the first time that topic has been brought up. I would allllllmost nominate Disappointing Last Level, but some other aspects of the whole Meridian sequence (if not the boss battle itself) have been praised.

Out of curiosity, if this isn't the first time the Archon's lack of abilities was brought up, why wasn't it added sooner?

Presumably because A.) nobody felt strongly enough about that specific thing and/or B.) there wasn't enough discussion about it within the fandom at large for it to be considered noteworthy. Aren't those the reasons that people put entries here in the first place?

Speaking for myself, I don't think the kett were interesting villains at all, but I didn't hate them, because I didn't *care* about them. I only paid attention to the NP Cs that were actually fleshed out. And in the fandom discussions I see, that topic doesn't really come up much- people talk more about the squadmates.

True about why things are put here (we've had some debate about how much of the fanbase has to have a view before it's considered noteworthy to add here).

On that note I was wondering; why do you consider the kett forgettable and not care about them? By your own admission in an earlier discussion you adore this game. Also, did you care about the geth in the first game and consider them fleshed out? Did you care about the Collectors in the second game and consider them fleshed out? I'm surprised it took this long for people to care about this given the uproar other areas of the game have generated.

I like the game because I like Ryder and the squadmates. The kett, as far as I'm concerned, are just there as an excuse for them to do things. They haven't given me any other reason to care. Sure, more complex villains would've been a bonus (I had no interest in the Remnant or the Jaardan either, tbh), but that's just not a dealbreaker for me.

I didn't give much thought to the geth in ME 1. Heck, I didn't even *do* Tali's quest my first playthrough, because I didn't know how to complete it and was kinda rushing through the main story . I thought the geth were justified in fighting back against the quarians, sure, but I didn't get emotionally invested until Legion showed up. I *loved* the geth's story by the end (don't get me started on the Rannoch mission in ME 3), but it took time to develop, and that was fine with me because, again, I cared more about the squadmates.

I found the Collectors cool as villains. They were genuinely creepy, and I loved the atmosphere of the main missions in ME 2. But, to me, they fell into the same general category as husks or other Reaper troops. Sure, I vaguely pitied the Collector General during the two seconds when he wasn't possessed, but he wasn't developed as a character anyway, so the impact was lessened.

You'd be surprised by the range of things Bioware fans choose to focus on. Over on Tumblr, a lot of the talk is about the squadmates and romances, moreso than the main story in a lot of cases. And the facial animations are an easy target for people inclined to complain about the game anyway (and a golden opportunity for memes, regardless of people's opinions of the game itself).

And some fans may very well not particularly like the kett now, but have faith that they will be fleshed out gradually over time. ME:A was obviously not meant to be a standalone story.

I am not surprised about things people focus on; I saw the fuss on this page (before those arguments were deleted) over Cora's hair because some people thought the style was being stolen from the gay community since Cora's straight.

A suggestion to have faith coming from an atheist? hahaha, the irony Emu 0. My faith is in infallible God; for fallible people it's case-by-case. Still, I will forgive and give them a chance to flesh out the kett. I see the kett similar to how I see Kai Leng; an unrelentingly nasty villain not fleshed out and seemingly used as a focus for hate (though I rank Kai Leng better because he can be a bit more competent and there wasn't any baggage about possible negative allegory/agenda). I would've liked a sympathetic motivation to the kett akin to the geth's reasons for fighting the quarians (such as explaining how and why they came up with Exaltation and giving us some good kett). As I said before, with their lack of redeeming qualities, it's sometimes as if the kett are a Hate Sink at a racial level. The Archon is on the YMMV page under Complete Monster, seeming at best to be at best a poorly-written villain at worst a poorly-written villain whose purpose is to put a name and a face to things certain people don't like about religion (and maybe other things).

I apologize for butting in like this, but general rule of a thumb is true for both reviewing a game (or anything, really) and making a wiki entry: Judge the game for what it is, not for how it fails your wishful thinking.

So... if you already know all about the fandom, why are you quizzing other tropers on why they don't sufficiently care about the same things that *you* care about? I'd assumed that you really did ask out of curiosity, and I tried to answer in good faith (whoops, I said it again!), but I guess I misunderstood. Too bad; it looked for a second like this conversation was finally going to resolve peacefully and NOT devolve into the same argument that's been going on for a month and a half.

By the way, I can use the word "faith" if I want to, because I am not a robot. Just because I don't have "faith" in a higher power doesn't mean I can't have faith in people. I never took potshots at you for *having* religious beliefs. I never contradicted you all of the times you name-dropped God and asserted that your religion was an objective truth, knowing full well that I believed differently. I'm still not going to, because making snide comments at people for believing or not believing in a higher power is 100% NOT okay.

You're not butting in, Changer. This isn't a private conversation- I'm just taking up a lot of the thread because I'm on TV Tropes a lot. Frankly, I don't even want to be having this conversation in the first place. It's making this site not fun anymore. I'm just utterly tired of the YMMV page turning into, as you put it earlier, a "community bitching corner".

Anyway, I'm officially out of patience now, so I'm just going to go ahead and ignore any further anti-kett ranting, as I should have done the second it became clear that this matter was not going to be dropped. I really, really do owe an apology to anyone who's been reading this shitstorm.

Let me apologize for being snide about my faith; we agree to disagree on the truthfulness of it, I could have expressed it in a non-condescending manner. I don't mind if anyone else uses the word faith, including you (my remark was amusement at the irony of your recommendation, plus people can be fallible so putting your faith in them isn't always the best idea... especially if they're under suspicion. Didn't excuse my rudeness though).

I'm not sure it's wishful thinking on my part (especially since, regarding the kett, another troper saw fit to re-add the Applicability point I wrote after it was taken down the first time, indicating others have similar views of the kett or they thought I had a point), but that's a discussion for elsewhere. Let's agree to disagree. Yes, you never contradicted me, and I thank you for trying to be polite. To be honest, looking back, I am curious and surprised the moderators didn't step in sooner.

Apology accepted, and sorry for losing my temper a little bit.

It is. Also, it's the same guy.

Skid, I get it. You hate the kett. You are personally offended by them, and you feel as though they were a transparent attempt by the devs to criticize something you hold dear, whether it's fundamentalist Christianity or whatever.

But please stop. You're going to get into trouble if you keep this up.

The They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot examples were a misuse, so I modified one and removed the other. That trope is when a plotline is either dropped or resolved unsatisfactorily. It is not a license to post your fanfic on the wiki.

Looks good. It sums up the fandom's opinion without adding natter.

I wasn't posting a fanfic under the They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot example, I was discussing ideas about what Bioware/EA could have done with the kett. At best it was unintended Fanfic Fuel, not advertising my fanfic (I don't even have a published Mass Effect fanfic). As for the kett, yes I have my suspicions that they are an attempt by the devs to criticize things, one of them my deepest personal beliefs (I have said before I think that they were targeting other things as well).

Also, it's not just me; someone re-added my point under Applicability after we had that lengthy discussion and agreed to delete it, so it's not just me who sees this (beware that you're not just removing my points simply because you disagree with them or they offend you, we discussed this before, especially you Emu 0 since as we discussed our beliefs are diametrically opposite and we can both get emotional here; my feelings on the subject make me rant and I worry your feelings lead you to try and censor any argument or view that ruffles your feathers). Whatever the case, I'll leave the matter as is.

If I may make a suggestion...

Could the Andromeda YMMV page get an edit lock?

The importart stuff are all there: controversy about the game's release, its content, its lukewarm reception by fans... The problem is that certain editors are grasping at straws trying to find parallels between the Kett and religious sects / fascist regimes / whatever. Or adding Natter about how the LGBT community is being poorly / awkwardly represented by squadmates and/or NPCs.

From what I've seen, half the edits made in the last few weeks have led to edit wars. Therefore, I don't think that an edit lock is an unreasonable measure to ensure that this page remains free from personal opinions and/or complaints.

I was one the people who thought it's possible that the kett are an anti-religion jab (after much discussion and reflection, I've reached the conclusion whether they were or not is something that requires direct proof or confirmation from the devs). On a side note, I had nothing to do with the Natter about the LGBT community.

If you want an edit lock, go to this page; https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=gsjp7dldjh2dwdelcha2hu17

Also, something to think about, technically everything on the YMMV page is personal opinion, that's part of what the YMMV page is, a place to put things that not everyone sees the same way. It would be cluttered if EVERY SINGLE FAN'S personal views were added. It can also go too far the other way with people abusing the "that's only what you think" argument as an excuse to silence views they don't like; while some decorum and pruning is needed, this is TV Tropes.com, not Oceania, let's just discuss things before adding them. I think we've unintentionally acted out The Horseshoe Effect somewhat. I was wrong to make controversial edits without discussing them first, and I apologize for that. I also think some of my detractors are wrong to try and censor my views because they don't like them. What say you?

(P.S. Fundamentalist Christian? That sounds suspiciously like a veiled insult. Please choose your words more carefully.)

I wasn't judging anyone's opinions. I agree with what you say about the nature of YMMV pages; they exist solely because people's opinions differ on certain points.

I'm only trying to point out that things have gotten way out of control here. It seems like every day there's a new Edit War.

I didn't touch your entry, and I'm not going to. I already said that I wouldn't, and I'm not interested in another edit war.

That being said, I'd like to point out that you seem to be adding tropes because you have a bone to pick with the kett, and that, frankly, is not what TV tropes is for, not even the YMMV pages. That's why every trope that's a thinly-veiled rant (not just yours- we already know the edit war on the LGBT tropes had nothing to do with you) is being cleaned up. That's why entires putting Jill down as a Scrappy, made by two different people, were promptly deleted.

Whether or not I agree is, frankly, not the point, and I apologize for moving the discussion in that direction earlier. I think that the same standards should apply to entries everywhere on the political spectrum.

I don't want an Edit War either and glad that you, Emu 0, affirm fairness in standards. I'll leave that be unless a large part of the fanbase raises this issue or the writers have an agenda confirmed (by their own word or irrefutable proof).

On that note I have two questions for those who disagree with the point I've been raising; If the Primus was called an Allamah (a title with a similar meaning to Primus, but from Islam rather than Christianity) and the Cardinal was called a Pirani (a title with a similar meaning to Cardinal, but from Islam rather than Christianity) would you find that offensive? If the kett had Exaltation, but no religious imagery, titles, or motives and been all militant atheists (the atheistic equivalent of religious extremists), would you find them offensive?

The first question has been asked and answered several times.

As for the second question: So...Straw Nihilists, basically? It depends. If the game/characters explicitly suggested that their atheism *was* what was wrong with them, or if the whole conflict was about religion (with the good guys being explicitly religious and the bad guys not), I'd be suspicious.

If they just happened to say anti-religious things, I wouldn't assume that they were an attempt to represent all atheists. I would just see them as extremely collectivist, controlling Straw Nihilists. That's cliched, but not particularly offensive.

Frankly, if I was that hung up on the political/religious beliefs of fictional characters (whether heroes or villains), I would never have gotten through Dragon Age.

Yes you did answer the first question Emu 0, this time I was putting it to other tropers, (to anyone reading this, if you wish to contribute your answers to those questions, please do so).

As for the second question, no I was not talking about the Straw Nihilist, I was talking about The Fundamentalist (as specified on the page for the latter trope, atheists can be fundamentalist about atheism; that generated quite an argument on that trope's discussion page, which led to the consensus that can be so followed by an edit lock).

One problem is that the kett's Exaltation process is one they worship, and have built something around it resembling a religion which has imagery and titles lifted from real-life religions. You said "If they just happened to say anti-religious things, I wouldn't assume that they were an attempt to represent all atheists", my suspicions arose from more than what you described. Not only do they say religious things, they have titles directly lifted from a real-life religion, let alone mine. If the writers had lifted titles from Islam rather than Christianity, I would still be leery of the choice and the writers' intentions and think that's rude, though I would be less offended.

I didn't mind Dragon Age, because, while there were anti-religious characters (such as Morrigan and Avernus), they weren't portrayed as right (even if Morrigan sometimes had a point, such as the cruel treatment of mages... but that's no excuse to smear them as a whole. Avernus' anti-religious sentiments were shown for what they are; just like a career criminal hating the police), the Chantry (Dragon Age version of Christianity) wasn't portrayed universally negative like the kett and their Exaltation are and there were positive religious characters (Leliana and Wynne come to mind).

If the kett's motives were more subtly portrayed, the kett weren't blatantly villainous ^note  the kett seem to have every atrocity under their belt besides sex offences; while the geth were similarly portrayed in the first game it was subtle. I didn't see any geth units or characters called Vicars or Cardinals despite them worshiping Sovereign as a god. There weren't geth running death camps in-game or batarians torturing people in-game - even among Balak's anti-human terrorists. , didn't have titles directly lifted from Christianity and the Archon didn't have angel imagery, I wouldn't have taken issue with the kett.

P.S While there are good things about the game, there a lot I don't like about it, but other tropers have already raised those issues here.

But atheism is a *lack* of belief in a god or gods. That's literally it. If people are being "fundamentalists" about it, there's something else going on with them, because there's no atheist bible or god or belief system telling people how to act. It's not a religion, and there is no obligation to convert people.

People can find any excuse to be intolerant of differing beliefs, and jerks can be members of any religion or no religion at all. Nobody's denying that. It would take very strong proof for me to assume that a group of fictional anti-religious fanatics were meant to say anything about real, normal atheists. Otherwise, the take-home message would just be that *fanatics* are bad.

And if the rest of the people reading this page were going to give you the response you're fishing for, it probably would've happened the last three or four times you asked the same rhetorical question. You're beating a dead horse.

See, when I mentioned Dragon Age, my point was that I was *not* offended by the portrayal of characters like Avernus. Nor was I offended by the Chantry's prominence in the story, or the relative lack of sympathetic characters that were explicitly atheistic. That's because I do not automatically assume ill intent. I didn't think the devs were promoting or bashing real life religious beliefs then, and I certainly don't think they are now.

The kett have already been compared to the Conquistadors on their Race Tropes page, as described in the Scary Dogmatic Aliens point. As for the kett's religious angle, while I'm not speculating on their intentions, it was the devs themselves who chose to make them Scary Dogmatic Aliens and chose to give a few of them titles from real-life religions so they put a religious angle to the kett. I see what you mean about that "grasping at rather tiny straws" but I don't think that's a self-fulfilling prophecy or trying to invoke one.

As for the other groups mentioned, that raises some interesting points. I think you're right that the Bangladesh Awami League would have been a better comparison, but the Rwandan army is not. I disagree about the Klan because they're too insular (being almost completely based in North America) and I don't think that repulsive group practices eugenics. The European settlers to the Americas may work, but that situation isn't as you described it ("not having a care in the world"?), also the colonialist and imperialist angle could apply to the Andromeda Initiative as well (which is discussed on the YMMV page).

Regarding the Spanish Inquisition, that comparison doesn't work in my opinion. I've studied their history and while they could be ruthless, they have been major and repeated victims of the Historical Villain Upgrade in the media. To elaborate;

The Spanish Inquisition is often stated in popular media and medieval history as an example of Catholic intolerance and repression. Modern historians now question or disagree with earlier accounts concerning the severity of the Inquisition. Henry Kamen asserts that the 'myth' of the all-powerful, torture-mad inquisition is largely an invention of nineteenth century Protestant authors with an agenda to discredit the Papacy"; the statistics and negative reputation was further exaggerated later by anti-Christian and/or anti-religious critics. The highest estimate is that about 150,000 people were charged with crimes by the Inquisition and about 3,000 were executed. The Inquisition's records that survived, as was standard with The Spanish Inquisition, are very detailed. According to those, during the 356 years they were in power approximately 50,000 people were tried by the Spanish Inquisition and of these 1,500 people were sentenced to death (with some escaping before the sentence was carried out so the Spanish Inquisition merely burnt them in effigy). If you average that out for their 356 year time of existence, that averages to either 0.118 dead a year using the 3,000 estimate or 0.237 people dead a year using the 1,500 executed in their records (including those who weren't actually killed but burnt in effigy, making the actual death toll lower still). Either result gives the inquisition a lower fatality rate per year than lighting (in 2015, 33 people in the US alone died of lighting strikes, in smaller Spain this figure would be even lower). While they have a reputation for and habit of using torture, the extent of it has also been exaggerated by their detractors. They actually had regulations stating it was only to be used as a last resort means to ensure a successful interrogation and placed limits on how far the torture could go; no removing body parts and nothing that resulted in death. While the first head of the Spanish Inquisition made frequent use of torture, the Pope at the time went to the King and Queen of Spain to try and stop his cruelty but they politically strong-armed him into silence. Despite this the Spanish Inquisition are known to have been fairer, and used torture less often, than the secular courts at the time. There were several cases where people were on trial in secular courts for lesser crimes who would blaspheme in the court room just so they could be tried by the Spanish Inquisition instead. Also, there were times when the Spanish Inquisition would order the torture then hand them over to the secular courts who would do the actual torturing.

History lesson aside, I could make a similar case why comparing them to ISIS is, to me, a shoehorn (starting with the motives not really being all that similar, not to mention the methods...), I was merely drawing a parallel at how one or two things about Kett could be compared to pretty much any fundamentalist genocide. But having voiced my share, I shall let more experienced editors decide this.

I thought about it, and agree that the ISIS comparison was shoehorning. What I said was I don't understand how my edit to the YMMV page under Ripped from the Headlines was, to use your words, "a self-fulfilling prophecy." Regardless, I see your point and shall let the matter rest. If you want to explain how I was practicing a self-fulfilling prophecy, go for it.

I don't know if we should put that up just yet. I had a few friends reference an interview in which EA gave the 'we have great hopes for the future of the franchise' line. Could be corporate bullshit, maybe not.

I believe it's quite a bit early to talk of franchise killing. Dragon Age 2 was believed to be one, too, and look where that went.

Since we're now accepting Kotaku as a credible source with the additions of the Troubled Production examples in trivia, and not doing this was the justification for removing the franchise killer example in the first place, I'm re-adding this under stillborn franchise. People are free to change it or otherwise remove it if Bioware winds up officially denying the rumor or announces a new game.

How is it justifying anything to make it clear what the fanbase was reacting to? Leaving out certain details makes it too ambiguous what the issue was. It is a fact that the gay male fanbase by and large was objecting to issues that were larger than not having access to a specific character. The developers themselves acknowledged such in the patch notes. Including these relevant facts is not "justifying" anything, and frankly the insistence on leaving them out comes across as an intentional effort to make the gay male playerbase look bad by making the situation out to be more ambiguous than necessary.

The fanbase was objecting to romances. That was acknowledged. You're trying to justify their reaction (by your own admission, no less) to try and not make them look "petty." Frankly, they look petty either way. Your own words are evidence of this.

It is plenty clear what the objection was to. Trying to add unnecessary fluff about an achievement is just an attempt to make the fanbase look better.

You've already admitted what you're doing. The YMMV page was huge with a bunch of lengthy blogposts and diatribes trying to justify the gay fanbase reaction. YMMV may give differing opinions, but it is not a place to justify how you feel within the tropes. Write a review if that's what you want.

I object to a certain part of the fanbase being made to look petty because that conclusion is based on incorrect information.

No, it is not clear what the objection was in the way you insist on it being written. You are in fact making it look more ambiguous than it actually is and in doing so you are guiding outside viewers who are not familiar with the details into making the worst possible conclusion. Why would you want to do that?

Just saying that the objections were to romances could mean quite a few things. The context of the changes combined with the ambiguity you insist on makes it look like the objection was to not having access to a specific option. While that is true of some individuals, it is not true of that segment of the fanbase as a whole. That is not a justification of anything, that is a fact, and it is pertinent because the developers themselves cited those larger reasons in their official statement for the change.

By and large, I was not the one adding all those blogposts and "diatribes". At most I added maybe one entry that was later removed with no objection from me and added a few clarifying details to the others. So I have no idea why you are even bringing those up.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong about this, but if you are not an LGBT person yourself, then it's really easy for you to look down from on high and claim that pertinent details are "fluff" and "justifying ourselves". I want to believe that this is not your specific intention, but to be honest I have to say that it looks like you are letting your own biases show and intentionally leading outside viewers to a factually incorrect conclusion just because it makes that particular segment of the fanbase look bad. You have already implied this by stating that you think the gay male fanbase looks petty regardless. As if it's petty to be blatantly treated as less than while playing into tropes with very long homophobic histories. That calls into question your motives in insisting that the situation be made out to be more ambiguous than it actually is.

Now, I have already made an effort to compromise about keeping things as concise as possible while still making the situation as clear as possible. If you have any suggestions on how to do so, I am all ears, but the ambiguity you are currently insisting on is unacceptable.

How is "lack of M/M options" inherently petty, though? That sums it up; there were not sufficient options. It's a perfectly legitimate reason to be bothered.

The significance of "squadmate" romances is going to sound petty anyway to people not already part of the discussion, and not everyone cares about achievements. Hell, a lot of people don't care about the romances at all. If someone fundamentally doesn't get that there are people who identify with the characters/are very invested in the romances and thus feel slighted when they're limited to a few side characters, that's on them, and they won't change their mind with a longer explanation.

The issue is that TV Tropes is made to catalogue tropes, not sell specific viewpoints, and whatever reasons you outline are going to sound petty to people who disagree with you anyway.

The point of the edit was to make the entry concise as possible and cut down on extended explanations of *why* something went over badly. That's what's going on with all the entries right now. I agree with what you're saying, but that just isn't the point of trope entries, YMMV or not.

Because it implies that gay male players were just unhappy with not having a specific option. That may be true of certain individuals but it is not true as a whole, and it should not be implied that it is true of the whole.

Stating facts is not "selling a viewpoint", especially not when those facts were given by the developers themselves when they gave their official statement about the change.

If anything is "selling a viewpoint", it's making the situation out to be more ambiguous than it actually is, especially when the person insisting on that ambiguity has explicitly stated that they think that segment of the fanbase looks petty no matter what.

I don't see how that's implied at all. By lack, I meant "not enough of them". If someone takes that as "not a specific one" isn't it their fault for misunderstanding? Or is there a more specific way to say that? That gay male players had very limited romance options? Something like that?

The whole page is in the middle of a cleanup removing all entires with explanations for why the fandom is upset. I'm not trying to pick on you/the M/M debate. Like I said, I agree.

And herein lies the problem. I never said you added them, I just said they were there. You're ranting about "homophobia" and "you're not LGBT" and all of that to dismiss the viewpoint that opposes yours. It sounds like you're the one pressing for your viewpoint, and attempting to ad hominem attack those who disagree with you. That is a problem. As stated, this is a CATALOG of tropes, that's all.

Author's Saving Throw is: "X went over badly, so the devs fixed it with Y." That's all that's supposed to be there. Gay players complained about romance options, so Jaal was given in 1.08. That's it. You should not justify the complaints as being somehow legitimate. Provide an article link (provided it's a reputable source, not Kotaku or some blog), but do not clutter up the page with natter because you're upset that "gay people looked petty."

I'm sticking with facts and trying not to bring my opinion into this. You're going off on rants and saying you're being called "less than" because you're not getting natter to justify your complaints. It sounds to me like you're the one trying to give credence to a certain point of view and demonize those who do not agree.

I thought the way I said it before the issue was taken here was clear and concise enough.

Anyone can find that gay men had two options in the vanilla game, so unfortunately, and I have already seen this, many people are going to ask, "what's wrong with the options you started with," and that will lead them to the conclusion that the problem was always the lack of access to the option we got later. As I said, I have already seen this.

Now it's true that there are people who will think it's petty to object to not having a squadmate. If those people don't care about the blatant inequalities and the backstep from the previous installment, well that's their problem. They're usually the type who think that Gay Options shouldn't be included at all.

However, leaving as an ambiguous "lack of options" explanation will cause wholly unnecessary misunderstandings with people who would understand if the explanation were more clear to start with.

Matt:

"complained about romance options" is fudging, though. It could mean literally anything. Frankly, dancing around the issue like that sounds more political. You can say the word "gay"; it's not inherently political.

"Lack of" or something similar actually says what the fandom/devs responded to (without sounding particularly personal), isn't a particularly contentious statement (they literally had half as many options as everyone else), and adds all of two words.

Rainbow Phoenix:

Then they're the ones making leaps of logic. If they legitimately don't get why people were upset that gay men, again, got half as many options as everyone else and both options were side characters, they probably don't want to understand in the first place. The people who asked what was wrong were not asking to be enlightened, they wanted to paint the LGBT fanbase as whiny.

"You've already admitted what you're doing. The YMMV page was huge with a bunch of lengthy blogposts and diatribes trying to justify the gay fanbase reaction."

That statement is clearly connecting me to all the entries about the gay options that were trimmed down. So if you weren't saying that I added them, your choice of wording was extremely bad because that was how it ended up.

How am I ranting? I cited your specific statements and what they were implying. I even stated that I hoped those weren't your actual intentions. Also, I never said that I was being treated as lesser on this page, I said that the game developers did so while playing into homophobic tropes, the complaints toward which you described as "petty" regardless of reasoning.

You brought your opinion into this when you stated that complaints about the m/m options look petty no matter what reason is given. I quote, "Frankly, they look petty either way."

Before the issue was brought here, the entry was essentially: "gay male players objected to issue x and issue y. Patch 1.08 corrected these issues by taking action z." That is a statement of fact. It is not a commentary on whether or not those objections were legitimate. It is not "fluff." It is not "justifying" those objections. It is not "natter." It is a statement of fact that avoids unnecessary ambiguity which would result in avoidable misunderstandings. I am having a lot of trouble seeing how that violates the guidelines you just stated, and I already compromised by trimming down my original wordiness.

However, making it more ambiguous, as you are insisting on doing, would lead to misunderstandings. Leaving ambiguous, as you are insisting, would be actively guideing unfamiliar viewers to a specific judgement on the validity of the objections. It would lead unfamiliar viewers to the specific judgement that you have already stated you hold. Again, I quote, "Frankly, they look petty either way."

But how is that "implied"? It's other people who are making unfounded assumptions. The statement itself implies no such thing, and it is only ambiguous to people who are already biased.

"Gay options were limited to two side characters" is more specific without being wordy, if that helps. I thought that was the point?

A great way to completely lose the point in order to whine about "representation" and "blatant inequalities", again. This is not a comparison (many of the references to Dragon Age: Inquisition were removed because, well, this isn't that game. One sentence of comparison could be okay depending on the trope, but in this case, it was used solely to throw a temper tantrum. Likewise, cutting down on the natter regarding Hainly Abrams.

Emu: I'd have to disagree "Complaining about a lack of romance options" hits it right on the nose. They were complaining that they didn't get romance options. Plus, "lack of" is what it says right now. That's not what is being argued. What's being argued is that the guy is upset that a certain group comes off as "whiny" and is trying to add justification to make it less so. That's natter, and more importantly, not the catalogue you and I agree it should be.

The sentence is clear: "After being criticized for a lack of same-sex romance options, patch 1.08 made Jaal a romance option for Scott Ryder." It states what happened and what the devs did in response. I might change "patch" to "version" but that's a semantic argument.

It's a perfectly clear sentence that addresses the trope. No fluff, no justification, just the straight facts.

And in regards to this:

How am I ranting? I cited your specific statements and what they were implying. I even stated that I hoped those weren't your actual intentions. Also, I never said that I was being treated as lesser on this page, I said that the game developers did so while playing into homophobic tropes, the complaints toward which you described as "petty" regardless of reasoning.

This is why I'm not taking your argument all that seriously. It seems like you're actively seeking to be persecuted because you're trying to make negative implications to the contrary opinion. I don't care what implications you have, and truth be told, you shouldn't care about mine. We are here to state facts. Not justify, not to use ad hominem attacks about "implications."

There is nothing to be gained with your additions. The only reason you've done it (by direct statement, rather than by implication) is that you thought it made a certain group look "petty." That is not what the YMMV page is for.

It's a statement that obscures what the objections are and invites misunderstandings, that serve no purpose but to cast a negative light on a segment of the playerbase that you have directly stated you think are just being petty as a whole. Again, "Frankly, they look petty either way."

I would really appreciate an explanation as to how, "gay male players objected to issue x and issue y, which patch 1.08 corrected by taking action z," is not a perfectly clear statements that gives just the facts. I would like an explanation as to how that statement constitutes "fluff," "natter," or "justifications." I would like that explanation because the lack of it makes it look like you are intentionally trying to obfuscate what the players' issue was. Especially since you have now engaged in the same ad hominems that you previously accused me of making.

What is being gained by my additions is the removal of wholly unnecessary obscuration that guides unfamiliar readers in the direction of a negative opinion you have explicitly stated you hold. I will quote this as many times as necessary: "Frankly, they look petty either way." That is your opinion that you stated, which directly contradicts your claim that you are trying to stick exclusively to facts.

I will also continue to ask as many times as necessary how "the gay male fanbase objected to issue x and issue y, which was corrected in patch 1.08 by taking action z," fails to meet your criteria of stating only facts. Gay male players objected to issue x and issue y. That is a statement of fact. Patch 1.08 corrected issue x and issue y by taking action z. That is a statement of fact. Where is the "justification?" Where is the "natter?" Where is the judgement about the legitimacy of those objections? I need an answer because as far as I can see, that statement fits the criteria you gave to the letter.

You have already been given one: It is unnecessary fluff. It is not what the trope is about. You need two things and two things only:

1.) A certain aspect released needs to be criticized. This is: The lack of romantic options for a same sex Scott Ryder.

2.) The devs need to do something (specific) to resolve this. This is: Patch 1.08 made Jaal a romantic option for Scott Ryder.

That is what the trope is. Discussion of the achievement does not add anything, it's utterly subordinate to the lack of romance options. Discussion of a squadmate is irrelevant because the issue was the lack of romances, period. It didn't matter if it was squaddie or not.

Your complaint followed that. You said that not adding additional details made the gay male fanbase look "petty." That is not an acceptable reason to add meaningless details. You're upset because a certain group of people looked bad. Thus, it was removed. This is not the place to justify complaining.

Now, I reverse the challenge. How is "After being criticized for a lack of same-sex romance options, patch 1.08 made Jaal a romance option for Scott Ryder" ambiguous? To be specific, in regards to the trope at hand, which is "X was criticized, so devs did Y."

You could say "after criticism" instead, but that makes the first clause have no verb, which is poor grammar for such a long clause.

No. You have not given me such an explanation. Your explanation only really applies to my original entry, which I compromised on already.

Issue x is the lack of gay male options on the squad itself. Gay male players objected to that. Where is the justification? Where is the judgement on the validity of that complaint?

Issue y is the inability of gay male players to achieve every achievement in the game while playing within their own gender and sexuality. Gay male players objected to that. Where is the justification? Where is the judgment on the validity of the complaint?

Patch 1.08 corrected both issue x and issue y by taking action z. Action z was to make Jaal a legitimate romance option for male player characters. Where is the justification? Where is the judgement on whether or not action z was the correct on to take?

You keep saying that these statements of fact are "natter" and "justifying" feelings, but you are giving no explanation as to how. Your only justification for not including them was something that was stated in an edit note but kept out of the entry itself. If keeping things to facts is all you're worried about, then why is an edit note even an issue as long as the entry itself meets your criteria?

The lack of an explanation is really hurting your argument because all that leaves me with is your statement that complaints coming from the gay male fanbase are petty regardless of the reason, and that is making it look like you are only digging in your heels because of your own biases.

I am open to an explanation if you are willing to give it.

We'll need consensus from other users.

Matt and Rainbow: Since both of you were edit warring before the discussion began, both of you will be brought in for a talk.

You were given an explanation. You don't want it because it doesn't conform to your biases. I am using that argument because the only argument you've made is you're saying "you're biased because you said X." You have also made such statements, but seem to think it's okay to ignore them. Why the Double Standard? Is it okay for you because you claim to speak for a certain group? I'm legitimately asking a question here.

You are adding specifics to thing that are not necessary. The complaint is neither the achievement nor the squad. The complaint was the lack of options. That's it. You yourself have admitted it. The achievement and the squad are subordinate to the fact that there were lacking options.

I'd be willing to hear an explanation on why the specifics matter, but so far, you're only response has been "x people complained about it." If we were to write posts on everything a certain group complained about, the damn list probably would reach Andromeda. That is not enough to clutter up the space with sentences so you can try to avoid the gay male fanbase looking petty.

I also notice you fail to give a response as to how the written explanation is "ambigious."

1.) the inability to get the romance achievement is almost always brought up as a way of illustrating the lack of options. Do you really think anyone who says that literally cares about *getting the achievement*?

2.) "Squadmate" romances doesn't actually sound better out of context, it just sounds longer. People who aren't convinced by "lack of options" won't be convinced by that, and people who aren't invested in romances won't get why people care if they're *squadmates*

3.) The phrase "lack of options" does not *inherently* imply "my favorite choice wasn't there". Anyone saying that is simply making assumptions based on their own biases. Preemptively responding to those biases is beyond the scope of a wiki page.

If people really want to mention the lack of a squadmate romance, it's probably not a huge deal if it's kept short, though I worry that it's not as self-explanatory as you think it is. But the achievement argument is just a longer, more obscure way of saying that there were too few options. "Lack of options" is perfectly self-explanatory for a reasonable person.

May I suggest: just say "options with playable squadmates" and be done with it? People who play Bioware games understand why that's an issue, people who don't would get lost in a more convoluted version anyway.

I'd also vote to drop the trophy angle. It's not the first time such a trophy is present in a Bioware game (remember Dragon Age: Origins trophy list?) and it's inconvenient to more than gay male players. Trophy hunters will get it anyway, people who don't care about trophies won't.

If you think that's clear to everyone, fair enough.

My issue is that a simple "complaint about romances" or "complaint about lack of romances" doesn't give any information on what the actual complaint was. Was the issue unequal numbers? Was it content? Was it that the available options were fine but there was a specific character that people really wanted but didn't get? That last one is what most people will conclude because of the nature of the fix. I know this because I have seen it too often already.

Whatever my personal feelings on the matter are (and I kept those out of the entry itself which is the actual issue), I do think it's best to include enough information that readers unfamiliar with the issue will have as clear a picture as possible. Simply including pertinent facts doesn't tell anyone whether or not the objection was warranted. However, leaving it ambiguous as it is now does guide unfamiliar readers to a specific conclusion on the validity of the complaints. It's not just the "lack of options statement", it's that statement when combined with the nature of the solution.

I'm not budging on making it more clear than it is now, because I am speaking from personal experience about where that kind of ambiguity leads. The squadmate issue and the trophy issue are both relevant because the developers cited those specific issues as what the patch was intended to fix. I can add a hotlink to the official patch summary so that people can see that for themselves. Obviously it's not possible to list every issue that everyone had, but what's wrong with citing the objections that the developers themselves admitted needing correction?

You've *seen* people who were already biased, not people drawing a logical conclusion. They were going to bash the M/M controversy anyway, and were looking for a reason. It's not our job to try and force people who are biased to stop being biased, provided they keep their biases off the page.

And talk about the achievements and "squadmate" romances, I think, is still going to sound more arbitrary than a general lack of content to people not already in the know. It's the people who are already part of the conversation who care about that distinction. And, again, the literal achievement was never the point, the numbers were. Not everyone's a trophy hunter, so that objection, without the "numbers" context, sounds nitpicky.

Unequal numbers and content are concepts that even people outside the fandom can understand easily.

But that's a moot point, because Changer already suggested a compromise that addresses the squadmate issue. The inability to get the trophies is only cited to demonstrate the low number of romances.

Honestly, I don't care that much if squadmate romances are mentioned *if* it is A.) short and B.) phrased in a way that 's understandable to people not already part of the conversation but the fighting has to stop. That means either you or Matt has to be willing to compromise.

I've always been willing to compromise. I'm mainly confused as to why my earlier attempts at such weren't enough.

Some of the people I've seen were biased, but others genuinely did see "complaints about m/m romances fixed by adding a specific option" and came to the conclusion that the only complaint was the lack of that specific option. There's nothing we can do about the people who would be biased anyway, but why not make things clear from the beginning for the people who aren't already biased?

I do know that the squadmate and trophy complaints might look questionable themselves, but I do think reasonable people can quickly understand why it would be a glaring problem for only one out of four gender combinations to be locked off from those things. That's one of the reasons I suggested linking directly to the official patch summary, so people who want more details can find them immediately while having proof that those were the specific issues that the patch was intended to correct.

Those "others" were biased too, then. Otherwise, they would not assume the worst. They would interpret "lack of options" as "literally fewer options than everyone else", because that's what those words mean.

Can you change the trophy comment to the literal number of options (because that's what it was), and frame the squadmate bit in terms of "major characters"? That may get the same point across while removing the "potentially nitpicky without proper context" issue.

The gist of it was that gay men were limited to two side characters and nothing else. That's what it all boils down to, and nobody can call that petty or confusing by itself.

Knowing the significance of the trophy and squadmate discussion takes *more* reasoning than people who assume "lack of options" means "but I wanted THIS character" are displaying.

All right, how about "due to criticisms about gay male players having fewer options than other gender combinations and none on the squad." I'll also include the link to the official patch summary so there's an easy way to find why that disparity mattered.

I don't think it's a leap to understand why squadmates are more significant than NP Cs.

It's not a leap to people who care about romances. I mean, I know the difference. I just wasn't sure about people who aren't invested in romances in the first place.

I'm fine with that, provided it doesn't lead to more fighting. But now that there's multiple people saying the squadmate reference is okay, I don't think anyone would have the authority to delete it if you put it up.

And yes, do the link. Links are good.

All right, done. I've also asked that it be brought back here before any further changes.

Erase it. It barely ever mattered in the first place, and the game's been out for a while now.

Agreed, seems pointless.

Completely with you on that. I'll take a quick look and see if I can clean it up.

The changes so far are looking pretty good. I think the trick is to make the distinction between explaining how certain issues went over with the fandom and using that as a jumping-off point to make personal complaints.

I can take another pass. I'm not touching Complete Monster, though, because that's handled by another forum.

The worst seems to be gone. A few (mostly gameplay-related) are still kind of rambly, but I don't think I'm the best judge of how those should be handled.

Original author of the post here.

Thanks for nuking this entire trope from YMMV all by yourself because I made you feel uncomfortable by listing some very valid concerns LGBT fans have with the game. Real class act. Just in case you didn't get the memo, you don't get to nuke an entire entry on the YMMV page because you disagree with it. The Unfortunate Implications entry followed all of the requirements listed on that trope's main page. Let's take a look at them again shall we?

All Unfortunate Implications entries need to have citations. More specifically they need citations that are as follows:

• The citation needs to record the opinions of several people; a citation that mentions only one person isn't enough.

My entry included five citations, many of which included several opinion therein.

• The citation should be in a reputable source. We'd prefer you cite something a bit more formal than someone's Tumblr blog. Anyone can write a blog post and then call it a "citation".

My citations came from Kotaku, Stevivor, Polygon, IGN and other gaming news sites, not blogs or forums.

• Also, citations stuck behind paywalls or mandatory logins don't count. If people can't see your proof then it doesn't prove much.

All of these citations are openly available.

If the Unfortunate Implications entry bothers you dish it out here with the other Tropers if you want to spend your time getting hot and bothered by wiki edits, but you don't get to remove entire entries that meet all of the editing requirements because they get under your skin.

Anyway, that's all :)

Honestly, the M/M romances gathered such controversy that the devs themselves addressed it and promised future improvements. If that doesn't meet the criteria for "noteworthy", I don't know what does. The "stereotypes about bi/gay men in combat roles" might not be a fandom-wide thing (I never saw that), but the rest are all arguments I've seen repeatedly outside of this site.

Not everyone is going to care about every issue. Some don't care about romances, period. But, in my experience, this is discussed often enough to include (especially if the complaints about the 2015 N7 trailer not having mShep make the cut!)

And there are no real life romances between sentient species, so I don't see the comparison with xenophilic romances.

I apologize for butting in, being a junior editor at best, but I agree the point of different romance approach does warrant a mention – however, a severe cleanup may be required before the issue gets reposted. The removed and now disputed entries often went into quite a bit of a motive rant and dragged on to be about three times as long as necessary, which made them feel, as Matt pointed out, as a blog complaint post rather than a wiki entry.

As a sidenote: when judging romances, it's valid to remember that if there's a limited amount of time and resources, any developer will favor the option they guess will be made canon by the fanbase (i.e. have the most players follow it). So pretty much any romance that wasn't Cora (or to a lesser extent, Liam) got the shorter end of the stick.

Focusing on "reduced options/focus on M/M options" and condensing the explanation seems like a fair compromise- that's where the consensus is. Honestly, I've seen a *lot* of complaints about Gil's plotline with Jill, so that might stay (but then again, I don't know how common those particular objections are outside Tumblr)

Changer has a point. Only Cora and Peebee's romances have explicit sex scenes, which is 2 out of 8 romances (not counting flings). I think it's fair that the fade to black = But Not Too Gay angle be dropped. Everything else is ok.
Also something I noticed after reading the edit History: Matt 620 removed most of the entry, including all citations, saying: "the YMMV page is not a place to rant". Later, another Troper, Ferot_Dreadnaught, removed the rest, saying: "require citation". What. I think sensitive topics such as this should always be discussed first to avoid an Edit War.
After browsing Reddit and Bioware forum, I think it's safe to say that almost no one likes Jill and the baby plotline.

It's clear to me that the original author is doing this as a rant, by his own admission. The snide, personal asides showcase a real lack of intelligent discussion regarding the issue.

Kotaku and other sites like that are known for clickbait and unsourced articles. Motive rants that are several paragraphs long are not sources or anything of the nature, just a place for someone to whine. That is not what TV Tropes is for. Go write a blog if that's what you want.

Also, the game is not an LGBT only game. You do not get to present the story as if LGBT fans are the only ones that matter.

As for Jill, the author went on an (again, very long) Motive Rant on why gay people didn't like it. But that's not what The Scrappy (the trope it went with) is. Most people didn't have an opinion about Jill, just as they didn't have an impression on Hainly Abrams. Most didn't even know about it (it's optional, after all, and the player really has to dig, as Hainly's part of a quest that won't let you see it while you're on it)

Okay, so what would constitute a "reputable" site that expressed the fandom's concerns? And again, the backlash was big enough that the devs themselves promised to improve it. How is that not noteworthy?

Noteworthy enough that several paragraphs need to be devoted to it? Noteworthy enough to add random things NOT mentioned by the developers just because the guy wants to go on a "this is teh homophobic" rant?

Here's a simple sentence: "Some players were not fond of the romance options offered. In response, BioWARE put out a statement stating they were changing some of their options. Throw it under Author's Saving Throw. Done.

I also don't think Jill warrants a mention as The Scrappy. While it's true that quite many people hate her character, she'd need to be a much more prominent story element. Hate Sink may be more appropriate, perhaps? Since she gets singled out as one of the top priorities of many gay players for "why didn't you like the game?".

Also, playing the devil's advocate here: From journalistic standards, Kotaku really does have a pisspoor ethical record. It doesn't mean it shouldn't be quoted for anything under any circumstances, but if one does, it has to be with the knowledge they are basically quoting a gaming equivalent of a tabloid.

Hate Sink is reserved for intentional examples.

While Kotaku may have a poor reputation, I find the article mentioned bringing up a lot of valid points and not click-baity by any means.
Jill maybe a Scrappy, but she's definitely not a Hate Sink. If it's her prominence in the story that's being debated here, then she's similar to Elko from Persona 5 (Link to the YMMV page). The player may never be introduced to her if they don't do Makoto's Confidant, but she's wildly hated regardless.

Blogs and personal opinions don't amount to much. The veneer of notability of being put on a site doesn't make the points more valid.

The reason I think Jill doesn't rises to The Scrappy isn't the fact that she's a minor character, it's that MOST players need to despise her for her to be The Scrappy. You can't have The Scrappy for a subset, such as for a season of a TV show or by a fraction of the community. Lana Kane was DESPISED by most fans of Archer in Season 6 for very good reason, but that didn't make her the Scrappy because she didn't rise to that ire earlier in the show's run.

Most players don't have an opinion of Jill, and the blogger who wrote it seems to admit it, that it's only a problem for that group. That doesn't make her The Scrappy.

I've read through the article and found it, just like the blogger who wrote it, to have wide leaps of logic, stretching in order to find a way to be offended. Just like with the lack of sex scenes, it's someone trying to be offended by assuming problems.

Look, the editorializing is gone. There was a controversy, and it's possible to acknowledge that the controversy existed without including every fringe opinion or making the whole thing excessively personal.

It does, frankly. And the Applicability section, once half-way under control, is drifting further and further in the same direction. Someone's already been banned for trying to drag racist conspiracy theories into this game. This sounds like more of the same.

Alright. Deleting it for now.

That's the whole point of Applicability; if what someone is taking a jab at can't be pinpointed and there seems to be a range of issues being targeted that is what the trope Applicability is (when used in a negative trait). Speculation is also part of the point of a YMMV page; not everyone sees things the same way and a YMMV page is to catalog those. I'd also like to break down my case.

1) I never said the kett borrowed traits from fascism here, I said one of the things it could be is an anti-communism jab (though I oppose communism personally).

2) Lifting traits from displays of religious fanaticism is one thing, but directly naming enemy characters with titles from a real-life religion is another (Cardinal and Primus are ranks of clergy in Christianity; imagine the uproar if those enemy characters were named, for example, "Rabbi" rather than Cardinal or "Imam" rather than Primus, that would be horrible and to clarify I am not criticizing Judaism or Islam).

3) Several people, as seen in this page, have accused members of the dev team of having an agenda, this is an aspect that I noticed, especially since the kett seem far more two-dimensional evil than the villains of previous games; even the geth and the Collectors had some nuance to them in their debut in the first and second games respectively.

4) I wasn't trying to drag in racist conspiracy theories, I abhor racism and was merely speculating as to one of the policies the devs may have been trying to criticize (a justified criticism in the case of the concept of Racial hygiene) with the kett.

I'll leave that point out for now and would be happy to discuss this further. Also, look up the kett under the Mass Effect Races tropes page and look at the point Scary Dogmatic Aliens (the Laconic describes the Scary Dogmatic Aliens trope as "Single-minded alien antagonists used as allegories of real-life ideologies the author dislikes.")

Thing is, religious symbolism is used to make things "deeper" or more ominous pretty darn often, and it doesn't mean that the writers have a beef with Christianity in general. I mean, the only thing it has in common is the terminology, and the rest is generic fanaticism- and being against fanaticism isn't a radical, subversive statement that needs to be buried under allegory. Same with the "anti-communism" thing. I'd buy it if it bore any resemblance to, or referenced, real communism, but I'm not seeing it. It's generic, extreme collectivism.

Also, if a few people accuse the devs of "having an agenda" but you can't pinpoint what that agenda even is except "maybe these things, or a combination of them, or all of them", it's kind of a weak argument.

But the main thing is that this entry comes off as you airing out your personal grievances. YMMV usually involves ideas/opinions that are shared by the fandom, or at least sizable parts of it. And when it has speculation, it's not meant to be one person's speculation, or even a few people on the fringe. Multiple people subscribed to the "female characters were made ugly on purpose b/c feminism" theory, but that got cut too.

If there's really more than a few people who have these concerns, maybe there's a place for pointing out that parts of the fandom feel this way/are having this discussion. If it can be more of a commentary on how the fanbase as a whole feels about it, and less a personal complaint, that'd be way better; this YMMV page already has had enough instances of people putting entries here just to complain about what they, personally, don't like.

If it's a personal pet peeve, and you just want to vent, a review, or the forum, or the Darth Wiki, or maybe Headscratchers, would be a better place.

And the Collectors are actually pretty similar to the kett in some ways. They're only sympathetic because they *were* Protheans (but aren't anymore).

I concede you had a point about what I wrote I'd like to point out a few things.

As stated earlier, there's a difference between using religious symbolism and directly lifting titles from real-life religions (the writers did the latter); which also begs the question of what made the writers choose those particular religions, but I won't go into that (I may have scored a point when I commented what if it was Judaism and/or Islam lifted from rather than Christianity and Gnosticism. Answer this question please; what do you think the reaction would've been if they'd lifted clergy titles from Judaism or Islam?). Second, please define a sizable part of the fanbase, and how much of the fanbase has to share a view before it will be included on the YMMV page. The Applicability trope means something that can be applied to a range of issues, which I think describes the kett well; being a group based on extremist collectivism that can, and has, been applied to several groups, beliefs and ideologies in real-life. Third, there was more nuance to the Collectors than the kett... the Collector General's last scene at the end of the suicide mission implied it had a sense of autonomy and emotional capacity which regretted what it was (and later games and the Multiplayer DLC expanded on this). By comparison, every kett in the game seems to be Always Chaotic Evil (though the Archon was worse than the others) and we have yet to see a good kett; at least the Collectors had the excuses of indoctrination, Villain Override and Cybernetics Eat Your Soul.

Also, keep in mind that nearly everything in YMMV is someone's personal grievances. It just seems to be a question of whether those grievances are shared by a lot of people or a few. Choosing only the grievances shared by a large amount of people, and ignoring those that aren't, sounds like the Appeal to Popularity Fallacy; I'm not saying it is I'm just saying keep that in mind. Regardless, since I can't pinpoint a direct agenda on the part of the writers and the argument I made, while plausible, isn't airtight I'll let it rest.

Thing is, lifting titles from a more marginalized religion would come off differently because they already have a history of being demonized/generally treated badly, and people would (understandably) assume that portrayal was more of the same, because people are more likely to actually assume that they're zealots/terrorists/heathens/whatever. It's a different cultural context.

On the other hand, statistically, it's safe to assume that at least some of the devs *are* Christian, and that they don't all hate Christianity (especially not enough to alienate a big chunk of their audience). Given that there's absolutely no resemblance to actual, mainstream Christian practices (just the names and a few bits of imagery) "gratuitous faux religious symbolism" is more likely. Having the kett give themselves religious titles is also a quick, easy way to express that they view their work as a holy calling, and Christian titles are going to resonate with the largest number of people. People will already know what the terms mean, and they have a strong presence in popular culture. They may be criticizing extreme dogmatism, if their goal is social commentary at all, but that criticism is not so controversial that they need to be accused of trying to "sneak" that sentiment in or push a hidden agenda. Zealotry is kind of a stock villain trait by this point.

And the Collector General thing is kind of half fanon. The only thing that can be directly inferred from the scene itself is that it knows it's about to die. And the kett also seem to be indoctrinated, or something like it (why else do angara just completely drop their old lives and become fanatics after being kett-ified?) Also, the comparison to the original trilogy would be kind of beside the point on this page/entry. That's just complaining.

I get what you're saying re: the appeal to popularity. But, on the other hand, if every troper added every YMMV trope that expressed their own opinion, the page would be meaningless. If you look at most tropes on these pages, they either explicitly talk about the *fandom's* reactions, or at the very least, don't look like they're there because one specific person is bitter. Maybe my interpretation is different than someone else's, so I'm open to other opinions, and if the rest of the community thinks it belongs, I'll let it be, but that's what I see.

But the lack of a direct agenda to point to was also a big thing, so thanks for being a good sport about that ^^

It's not Appeal to Popularity, Skid Troper. Treating all opinions as equally worthy of note, no matter how extreme or fringe, is false equivocation. Every niche opinion cannot have an equal say or else any example devolves into a gibbering mess that argues and contradicts itself or treats flat out wrong or agenda-based arguments as if they're just "two sides" of an argument.

While I concede the point, this does raise some interesting discussion points (if they're too off-topic for this page please let me know). First I wouldn't call, for example, Islam a marginalized religion. Islam is the second most followed religion after Christianity and these days the media seems to tread lightly around Islam (due to a combination of sympathy factor due in part to bouts of discrimination, mostly following 9/11, and fear of violent reprisals from extremists). Second, I think Christianity may be turning into a marginalized religion (but that's another story).

Second, in regards to the kett vs Collectors, who was more heavily modified? As far as I know the kett modifications included induced mutations, psychological conditioning and some form of drugging. The Collector modifications included induced mutations, cybernetic implants replacing organic parts and a degenerative device/energy that effects the mind.

I see your point about YMMV Emu 0 and Nubian Satyress. Thanks for clearing that up.

Skid, I'm going to be blunt. I make no judgments about you as a person, but your rhetoric here is starting to mirror a lot of white nationalist sentiment. In particular, the "sympathy factor due in part to bouts of discrimination" regarding Muslims and the statement that Christianity is "becoming a marginalized religion". You started the statement saying you didn't think Muslims were marginalized, but your very next point acknowledges discrimination against them in a very dismissive manner as "bouts".

That statement alone is inherently dangerous as it just offhandedly handwaves the fact that Muslim are discriminated against and that concern about it is a "sympathy factor". Also saying that Christianity is "becoming" a marginalized religion implies that you acknowledge that right now, it isn't. So, in short, you agree that Muslims are discriminated against and that Christians are not marginalized yet.

Personally, I'm even MORE suspicious of your position now.

Re: the kett vs. Collectors: at some point, brainwashed and irreversibly mutated is brainwashed and irreversibly mutated.

As for Islam vs. Christianity: I disagree on both points. But that particular conversation is too much of a tangent for a thread about a video game and is very likely to make someone pissed off or uncomfortable (if not us, then someone reading this), so it'd be best to leave things there.

Nubian Satyress I misspoke. Also, Nubian Satyress and Emu 0, I say we agree to disagree regarding our views on the attitudes towards Islam and Christianity. I was not saying that Islam has never been marginalized. I am saying that I do not think that Islam is marginalized (at least in most places) now (now meaning within the last 3 or so years). Islam has tragically been marginalized in the past at some point or place (as has every religion, including Christianity, and the non-religious). As for Christianity, EVERY religion gets marginalized at some point or place including Christianity. Also that "white nationalist" suspicion is misplaced. I am a biracial (half-white, half-black) person and not advocating nationalism. I am a Christian and Christianity is not a white religion, it's for people of all nations (as Jesus Himself said in Matthew 28, and is the most followed religion in most countries of Africa such as Ethiopia, Uganda and Ghana). I will merely say look at the edit lock on the Bible's trope page and the lack of edit lock on the trope page of any other religious text and end it there.

Regarding the kett vs Collectors, I would like to point out that Harbinger was able to hack/possess Collectors, but the kett haven't got anything like that. Also the Multiplayer DLC for the third game revealed that the Leviathans could sometimes reverse the Collector's brainwashing/mutation in a unit called an "Awakened Collector". To quote from masseffectwikia.com;

"When the Reaper-killer known as Leviathan fought the Collectors, it severed their connection to Harbinger with a thrall device. Most Collector forces died as a result, but a few survived. Now, these rare individuals fight for the memory of their people, a proud race broken by the Reapers."

A DLC. In the *third* game. And the mechanics of the kett brainwashing aren't even known yet. Honestly, this is starting to feel like splitting hairs. They're both people who were captured and brainwashed.

I would also like to reiterate what Nubian Satyress said about this only being the first game featuring the kett. And this comparison to the trilogy is starting to feel more like complaining than any discussion of applicable tropes, to be honest.

I still disagree with the points you made about Islam vs. Christianity, but, again, this is a very complex, potentially volatile topic and I'm trying to *not* have it on a video game thread. But kudos for keeping the conversation civil.

I removed the What Do You Mean, It's Not Political? part since trope slashing is forbidden anyway. Is the Applicability part valid (given that we have all this discussion?

At this point Emu 0, I'm saying that in light of our opposite views whether Islam is no longer marginalized and whether Christianity is becoming marginalized that we agree to disagree; as far as I'm concerned, I stand by what I said, you're standing by what you said and we agreed to end that discussion.

I'm not sure I'd call it splitting hairs; the Collectors can be hacked/possessed, the kett can't. That suggests a greater level of subjugation of the Collectors than the kett, since the kett have individuality and a degree of free will the Collectors lack. They've been through a process with the same goals but the Collectors were taken further than the kett; to compare, the kett are more like the geth while the Collectors are, to quote Mordin from ME 2, "...closer to husks than slaves. Tools of the Reapers. Worse than the geth."

To get it back on topic of applicable tropes, Ferot_Dreadnaught I think that Applicability could be added in, since we've had all this discussion about the kett and that is what the Applicability trope is; when something can't be pinned down and can represent a wide spectrum of issues. While myself and at least two other tropers are divided on the issue, that is the purpose of a YMMV page. To prevent an edit war I'll leave it for now, though I think this discussion should be re-opened since it looks like 2 vs 2; two for it and two against it (it sounds like you agree with me somewhat regarding the Applicability trope and the kett, Ferot_Dreadnaught).

You find the Collectors sympathetic because they used to be Protheans. The kett used to be angara, cannot go back to being angara, and the individual that they were before is gone.

I'm not saying I particularly *like* the kett (I'm neutral on them until we learn more, and I found the Collectors genuinely menacing), but, again, this is rehashing a conversation that's already been had on the discussion page, and, quite frankly, it feels a little bit like your main goal is to bash the kett and you're looking for tropes to bash the kett *with*. I apologize if that's not your intention, but this is a thing that's happened on this page already, so it just kinda looks like more of the same.

With the Applicability bit, I feel like it's not just a matter of differing opinion, but a potentially *very* inflammatory topic.

I see what you're saying about the similarities between the kett and the Collectors, and I agree about that. I also conceded that they're not a Hate Sink, based on what we know of them from this game.

Apology accepted, as I am not trying to bash the kett. My view on the kett is that they are a menacing and tragic, though not so much as the Collectors, and unfortunately two-dimensional in their villainy compared to the villains from the Shepard/Reaper Wars trilogy. I do think Bioware/EA could've done more with the kett (as stated on the YMMV under They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot; I would've liked to see non-evil kett and a kett squadmate. That had a lot of potential). The only problem I had was the suspicion that they're deliberate allegories of things in real-life the game devs or the writers dislike, and that grievance applies more to the game developers/writers than the kett themselves, since they're fictional characters and the people who make the game control how they are.

Please explain why you think that the Applicability trope could be a *very* inflammatory topic; as stated before, that's the point of a YMMV page to air out these things people are divided on and now it appears this views are held by other people besides myself. For all I know, maybe you're trying to avoid future flame wars or edit wars, which is commendable if that's the case, though this needs to be addressed at least here in the discussion page. Since the heated controversy surrounding Cora's hairstyle (in my opinion, a far more trivial thing that prompted a disproportionate and redundant controversy) and the portrayal of LBGTI people could be addressed on the YMMV, why can't this? *If* the kett are deliberate negative allegories of certain things, it's possible they dev team could lie and deny it (this is speaking hypothetically, I'm not making accusations), and Bioware/EA has put subtexts into their games in the past (not saying they have an agenda, but they have done subtexts and references before).

We shouldn't balk from reasonable discussion about something just because it's a *potentially* very inflammatory topic; such mindsets merely encourage or allow prejudices to grow rather than address and perhaps defeat or resolve them (not accusing you of anything, merely pointing something out).

1.) The inflammatory bit was, specifically, the "devs want to bash Christians" undertones. Accusing the devs of having a secret agenda comes off as conspiracy theory-ish without a statement from someone on the team or *very* strong proof (which I explained earlier, so not rehashing that). Jumping right to malicious intent is iffy in any circumstance. I get that you're saying that you're not making accusations, but that's how your entry sounds.

Now, if you want to bring up the idea of discrimination against a group that's considered privileged by a lot of people, you're gonna need even more proof. Other people in this discussion (incorrectly) assumed you were of the white nationalist persuasion as soon as you made that statement. "Reverse discrimination" is the basis for a lot of discourse that is...not very nice, and people will think of that.

2.) Both myself and Nubian Satyress explained the difference between airing out a personal grievance/suspicion and talking about fandom reactions earlier in this discussion. The LGBT issues are a widespread topic of discussion among the fandom, enough that Bioware themselves have acknowledged those reactions repeatedly. Those entries are pointing out that there was a widespread backlash, which is true. I've seen the discussion a thousand times outside this site. If the LGBT issues were on the page to be debated, or just about one person's opinion, there would be counter-arguments under the examples. When that sort of natter happens on a trope page, the entry gets purged (And is the thing about Cora's hairstyle even on the page anymore? All I'm seeing is the backlash over M/M romances).

Speculations on the devs' intentions don't live long here if they're just an individual's opinion, or that of a vocal minority.

Again, there was once an entry that mentioned the small group of people who believed that the female characters were made "ugly" intentionally because of feminists. It was an opinion, it was an opinion that multiple people held, and it was deleted, presumably for the same reasons.

I don't want an edit war either. If people really, really want that entry, and it comes back up, I won't touch it. I don't own the page. But I'm trying to explain why it's a potential problem.

1) Thank you for being civil throughout this discussion Emu 0. I understand what you're getting at; I'm not saying that the devs were just trying to bash Christianity, otherwise I wouldn't be using the Applicability trope. I acknowledged that it could also be a jab at communism, though I oppose communism. I did wonder about their specific use of Christianity vs other religions but we discussed that. I was voicing my suspicions, not making accusations; if I wanted to make accusations I'd say so. I was saying that if the (to me, comparatively trivial and overemphasized) controversy over Cora's hair was allowed here, I think the more visible aspects of the kett could be addressed. As stated before *IF* any publisher of content (to use this *hypothetical* example, Bioware and/or EA) had a malicious ulterior motive, it's unlikely they'd be upfront about it, so waiting for them to confirm or deny it isn't always a feasible option (again I'm speaking hypothetically).

2) Those other people assuming I was white nationalist when I said that a group considered privileged by some/many is discriminated against were mistaken. There is a growing trend of people of certain views using such accusations as a blanket statement to silence discussions they dislike or disagree with (along with accusations such as "Nazi" or "fascist", which is also treading towards the Loaded Question Fallacy; that white nationalism accusation falls flat as they didn't know my national or ethnic background and as explained earlier Christianity is *not* a white religion, despite what some people think. Also Christianity could technically be called a minority; while Christianity is the world's most followed religion, the world's population is approximately 1/3 Christian, so Christians are outnumbered at least 2-1 according to those figures. A dictionary definition of "minority" is; "the smaller number or part, especially a number or part representing less than half of the whole. "... like 1/3). Whether a privileged group is marginalized and the public perception of Christianity is not something I'll discuss here due to it being off-topic (I have gotten glimpses of it, and been on the receiving end of it being a Christian myself; To clarify what I previously said in this discussion, I always meant that every religion has been discriminated against and ridiculed at some point when I said "marginalized". I was wrong to use the word *marginalized* as I meant "being discriminated against and ridiculed." I say that's happening to some religions more than others and I'll leave it at that) .

In closing, I say we agree to disagree about the trope and public views, that we don't need Bioware or EA to outright state whether or not they had any ulterior motive with the kett before adding such an entry to the page, and I will leave the point off for now unless the criteria you mentioned "If people really, really want that entry, and it comes back up" is met. How does that sound?

Sounds fair. Other people can decide. I understand that some people stereotype people who are open about their Christianity as bible-thumpers. It's unfair, and I'm sorry that sort of thing has happened to you.

But I also ask you to try to understand that if you are *not* a Christian, and you're in a Christian-dominated country, you notice just how much influence Christianity already has in the culture as a whole (laws, basic ideas about morality, holidays, cultural practices), and it feels like you have to hide your own beliefs lest you start a fight. it's not fun.

Anyway, I'm juuuuust gonna resist the temptation to keep posting on this thread before I stick my foot too much farther in my mouth.

So we'll agree to disagree and wait and see what others say; it's clear they match the Scary Dogmatic Aliens trope (I recommend looking at that trope page). Also, I know what it's like to be a non-Christian, I used to be one.

Second, while Christians are treated nicely in countries such as the US, we are a persecuted minority, often violently, in countries such as China, Pakistan and North Korea (the latter where people have been executed for having copies of the Bible). This happens alongside others but their suffering doesn't cancel out ours, neither does ours cancel out theirs. There is more I could say but due to that not being what this page is about, I shall implore you to research and reconsider how Christianity is perceived around the world and leave it there.

I'm glad we could reach an accord on the kett; if only more controversies could be resolved this civilly.

I'm not contesting that, and I definitely don't think that any culture that discriminates against any other religion gets the moral high ground, regardless of what religion is. I was deliberately talking about Western cultures because they are the target audience, and they are the cultures from which Bioware gets its employees. Had the game been produced in, say, North Korea, for a North Korean audience, I would see things differently. Different cultural context.

Gah, I said I wouldn't comment but I really really should have explicitly said so earlier, huh?

Don't Bioware/EA games had a good audience and market in China? Isn't China part of Bioware/EA's target audience as well?

Are they made *for* a Chinese audience, though? Do they have major Chinese characters (Kai Leng, I guess, but they don't even try to make him sympathetic), Chinese actors, Chinese developers, Chinese cultural traditions? Are they recorded in Chinese (do they even have a proper Chinese dub)?

I mean, they're probably hoping for a profit from China, but the game reflects Western culture, the dev team isn't Chinese, and they wouldn't focus on China at the expense of their Western audience. If the Chinese market mattered *that* much to them, it would show in a lot of other ways.

To answer each question;

1) I don't know. Who they make them for is a question only the devs themselves can answer. As far as I can tell, exclusively for a Chinese audience, no. Including a Chinese audience, yes. On a side note, yes they are sold in China (though perhaps edited given China's censorship policy).

2) Yes; Mass Effect: Andromeda is a game with a VERY diverse case of characters. At the very least there would be one character who would have mixed Chinese ancestry.

3) I will get back to you on whether or not there are Chinese actors.

4) I will get back to you on whether or not there are Chinese members of the dev team.

5) I will get back to you on whether or not there are Chinese cultural traditions in the game.

6) No they're not recorded in Chinese by the company.

(On a side note I would like to point out the seemingly increasing secularization of Western society; sometimes done to promote co-existence, sometimes just done by people who claim to be neutral, sometimes used by the non-religious to try and suppress religion).

I disagree. I am not going over why I disagree, because frankly this conversation should have ended long ago (not blaming you; I never know when to let a debate go)

This is on topic and has nothing to do with the previous discussion/debate. This is just a closing word to expand on the answers to above questions after some research. 2) There are several humans in the Andromeda Initiative who are either of Chinese descent or have Mongoloid features (an example is one of the Cerberus scientists in the mind control signal side quest, not to mention how Ryder themselves can be customized to any ethnicity/nationality). 3) There are a few actors with Chinese ancestry in the game, but they're playing minor characters or extras. 4) Wasn't able to find out (as it would involve trawling through the end credits then looking up each person). 5) Apart from a few Chinese names, there appear to be no Chinese cultural traditions in the game.

"Mongoloid" is a slur, last time I checked.

Yeah, "Mongoloid" is a slur for people with Down's and similar disabilities.

Asian =/= Chinese, btw.

Nobody could argue with the fact that they have a cult/religious fanatic motif. If it only goes that far, no problem.

It was primarily the speculation about the devs having an agenda against Christianity *in general* and trying to "sneak" it into the game that made the Applicability entry an issue (plus the vagueness about what was being referenced). Changing the trope name wouldn't undo that.

I never said that it was just Christianity getting singled out nor was I trying to sneak that in. I said I had that (not unreasonable) suspicion of Christianity being singled out based on how the writers directly lifted those titles (if I was acting purely based on a personal bias, or trying to be sneaky about one thing, I wouldn't have pointed out the potential jabs at communism and Gnosticism as well; and I oppose both communism and Gnosticism). Then there were moments we nearly got sidetracked where, in my opinion, it sounded suspiciously like you were justify the idea of Christianity being an Acceptable Target (especially that selective bit you said to the effect of "you don't know what it's like living in a country that promotes Christian traditions"; as if that's a bad thing), and I sought to refute that. I relented partially because for the Applicability trope to be valid, the authors themselves need to state that the intention was for the audience to fill in the blanks themselves, and they're pretty tight-lipped about their intentions with the kett.

It crossed my mind after a time that the "Does This Remind You of Anything?" trope could apply; I've seen it used under similar circumstances. The aforementioned vagueness would fit the Does This Remind You of Anything? trope. Since we have already discussed this I won't press the issue unless there are more among the fanbase who also share this view.

Addendum; I re-read it and realize you were not accusing me of being sneaky. I apologize and retract that part of my response. Everything else still stands.

I wasn't saying it was an "acceptable target", I was saying that it wasn't *already* marginalized in Western culture the way that, say, Islam is, which makes the connotations/most plausible explanations for the imagery different.

Do the kett even resemble real Communists, aside from the extreme collectivism?

Like I said, the *trope* is fine, under the right circumstances. Hell, pointing out the superficial resemblance is fine. The "the devs are trying to secretly promote a political/religious agenda" is the problem.

This is the forum for discussing Scrappy entries.

The problem it seem to me is most of your argument is about how others in-story dislike him and call him out, suggesting that the dislike is intentional (The Scrappy only applies to characters whom are unintentionally hated).

That's the thing. All I've seen in sites like Reddit is that there is a particular hatred of Liam for being an absolute jerk to Vetra and for the Verand affair. That's why I find it so strange that such a despicable idiot is so defended by people just for one mission.

Well you currently seem incapable of talking about Liam without making your opinion blatant.

I really didn't care for Liam, but you REALLY have it out fir the character.

Excuse me, Nubian.

...Two things. One, in my defense, I did say I wasn't gonna hide my dislike for the character. And two, this is a discussion page, not a trope page, and I think I'm allowed to make my own commentary on a character.

Putting my views aside (obviously biased), I'm trying my best to find justification from other sources and sites, hence why I decided to ask if scrappy really is the right trope, or just The Friend Nobody Likes. Mostly, you see it in Vetra fans' comments, for understandable reasons. But I have seen others for different trains of thought- particularly Youtube comments.

To summarize, I'm just trying to understand this particular issue more in depth. I could have worded my thoughts better, and for that I apologize. But I feel attacked for disliking Liam and frankly it's discouraging me from contributing in the Andromeda page.

My point, though, is that you are trying to find the right trope to express your dislike of the character, rather than ask if your dislike is even tropeable. Admitting you have a major bias doesn't change the fact of.

If you link a video specifically meant to hate on Liam, then yeah, I expect to find opinions that agree. Same as if I google "why i hate Christmas ". Just searching You Tube for "Liam Kosta" seems to bring up positive responses to his romance and loyalty mission more than anything else.

My current belief is that Liam might be a Base-Breaking Character at worst, and even then, not an extreme one.

I also agree with the Base-Breaking Character for Liam: Vetra's fans hate him, the rest are fine with him. But I see no justification for The Friend Nobody Likes, much less for The Scrappy.

As far I've seen, the only person In-Universe that Liam doesn't get along with is Vetra, and that's because he tells her in an extremely harsh way that she made a mistake bringing her little sister to Andromeda. That bit warrants a Jerkass Has a Point entry in his character sheet: "Jerkass" for criticizing Vetra's behavior, "point" because like it or not, he's right; Vetra did take Sid away from everything that was familiar (we don't even know if Sid wanted to leave her old life behind or not; Vetra made the call for her).

Other than that, Liam and Vetra have a bit of Teeth-Clenched Teamwork going on, which isn't half as bad as, say, Jack and Miranda had.

Very well then. I will post the edits in the Base-Breaking Character entry. As for The Friend Nobody Likes, I did just post a video link with dialogue where people are indifferent at best and "please leave me alone" at worst. There's also a few scenes where Liam is told to either calm down or be professional. But I'm not touching that trope- not anymore. I will add Teeth-Clenched Teamwork, though.

But I have already made my mind up. I will no longer participate, sadly, in editing the YMMV nor the main page for personal reasons. I'll stick to the Funny and Awesome pages instead, and others.

Thanks for the assistance. But now I feel even more victimized for having a differing view than grateful.

Ah wait, there is already a Liam edit in Base Breaking. I'll refrain from that one.

The Friend Nobody Likes seems fine. I haven't yet heard him get along with a squadmate in three separate playthroughs.

Teeth-Clenched Teamwork can work, but the only characters he really doesn't get along with are Vetra and Peebee. For everyone else, there's friction at best.

Add Drack. He basically says he can curbstomp Liam at any time and thinks of him as just another skull.

Jaal is probably the only character Liam gets along with well.

Now that I finally have some semblance of confirmation (ironic that I got it from the guy that deleted my entry XD) I will add The Friend Nobody Likes. It's not YMMV is it?

Is he really a base breaking character. Quite a few people find his loyalty mission fun. He gets along with nearly all of the crew except Vetra for unnecesary conflict reasons. Heck Cora could be added and was until deleted for dubious reasons Just saying it appears that the OP is trying to shoe horn Liam into the mold of unlikable scrappy without nothing to really back it up.

Being basically bland an ass nor hated character make.

Also his usefulness in combat compared to Jaal was used as an example. As stated he differs enough from Jaal to be unique so the example is not valid.

Tuvok, just edit your previous posts. You don't need to reply to yourself twice.

Based on party banter, Liam doesn't "get along" with most of the other characters. They seem to tolerate him at best. Not the seething rage Vetra seems to have for him, but "get along" is a hell of a stretch.

That said, no, Drack doesn't think much of Liam at all when they first speak, but he doesn't have the dislike required for Teeth-Clenched Teamwork. That's on top of the fact that Drack really liked Liam's loyalty mission and asks him to do more stuff like that.

Oh, whoops. I deleted The Friend Nobody Likes entry before I read this. Just for clarity, I want to make my reason for doing so clear: Liam doesn't get along with Vetra or Peebee. Drack warms up to him. Nobody else is rude to him. Jaal and Cora get along with him, and Suvi, Kallo, and Lexi barely interact with him. Futhermore, Liam planned a movie night which nearly every crew member wanted to add to and which everyone watched. It sounds like the score is two and a half versus at least six in Liam's favor, without accounting for Ryder.

Movie night isn't really relevant. Just because people think it's a good idea doesn't mean people like him. As you mentioned, Vetra can't stand Liam, but even she thinks it's a good idea.

The other points still stand, though, no? In order to be The Friend Nobody Likes, at least a majority of the crew would have to dislike him, and him in particular. The majority of the crew is, at the very worst, ambivalent towards him. It's only Peebee and Vetra who dislike him. There are just as many people who like him as there are who dislike him, and there are more who don't show signs of either. Drack could be argued as the tipping point among squad mates, but he acts as abrasive towards Liam as he does to Ryder and Cora, and makes it clear to all three that his gruff personality is primarily because he's watched races with shorter lifespans die countless times before, and doesn't want to get emotionally invested.

I don't see Cora as "liking" Liam as you claim. I remember them having some VERY heated arguments in their party banter.

But I have to wait until I get home to rewatch videos with their banter, so I can't comment until then.

They laugh about asari history and each other's quirks; they discuss and plan Initiative deployments and civilian obstructions; he compliments her on her tactics, she comforts him about wanting a home; she does stress to him about his battlefield capability, and he tells her to lighten up, but she relents by the endgame and admits she needs to calm down. If she doesn't like him, she at least gets along with him as a fellow-in-arms, and he gets along with her like a coworker.

As I said, I'll check the dialogue later.

A quick summary doesn't cover things like context or tone.

Having rewatched their dialogue, I really can't tell if Cora quote-unquote "likes" Liam. They seem to have a working professional relationship and can amicably talk about human-related issues. But there are multiple instances where she has heated words with him, most particularly on the subject of his Loyalty Mission.

If I'm generous enough to say she "likes" him, then that leaves her and Jaal as the only two people who like Liam. But even in those cases, Liam manages to piss them off at least once.

I think Open Mouth, Insert Foot is a better trope than The Friend Nobody Likes. Liam has friction with every single party member and seems to have a talent for saying exactly the wrong thing and offending people no matter who they are (even Ryder, if the player chooses). After that, it just depends on if both parties are willing to work at smoothing things over.

I still feel that The Friend Nobody Likes should be readded back, but at this point I have already given up and said I will not mess with YMMV anymore. This is beating a dead horse to me.

Open Mouth, Insert Foot applies, too.

Tropers.Ferot_Dreadnaught gave his reasons in the edit reason section, which you can see in the edit history.

1. It's not YMMV.
2. It took the geth and batarians two games and the Reapers three games to gain sympathetic qualities. In the original Mass Effect, geth, batarians and Reapers were all portrayed as complete antagonists.

And I'll add another:

Your second bullet point (which was incorrect formatting, btw) brought this up, but that basically means your entry was "arguing" with itself. We are still planning on two more games in the franchise, with a lot more about the kett to be fleshed out. Just like the batarians, geth and Reapers, we may learn that there is more to them. We may not.

Thank you for clarifying that, and pointing out my incorrect formatting. I still have a concern that the lack of nuance or redeemable qualities the kett have been endowed with is, at worst, setting them up to be on the receiving end of a Guilt-Free Extermination War. But you are right, future games may flesh them out and give them some good qualities. I hope so.

Well, this has a citation.

The conspiracy theory about the game being bigoted against white people also did. Yet we still rightfully nixed that one. I don't think "it makes some people feel uncomfortable" is a solid enough reason.

My main rebuttal to that is that THIS isn't a conspiracy theory.

The conspiracy theory was questionable for a number of reasons. This one is a much more reputable example, beyond the source.

I really think sometimes that we're so scared of malicious editors that we falsely equivocate genuine examples too.

The only unfortunate implication there being no full-on squadmate gay male option.

But people like Gil do exist. No reason for a writer to shy away from them.

The really bad part about this is that there is no right/wrong answer in this. Look, I understand the people who want more diversity in the medium, but it's not like Bio Ware went out of its way to offend anyone. If anything, this is all a huge misunderstanding.

The people complaining are aware that it's a misunderstanding. They just feel either disappointed that Bioware missed something so obvious or compelled to speak up so that they'll fix the problem.

On the latter front, it seems to be working.

The dedicate Scrappy clean up thread is over here. Take it their.

One nitpick:

Tann EXPLICITLY states that he sees krogan as blunt tools in your very first conversation with him. Although it's true that he wasn't aware of the deal Spender made with them, he wrote the krogan off from the beginning anyway. Spender just gave him a convenient excuse.

How do we go from "Tann hates Krogan" to "all the gamers hate Tann"?

Sure, he won't get the Reasonable Authority Figure label on his character page, but that doesn't mean he's The Scrappy.

Just slap him with a Fantastic Racism and let it be.

It's an open attack on a person, so that's already a breach of ROCEJ.

This exact subject has also come up in other discussions, and we've opted to remove them.

In another discussion, I argued that we should trope the fact that many of Jon Tron's subscribers viewed his recent comments as racist and unsubscribed. Like you, tssteven, I argued that the backlash was an objective fact.

Fighteer stated in Ask The Tropers (in a related conversation on Yooka Layley) that the entry should be removed because the wiki is against troping hot off the presses controversy.

If that was the ruling there, I don't see how this would be any different.

I would Take a Third Option: Heir had come out and said he uses his Arab appearance to troll white people, yes? If that is the caliber of his character why give him the attention he craves?

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything...

tsstevens, to answer your question, though TV Tropes is supposed to be a "fun" site, it's not one that shys away from difficult subjects, either.

For example, we have tropes about misogyny, rape, and various forms of hate and bigotry, both "regular" and YMMV. Saying that we shouldn't trope something because it's easier to just forget about it and have fun opens the door that ANYONE could have a trope or topic they don't like removed because it's "not fun".

I'll try and put it another way: suppose there is a hot button issue; suicide prevention, women in the military, gaming controversy that is an inviting target for trolls #gamingcontroverythatisaninvitingtargetfortrolls, you pick it, and the yay or nay is given on listing it. How much is it worth to a troper if whether or not something goes up doesn't go their way? Enough to make the site not fun?

In other words I'm trying to take a mature approach and say that this guy and what he said and did I thought was worthy of bringing up, but if others don't like it I don't need it up. This isn't Complete Monster discussion or anything. If people want most anything up or not it shouldn't really matter either way. Not to the point of stressing over adding or removing an example anyway.

Again, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Repeating my earlier statement in simpler forms: TV Tropes seems to strive for a balance between being a "fun" site and having factual integrity about its tropes. Sometimes, these ideas directly interfere with each other, but I personally will strive for factual integrity 100% of the time. Otherwise, shady tropers can game the system in their favor.

Yeah, combined with the whole topic below, wiping.

You make some excellent points. I didn't even know about the part with the Angara's reincarnation/genetic memory based religion. While it isn't anvilicious, knowing that Bioware has a knack for layers of detail and hidden references, it still seems like there's a jab at something, be it fundamentalism, religion, cults or all of the above. Apart from that, you're right, it isn't Anvilicious, this isn't the TV show Game of Thrones here (apart from that and leaving out whole sections of plot from the books I liked that show).

On a side note I don't know how Ashley is implied to be Christian. Doesn't Judaism also refer to God as such?

You're right, the term "God" is shared by both Jewish and Christians. I don't know why I consider Ashley a Christian by default; something about her dialogue, perhaps. Don't read to much into it, it's just my personal intepretation of her character (which I'm not trying to impose on anybody, so let's leave it at that).

That's all good; I'm a Christian myself and thought the same. I still prefer that, I just consider she could be Jewish and wouldn't make an issue of it.

Upon further reflection, I was thinking of adding the Kett's religious imagery under another trope. I was thinking Faux Symbolism, What Do You Mean, It's Not Political? or Take That!. Then I would point out the possible ideas behind it (associating the Kett with power, anti-religious message and/or undertone or maybe even because someone in the dev team liked the look; these are theories). How does that sound?

Yeah. Plus the whole "the game is anti-religion" thing kind of falls apart when you get to the main story quest where the Angara's religious beliefs regarding reincarnation are not only shown in positive light, but wind up saving the day through some Clarke's Third Law Remnant tech that lets a Jerkass Angaran you need help from access his ancestor's Genetic Memory, causing him to undergo a Heel–Faith Turn and join the resistance.

That, and the "Ryder can't be religious" thing is false, I had the opportunity to say otherwise when talking with Suvi (I'm RPing my Ryder as Shinto, but I digress). Plus, using "kett sounds similar to cult" as evidence is really stretching it. The game is clearly anti-fundamentalist, but otherwise it seems pretty neutral and respectful towards the topic.

Then should I rework the example?

I would argue for its removal. Anvilicious requires the work to beat you over the head with a message, and since it's highly dubious Andromeda is even supposed to have that particular message...

I mean, to be totally fair, Sara Ryder at the very least looks very little like the (very attractive) person she was modeled after. Whether the look is unattractive or not is subjective (IMO it's not terrible, but definitely lands in the Uncanny Valley), but you can't deny that the differences are much more stark than in Scott Ryder's face, which looks more-or-less identical to his (ruggedly handsome) model.

But the actual text says "Ooooh, all the ladies in the game are so ugly that the thought of having explicit sex with them has the fanbase in a tizzy." Which is not the same thing at all.

Besides, it's a create-a-character.

Yeah, the Fetish Retardant entry definitely fits what you're describing. But I've seen plenty of debate on various websites about the quality of the female facerigs; whether this is whining about them not being "pretty enough" or legitimate criticism of their quality is down to the individual, but IMO it still warrants a mention on Broken Base.

I've seen a lot of posts myself that make the (Already noted) point of "Why do the female models look this bad compared to the male models?"

Of course, now that the game's out, we know models of both gender look like they came from the depths of Hades because Bioware's QA team was too busy smoking weed to do their damn jobs.

So, now that I've gotten wind of the conspiracy theories tied into this "Female characters aren't attractive enough!" thing from a now-banned user who was spreadin' 'em on the main Bioware page, I'm going to be more aggressive about demanding this bit be removed.

No arguments here.

I mean, "a ploy to intentionally alienate heterosexual male gamers"? What the hell?!

First off, heterosexual male gamers make up a pretty large percentage of the game's fanbase / potential buyers. Why on earth would a company try to alienate its source of income?

Second, after getting a look at the game post-release, I can honestly say that both male and female faces are equally detailed. Freckles, beauty marks, wrinkles, etc. If the male characters come off as more attractive, well... Beauty is a matter of personal preference.

Third, the faces are certainly better than they were in the original ME trilogy. (Try making a good-looking male Shepard in ME3 without some sort of slider guide open.)

And fourth, the character creation screen is crap for both female and male PCs, so female Ryder didn't get the short straw here.

Yeah, wiping then. No cogent defense made, and being tainted by conspiracy theories is enough.

They aren't the greatest source but if this is Manveer then he's tweeted enough racially charged things that I'd leave it. If you can find another site with archives of his tweets then I'd swap out the link.

Having read the article, I really don't think that Manveer Heir tweeting that there are many white people who are racist supports the idea that Bioware deliberately left out ultra-pale skin tones out of hatred of white people.

That Unfortunate Implications example is a conspiracy theory that doesn't have a place on this website.

(Also, I just double checked the character creator and the palest skin tone available is still pretty damn pale)

Ew no. Cut it.

What he said.

http://archive.is/bCQRS He's joked about murdering white people. It's pretty clear that he doesn't like them. Now, cut it if you want but don't say that he's just saying that racists exist.

Oh yeah? In that case, have a bite at that.

Also, even if he wasn't a bigoted cunt (which he is), he made enough people believe so and that's precisely what Unfortunate Implications are about. And you can find plenty of people who were disturbed by the way the game creator handles female models, not allowing for a pale white skin tone,such as here.

Also, my example at least makes sense. Considering that Bio Ware is easily the industry's most PC, pro-feminist, liberal and generally left-leaning big development studio and employs some rather shady if not downright crazy characters (Heir is just one example, another developer keeps tweeting his impressions of The Witcher 3 only when he feels women, gay and trans are being offended and they also have on board that "GTA virtual rape" chick with them), it's simply ludicrous for anyone to actively be looking for any anti-gay agenda in there. It's kind of like accusing Hitler of not being anti-Jewish enough.

^ All your post did was demonstrate that you have a very clear anti-left, anti-liberal, anti-feminist agenda. Agenda-based editing is flatly discouraged around here.

You've only made it MORE appropriate to scrub the example.

"Agenda-based editing is flatly discouraged around here." Unless you have OUR agenda.

That's not an argument AGAINST there being an agenda.

Okay. I've made it so it's nobody's agenda at all. I'm glad we were able to settle this thing like civilized men.

Yeah, the fact some people think mass effect not having a perfect pale aryan skin tone and how that is #whitegenocide is not actually an unfortunate implication. Unfortunate implications relies on some kind of actual history of racism, bigotry, or erasure on which to base itself and on which the claim can plausibly be grounded. None exists for white people and claiming that is just stupid.

Millions of white Slavs that were abducted by brown Turks as little children and brought up in hatred of their biological ancestors would take an issue with such a statement.

Jaro, don't up and unilaterally make an edit that's under discussion. That's disrespectful AND against the rules.

And yeah, based on the ugly direction this is going, I'm motioning for Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment and for the entire subject removed from the page.

Fine, so now it's the way it was at the very beginning which I think shouldn't even have been any subject of controversy to begin with seeing as this is an YMMV page.

I'll lay out the way things stand:

- some people think Bio Ware is disrespectful towards gay people (there are sources to confirm that with). - some people think Bio Ware is disrespectful towards white people (there are sources to confirm that with). - you write about the former. - I write about the latter and leave the former intact. - you delete my contribution and engage in a discussion why I'm morally wrong and you are morally right even though the trope's name is Unfortunate Implications.

It's bound to be viewed differently by different sides of the debate and you can't pretend it's a non-issue. I've yet to see a single YT video on ME:A facial animations that wouldn't have comments mentioning this whole anti-white business. At the same time, the "gay are being treated unfairly" stuff is nowhere to be seen. I'm willing to bet much more people agree with what I wrote than with what you did. Which I think should settle the question once and for all.

And, let me reitarate, I am not deleting anything. I'm contributing, not taking away, which is another reason why I fail to see what the problem even is.

That's some solution although hardly satisfying. It's kind of like blowing up Congress to put an end to the political discord. Can't we just agree to disagree and let whoever comes reading this page draw their own conclusions? Just put argument A on top of argument B and be done with it?

It's always censorship, censorship, censorship these days... three hundred years of the Enlightment being flushed down the toilet if you ask me. But whatever, I'm not touching that Unfortunate Implications thing again anyway.

I'd say leave it as is for the simple value of unlike 90% of other Unfortunate Implications that get posted, this actually had a citation. I got rid of the Acceptable Targets bracket because whoever posted that is a racist twat, but the rest of the text stands and is legitimate- enough people did indeed find Manveer's tweets unfortunate enough to say "I don't want to buy this." Just because a site doesn't follow your political ideology or posts content you don't like does not mean it therefore cannot be used as a relevant source.

If that was the case, I'd make the argument of never allowing the Mary Sue to be used for anything resembling a citation for the rest of recorded time.

When I went to Ask The Tropers to ask for mod intervention, Fighteer (a mod) replied "Well, I guess the warning we gave them earlier in the month didn't stick. Sproing. Clean up their crap." So I'm going to remove that example.

If someone finds a cite showing that you can't make a white female Ryder and that this is part of an anti-white conspiracy on Bioware's part, then that someone can re-ad the example. But that's a big if, especially since you can make a white female Ryder.

Agreed. This isn't about differing political ideologies. It's basically a conspiracy theory that's hoping to legitimize itself by saying "if enough of us repeat it, it has to be taken seriously". Much like the Hashtag-that-shall-not-be-named.

It certainly has some unfortunate implications, but it is something people believe (from the sound of it, on Tumbler :P). I think the current solution, putting "corrected" in quotation marks as you put "fixed" and noting the controversy is the right way to handle it. Not to say the paragraph couldn't be smoother.

Very good idea. I think that is the best way to handle it. And yeah, shocker that Tumblr is angry about something. I remember something similar (on a MUCH smaller scale) when Zarya wasn't revealed as the gay one in Overwatch.

Leave the Tumblr bashing somewhere else, guys.

It's not *bashing* per say. I actually like the site and think that it's quite useful for what it does. It's just that with that kind of system it's real easy to get echo-chambered and have one person going "kinda weird that she has a lesbian cut" turn into "no straight women can have that, they should make her gay or change her haircut".

Semantics. By "tumblr" I mean the community that people commonly complain about and stereotype the community for. Basically, non-cishet hetero white guys or "SJW snowflakes".

Point is, make a case without all of that.

I understand but...why? The trope in question is about audience reactions to something and whether it's valid or not and it seems like looking at where the complaints come from is important. For example, if some kind of white nationalist site says that this game is racist against white people it probably wouldn't get an entry. If Time Magazine says it then it'd probably get included.

I wasn't talking about the example, but the joking around in this thread. It didn't seem appropriate.

But that being said, I took a look at the example and I think it needs massive rewriting. I'll make a quick list of issues:

1. It tries too hard to "shock" readers. It makes dramatic and sensationalist statements that, even if true, don't sound very objective.
2. It lists EVERY fringe opinion about the hair, including the correction if her gender. But we really don't need to list every extreme corner—just that people have problems with it and that's that.
3. Correlated to points 1.& 2, the people who hold these opinions aren't here to defend their points, so being all "can you BELIEVE what some people think?!" is inherently biased.

That sounds fair. What are you thinking as a clean-up?

It was simply a joke, I'll put it wherever I want to put my jokes. You have taken up enough space talking about that, so lets move on to the actual fixing. Lets try making the paragraph simpler, probably something like:

Cora's hairstyle, which is said to be a popular among the real life LGBT community, has taken some flak due to Cora herself being straight. Some people believe that either her orientation or hairstyle needs to change, while others see no problem with the haircut. Others just find it ugly, but that is another issue.

Mostly neutral, explaining the issue without taking a side, shortening some of the wordyness of the original paragraph while keeping the main points. Could probably be rewritten to explain the issue a bit better, but its an OK starting point. The last sentence is a joke, because again, I'll put them wherever I please.

Look, I don't care what jokes you want to make, but there's a time and place. For instance, the fact that you're acknowledging that your rewrite includes a joke for no reason other than "because I wanna" is validating my point here. Joke in the forums, if you want, but we're trying to make the best wiki entry possible here.

Remove the last sentence, because even as a joke, it has nothing to do with the trope. Broken Base isn't "some people don't like this". It's an issue that is so love/hate that you're either on one side or another. "Some people think this is ugly" doesn't qualify.

And as I said, I also advocate for taking out "some people think X needs to change, yadayada", but as written it's not entirely terrible.

Jeeze, you know you aren't an actual king right? Acknowledging that it is a joke allows everyone to know it is to be removed from the final product. Except you, apparently. Does your aversion to humor stem from your inability to understand it? Your long winded rants on how much you hate jokes is getting in the way of progress more then the actual jokes could ever hope to.

It is my understanding of the situation that the broken base we are discussing is the fact some people think the haircut/character orientation needs to change. Simply stating a "fact" about Chora's haircut isn't a broken base. If you have a rewrite that is better, the entire point of this discussion is to make those changes.

As I said, this isn't the place to make jokes. Don't complain about people not liking your jokes when said jokes add nothing to the conversation.

The point isn't whether or not a statement is a "fact", either. Because not every fact is optimal for inclusion in an example. We need to be clear and concise before being witty.

Finally, you and I seem to be at an impasse, so I'm waiting for other opinions to be given.

• shrug* I agree with King Zeal, but I druther not get into a lengthy, nasty argument about it. This page has too much nonsense pre-release reaction stufff on it anyway.

The way I see it, the debate boils down to: Cora isn't a lesbian, therefore she isn't allowed to sport a haircut like that.

This implies that only a section of the population (in this case, lebian women) are allowed to wear their hair in a side-shave; therefore, any woman who cuts her hair like that must be a lesbian. Conversely, it could be seen as: lesbians wear side-shaves, straight women keep their hair nice and full-length.

This is, in its nature, a highly offensive distinction. There are a number of people who shave a section of their hair as a statement of sorts. Teenagers who wish to express their rebellious nature, fans of certain music bands, even some who just find it a cool hairstyle. Needless to say, not all of them are part of the LGBT community.

I'm surprised this actually merits a discussion. Just because some people are dissappointed by the fact that Cora isn't a lesbian/bisexual romance option, that doesn't mean that people should be categorized based on their choice of hairstyle or even clothes.

@King Zeal As I said before, I'll decide were the place for me to make jokes is. You have been adding nothing to the conversation with 90% of your text on this thread, so it seems rather hypocritical to hate on jokes for wasting space.

The point being if I removed the bit you were talking about, what we would have is: "Cora's hairstyle, which is said to be a popular among the real life LGBT community, has taken some flak due to Cora herself being straight."

This wouldn't go under Broken Base, since it is basically just a sentence. A statement of "fact", Chora has a hairstyle and people are angry over it. It doesn't explain why, it doesn't explain the division, it doesn't really explain anything.

@Spectral Time We could technically remove it altogether, though all the other pre-relase stuff should probably be tackled separately. At least it releases tonight, which may make it easier to clean.

@Pave 17 We aren't discussing if the discussion has merit (it doesn't), we aren't discussing who is right (my side, natch), we are discussing how to handle the "controversy" that happened anyway. The debate exists, so noting its existence is the purpose of putting it here.

I know some games have separate pre and post release folders. Would that be something worth doing?

Atha, do I really need to involve a mod to explain why you don't get to make jokes anywhere you feel like, especially descriptions?

Also, I've contributed plenty just by pointing out how the examples provided break policy or are otherwise suboptimal. "Well lets see you do better" isn't an argument. Even if I COULDN'T come up with a better writeup, that doesn't mean yours wins by default. The optimal decision would be to leave the example off entirely.

That being said, though, I do have a suggestion.

• Cora's hairstyle, which is said to be a popular among the real life LGBT community, has taken some flak due to Cora herself being straight. A large portion of the fanbase has become divided over if it's appropriate or not, and whether or not it even matters.

There. No bashing opinions. No unnecessary jokes. No sly "jokes" that your opinion is the correct one in the discussion.

How about I get a mod instead, just so this thread has some sort of adult supervision to keep you from getting off track as you have been in every post?

I didn't say you were not contributing *at all*, just that you are incredibly distracted from the actual point of this thread (apparently taking personal insult to random jokes). I wrote the starter example based off your list. This isn't an argument, its a "discussion". We aren't trying to win or lose here, just improve the work. Its not some competition, we are *supposed to be* working together. I said if you have a rewrite is better, use it, because the entire point of this is to come up with something better than what I wrote.

The rewrite is Ok, it still does a subpar job of explaining what the exact issue is, and could be clarified a bit. Removing it altogether is still an option, we should probably do that until someone makes a proper writeup.

If you think a mod is necessary, fine. Keeping the discussion on topic was my entire reason for intervening, so by all means, be my guest.

Not sure what you mean by "does a subpar job of explaining what the exact issue is". It explains, neatly and concisely, that the hairstyle has a special meaning to the lesbian community and thus some people think it's inappropriate. Not sure what else is needed which isn't sensationalizing the issue or misrepresenting one side of the disagreement.

I can't believe that in the 21st centrury, after all the struggles the LGBT community went trhough to be recognized as "equals", for lack of a better word, we're arguing over whether a HAIRSTYLE is appropriate for a straight woman.

This is just ridiculous. Furthermore, it's insulting to real-life people. It's pidgeonholing people, categorizing them based on aesthetic and stylistic choices.

Tell me this: is every person you know sporting a side-shave a lesbian woman / gay man?

Again, we're not here to have that debate. The people making the argument you disagree with aren't here to defend their position. And even if they were, TV Tropes rules are against importing drama and debates.

If we can't leave personal judgments at the door, then proper protocol is to scrub the example altogether.

You're right. I'm sorry for getting carried away.

Anyway, the thing is that it isn't the first time a female character with an unconventional hairstyle is a heterosexual romance option. Jack from ME2 and ME3 immediatelly comes to mind. In ME2 she had her head shaved bald, while in ME3 she was sporting a mohawk. So, it's not as if there's any base behind all these complains that Cora should be lesbian/bisexual simply based on hairstyle. Jack even turns female Shepard down in her own blunt (but still friendly) way.

Then, there's Ashley. She's a heterosexual romance option who, despite being a career soldier and Boisterous Bruiser, wears her hair in a Prim and Proper Bun in ME1.

My suggestion for the entry in question would be:

• Cora's hairstyle, which is said to be a popular among the real life LGBT community, has taken some flak due to Cora herself being straight. A large portion of the fanbase has become divided over if it's appropriate or not, and whether or not it even matters. This is especially jarring considering that Jack, a heterosexual romance option from the original trilogy, was also wearing her hair in a style not typically associated with straight women.

Hmm. Perhaps not "straight women". Again, apologies, but I can't find the right words. Feel free to offer suggestions / make corrections.

I don't agree with that last part because it's, again, an attempt to paint the complaints as weird, inconsistent, or hypocritical. Also, why are we explaining that it's "jarring" to one side of the division in the first place?

Again, just say that there's a controversy and leave all other feelings out of it.

I suppose so.

It's just... People are complaining about details instead of focusing on the story, gameplay, and visual effects.

It used to be: "look, there's a same-gender romance option!". Or: "look, X [you know who X is] is a jackass because he dumped Shepard". Now it's: "they're not pretty enough", "their hair is wrong", etc.

Yeah, there's plenty of pettiness and confusion to go around, but we gotta stay on task here. We have to avoid sensationalizing a side or trivializing their opinions as well.

Always better to wait. Also, that's not really what that trope's for. We already have a bug collection trope, do we not?

ME 1, 2 and 3 all have Special Effects Failure tropes describing visual bugs.

I have deleted different versions of that post four at least four times now ever since summer 2015, and I will delete it again. There is NO Broken Base in human-only-gameplay, there are only people who are upset over it, and people who don't care, which is NOT Broken Base, just a one-sided-complaint. To quote Square Peg Round Trope, "Base-Breaking Character and Broken Base are supposed to mean exactly what they say: something that divides the fanbase, i.e. some love it and some hate it."

The Only way it could be Broken Base was if there where people who would actually prefer that you only play as humans, which there aren't really any. It's almost universally upset vs. indifference.

I agree. Most complainers don't have a problem with Ryder (so far) besides them being human.

At worst, if you reeeally have to pin it down to a specific trope, it should be: It's the Same, Now It Sucks!.

Not having seen the trailer (or caring) it seems like a legitimate example. I can certainly see a huge divide in the fanbase for something like this.

People are complaining that there isn't a Male Shep version of the trailer? That doesn't make sense. Fem Shep was features less in marketing throughout the trilogy. I say cut it out since that ship has sailed a long time ago and a lot of people are making a big deal out of it.