Discussion YMMV / RWBY

I don't think it fits either trope.

It's neither. It's just "fan" hate.

I would say it needs a rewrite because this is a common critique in the community. If not any of them, then wait until October and present it as a Broken Base.

Edited by Psyga315

Broken Base doesn't work like that, and waiting periods definitely don't.

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

Failure Hero is misused in the example as well. That's for heroes who never succeed, ever.

How about Clueless Aesop, They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot and/or Informed Wrongness (the Wrongness being the "too hard on themselves" part)?

Edited by Derv0sB2

Both Clueless Aesop and Informed Wrongness objectively require there to be a specific form of Aesop genuinely existing for the audience to then react in the manner required (the audience feels that the Aesop is clueless or feels that the character is right when the narrative is portraying them as wrong). They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot is for a plot element that looks like it's being set up to happen, or begins to happen, then appears to go nowhere instead of being explored to a conclusion — disliking how a plot unfolded to its conclusion is the most common form of misuse.

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

This is just a shot in the dark, but most of what is written is essentially the opinion MangaKamen gave in his review of the series. Maybe all we need to do is reword it a bit and place it under an appropriate trope on his main page (a la how the History of Power Rangers page sorts Linkara's opinions), like They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot, Seasonal Rot, Creator Breakdown or Critical Backlash.

If that entry is just one person's opinion is it even YMMV at all? I thought YMMV pages are supposed to capture the reactions or thoughts of parts of fandoms rather than individuals. If it's just one person's opinion, isn't that a review instead?

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

You could check out the comments and see whether the people there agree with said person's opinions.

Courtesy link: MisaimedFandom.RWBY

The page looks like a mess. My suggestion would be to put it on the RWBY short term projects thread (here), and get a consensus on what examples should be on the page and what shouldn't be.

The short-term project thread could use more activity.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

There's also a Ban-Evader Reversion Thread here.

He/His/Him. No matter who you are, always Be Yourself.

Reverted the entry.

You're right, it does look suspicious. I've flagged the edit on ATT, asking if they're La Tudor (who was suspended in September for edit warring this same entry).

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

Guess it all really depends on your definition and criteria for what makes a “strong female character”. There’s already a Base-Breaking Character entry for Robyn on the page, if you wanted to bring up the conflicting opinions on her.

I want to go to Tonio's.

You may want to check Reddit to see if there's anything about Robyn.

Don’t you mean Base-Breaking Character or Broken Base?

Anyway, that seems like a good start, but I think we should also bring up some of Ironwood’s actions in earlier Volumes for context. Preferably for both sides of the argument.

I want to go to Tonio's.

Base-Breaking Character is what I meant to say.

Volume 7 & 8's portrayal of Ironwood has fans divided on how he is characterized, with Volume 7 having him work towards rebuilding Amity Arena at the expense of Mantle (which he has locked down heavily) while Volume 8 has his attempts to save his Kingdom from Salem slowly deteriorate into madness until his line of logic is to threaten Mantle with a bomb to have his way. Fans in favor of this turn cite that this was the natural conclusion of his character arc and that many of his actions hurt everyone in the long run while fans who opposed it say that he was trying to do what was right and that his later actions either made no sense at best or character assassination at worst.

Not sure how good this is, but will bring it up with others to see their take.

Ironwood currently has a Volume 7 entry for BBC. It makes sense to approach it the way you're doing here and putting Volumes 7 & 8 together into one entry. I'd suggest your entry replaces the existing one, and cannibalise anything from that entry you want to keep, by adding it into your own. You don't have to keep anything from the other example if you don't want to, but I think your entry should replace the existing one as an update for Volume 8.

As to the entry you've written so far, I think that's a very neutral summary so far, which is a good thing, given how vitrolic this debate can get. It needs slightly rewriting to fix the spoiler tag issue — outside the spoiler tag is an incomplete sentence, which does need to be fixed. Ideally, spoiler tags also shouldn't break up the middle of an entry and should be placed at the end (where possible), but the complete sentence is the major thing to fix.

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

I would also mention this:

There is also the polarizing reaction to his Semblance, which is seen as a confusing Fan-Disliked Explanation with little context or in-story relevance at best, and interpreted as super-neurodiversity with divisive implications at worst.

While I would like to include his Semblance, I feel like it's going a little too long without it.

Volume 7 & 8's portrayal of Ironwood has fans divided on how he is characterized, with Volume 7 having him working towards rebuilding Amity Arena at the expense of Mantle (which he has locked down heavily), while Volume 8 has his attempts to save Atlas from Salem slowly deteriorate into madness until he ends up doing outright villainous actions. Fans in favor of this turn cite that this was the natural conclusion of his character arc, his fatal flaws making things worse for everyone in the long run, and ultimately became just as much of a villain as Salem. These were backed up by statements from Miles. Fans who opposed this say that he was initially trying to do what he thought was right, and that his later actions made no sense at best, or were flat out character assassination at worst. Some even place blame on either the heroes for working counter to him or his vaguely defined Semblance that could be interpreted as super-nuerodiversity with divisive implications at worst.

Here's a more concise version (couldn't copy-paste the links, though).

Volume 7 & 8's portrayal of Ironwood has divided fans. He spends Volume 7 rebuilding Amity Arena at the expense of placing Mantle under military lockdown, while Volume 8 has his struggle against Salem slowly deteriorate into madness and outright villainous actions. Fans in favor of this turn cite it as the natural conclusion of his character arc, with his fatal flaws ultimately making him just as much of a threat or villain as Salem — sentiments backed up by statements from Miles. Fans who oppose this say that his decisions leap from understandable to nonsensical far too quickly or are flat out character assassination at worst. Some even blame the heroes who deceive and sabotage him or his vaguely defined Semblance, which could be interpreted as super-nuerodiversity with divisive implications at worst.

Edited by NubianSatyress

I like it.

We had this discussion over his Semblance once before, with regards to Unfortunate Implications, and the compromise consensus there was to stick it under Fan-Disliked Explanation as people weren't debating the actual show, so much as debating what the creators stated in an RTX Panel and how to even apply it to the show in the first place. It got messy and the compromise was FDE.

I'd therefore leave out references to his Semblance completely because you're not discussing the show there, you're discussing how to interpret what the creators said. It's a different discussion entirely, one we've already had.

Aside from the last sentence, the rest of the entry looks fine.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

^ That's why I said "divisive" implications. This is a completely different issue. It's just not reasonable to leave out reactions to his Semblance as one of the many things that fans are divided about regarding the character. Interpretations of his Semblance is one of the core reasons he IS either considered sympathetic or detestable. The fact that half of the fandom sees it as a Fan-Disliked Explanation is literally part of what broke the base, which is why I even included that trope in my first writeup.

The Fan-Disliked Explanation example that you wrote states:

That is literally the definition of a broken base. Thus, just because you disagreed with it being listed as Unfortunate Implications doesn't mean it's reasonable to carry that argument over now.

Edited by NubianSatyress

I've just asked about the rewrite on the Base-Breaking Character cleanup thread for further feedback. Hoping this will help.

Edited by gjjones He/His/Him. No matter who you are, always Be Yourself.

You've already asked, so the cat's out of the bag now.

But I mean, nothing is "necessary", technically. We could remove any one or two of the points raised and the entry should be fine. I just don't think the prior argument about Unfortunate Implications carries over into this.

While Psyga315 suggested that the last sentence about the whole "super-neurodivergency" may be removed and end it with his Semblance, I can wait for further feedback from the thread's regulars.

Edited by gjjones He/His/Him. No matter who you are, always Be Yourself.

As was already stated, people were in agreement that the creators' comments at RTX were unhelpful. No-one is arguing that or debating it, or breaking the base over it.

That's why I said it's a separate discussion — because it's not relevant to Broken Base, the perfect trope for the Semblance issue has already been found because the discussion's already been had, and it's a complicated enough subject to deserve its own entry under the most appropriate trope for its situation.

The reason Ironwood is a broken base example for Volumes 7 & 8 have nothing to do with his Semblance. That's a completely different issue. The Semblance explanation came along at a later date after well over a year of BB and BBC debates about Ironwood's characterisation in the Atlas Arc.

Edited to add: I've responded on the BBC thread that was linked to above, although my position is the same as here.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

What do you mean "the perfect trope" has been found? Tropes are not mutually-exclusive or zero sum. You can mention the same context in two different tropes.

Again, what you described in FDE was literally WHAT a broken base IS. There is no rule against mentioning it in both.

Also, I disagree with this statement on the thread:

This is a non-sequitur. It makes the presumption that A) once a character has broken a base, that they can't be broken any further and B) that consensus on any point whatsoever, at all, means the base isn't broken. For example, you could have a character that half of a fanbase dislikes and then kill them offscreen in an over-the-top, horrific way that fans were split over because it was either hilariously extreme or horrifically cruel. Fans who were split about the character already can be FURTHER split; they may even all agree that killing the character offscreen was bad writing, but still disagree over whether or not the death was deserved, cruel, hilarious or any combination thereof. Just because the character was "already a BBC" does not discredit the fact that a further development further split the fans.

The same is with Ironwood here. The information about his Semblance is just another further split. True, nobody likes it, but the fandom is split on WHY they don't like it, as well as whether or not it humanizes or ruins his character further.

Edited by NubianSatyress

That and the description is getting long without the Semblance thing.

There's a difference between a debate and a fandom civil war. Ironwood's characterisation is a fandom war. Debates over how to apply his Semblance are just debates and discussions.

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

This is the first time I have ever heard of such a distinction, and I don't really agree with it.

But fine. I've argued enough. I'm not dropping my position, but back-and-forth arguments tend to get me in trouble.

No worries. I vouch for your idea, so a slight nod to his Semblance could work, but the entry is long enough as is.

Edited by Psyga315

^^ That distinction does get used in the clean-up to identify when misuse might be happening (disagreements aren't automatically BB or BBC unless they're tearing the fandom apart).

That said, the way Psyga worded the suggestion on the clean-up thread works for me because that does make it relevant to the entry.

Edited to add: Psyga, I wouldn't worry about length just yet. If you put together the example, we can shave it down to a less wordy example once we know for certain what the entry will look like. gjjones is pretty good at trimming at examples, so they might have suggestions if you feel it's too long.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

Here's another draft.

• Volume 7 & 8's portrayal of Ironwood, such as his actions deteriorating into madness and making him just as much of a villain as Salem (as seen in Mantle's lockdown) is divisive. Some fans view it as the natural end of his arc — sentiments backed up by Miles. Opposing fans say that his decisions leap from understandable to nonsensical too quickly or are flat out character assassination at worst. The fandom is divided further on whether the heroes who deceive and sabotage him, or his vaguely-defined Semblance, share any blame or if this was caused by Ironwood's Fatal Flaws alone.

Edited by NubianSatyress

Better

That works for me, too.

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

I don't have any objections to the write-up.

Edited by gjjones He/His/Him. No matter who you are, always Be Yourself.

Added to the page.

But how do you get that seperate species, especially with so many variants? Pretty much all examples of Little Bit Beastly are either a biological experiment or demons. The Grimm are the closest thing to demons we've got and we've yet to establish whether or not this world even has regular animals or the technology to bond animal and human DNA, let alone create an entire species for whatever reason.

So, it doesn't directly point to bestiality, and I hope I'm wrong, but right now it is an Unfortunate Implication.

Edited by 174.240.0.130

That's meeting the implication more than halfway, I think. You're assuming (for some reason) the only reason that that a Little Bit Beastly are because of cross-breeding, rather than the idea that they're just, you know, a species (which is how they've been shown so far). And then you're assuming that the cross breeding must be with the Grimm even though we haven't seen any cat, monkey, or rabbit Grimm (let alone that they'd be compatible with human DNA). Not to mention, it's explicitly a fantastic setting. Any number of Aura or Dust-based explanations could exist.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.

...I'm not crazy. YOU'RE crazy! AHAHAHAHAHA

• crashes through glass window and runs off cackling into the night*

Wrong location.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

We should add this onto Author's Saving Throw:

"Ruby's popularity took a massive hit over Volume 5 thanks to a poor outing at Haven and her worse traits being exaggerated, especially her refusing to ask Ozpin about the Silver Eyes or Summer. Come Volume 6, and the crew specifically saying that Ruby was on their list of things to improve with this volume, and her popularity has skyrocketed thanks to Ruby finally assuming a leadership position and showing why she was chosen as leader. In fact Ruby gets one moment in nearly every episode where she takes command of the situation and thinks rationally. "

It's basically damage control.

Misclicked.

Edited by RebelFalcon Vegeta: I'm back bitches!

Wrong place.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

[[thump]]

Edited by Psyga315

Wrong place.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

I am wondering if there should be an Alternative Character Interpretation trope for RWBY YMNV?

I agree. Disagreeing with someone else's interpretation isn't a valid reason for removing an entry from YMMV. Entries only get removed if they're misuse, and this entry was not misuse.

I've added it back to the page. It was Values Dissonance it was removed from, wasn't it?

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

I've forgotten but I'm 99% sure.

Guys, break it up, it's going to be an edit war at this rate.

Unfortunately, Rift Witch does seem to want to edit war the entry.

I've told them they need to build a consensus to get it removed from the page. We'll see if they do.

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

At this point, ~Nubian Satyress, I'd suggest you and ~Rift Witch discuss what you want to do about the edit.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

^ What do you mean? They're edit-warring and not addressing the concerns made.

Re-added the entry and invited Rift Witch to come to the discussion page. I really hope this doesn't draw staff attention yet again.

^^ I mean that I had a conversation with them in PMs that failed to resolve the issue. I've done what I can to explain the steps they need to go through if they want the edit removed from the page, but I was unsuccessful.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

^ That only makes me more confused why you're suggesting I try. I may have started the query, but this seems to be an issue of consensus vs an uncooperative edit warrer.

I understand that recent events increased hesitance to report on ATT and possibly result in a locked page, but ATT would be the next logical step rather than trying to repeat an uncooperative debate.

Yes, that is the situation, and ATT would be the next step from here.

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

Yes, they need to be called in.

It's worth observing that the wording of the base entry (not the bit being edit warred over) went through the Unintentionally Unsympathetic clean-up thread, and therefore is an approved entry. So, I would suggest that if no agreement is reached here on the discussion page, the next port of call would be the clean-up thread.

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

Hey, I just re-added it after it was unjustly removed. The other person was the one who started this.

Shamelessly plugging my comics, Oh yes.

In their defense, lying to Ironwood and keeping secrets after yelling at Ozpin about that very same thing DOES come off as hypocritical and adds to their Unintentionally Unsympathetic nature, even WITH the whole "we walked a day in your shoes and now we eat humble pie" bit.

That said, I say keep the "this is mitigated" part because the issue with Ozpin has been resolved.

Edited by Psyga315

I'm inclined to agree. I think the Volume 8 update for the entry should just read: "They reconcile with Ozpin in Volume 8."

I can see the edit war is continuing despite this discussion having been opened. I'm flagging ~La Tudor and ~Zaptech to join us.

Can I just point out that we ideally need to resolve this without it escalating to ATT? Another RWBY edit war was taken there recently, and the response was a call for the RWBY pages to be locked. All of them.

That's how often Edit War issues occur on RWBY pages.

While not everyone in that thread called for a mass lock, I was the only person directly arguing against it. It's why I've started the RWBY work clean-up thread in Short-Term Projects — to try and clean up the work pages in a formal way that will hopefully mitigate the calls to lock every single RWBY page. If we can't find a way to stop edit wars happening on the RWBY pages, we could lose access all together.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

Honestly, I have no skin in this discussion. I only reverted the original removal because there was no edit reason and did it again because the edit war and suggested they take it here. I'll stay out from this point forward.

La Tudor has once again removed the text with no explanation, after being asked to come to the discussion page.

At this point they need to be reported. I'm dreading this because the last time we reported a RWBY Edit War, the ATT response was to call for all the RWBY pages to be locked.

People really need to stop edit warring RWBY entries. RWBY's considered a problem work on this wiki because of this issue, and we're going to be left unable to trope the work without going through the Edit Locked Pages thread for everything if this doesn't stop.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

Indeed. We already have a Sandbox.Web Animation RWBY Clean Up page for troubled pages under the RWBY name.

He/His/Him. No matter who you are, always Be Yourself.

Well, I've reported ~La Tudor to ATT here. Let's see how this goes.

And, yes, as gjjones says: we have a RWBY clean-up thread in the Short-Term Projects thread to try and deal with issues on the RWBY pages without things like edit wars occurring, so please pass the message on to encourage people to start using it.

RWBY Clean-Up (Short-Term Project Forum). The sandbox gjjones has linked to is connected to the project. Everyone is welcome to help out.

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

At this point, let's make that bit an Author's Saving Throw since it seems to fit that trope better.

That's not what AST is. AST is for when a creator actively does something in response to a fandom's attitude, and the fandom thinks it's done the job of "fixing" the issue they had.

This situation is one troper edit warring an entry because they personally feel the heroes are to blame for Ironwood snapping when the entry they're edit-warring has nothing to do with Ironwood in the first place (it's about the heroes reconciling with Ozpin because they now feel that they understand why he was keeping secrets from them — that's got nothing to do with how they interact with, or feel about, Ironwood's situation). It also has nothing to do with the fandom's feelings about how the heroes treated Ozpin because Volume 8 was being written as Volume 7 was airing, and the heroes just reach a natural conclusion based on how both Volumes 7-8 unfolded in-universe. There's no claim here that the authors were trying to fix a fandom complaint about Volume 6, it's just a case of fans feeling better now they've seen how that plot thread concluded.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

So, since the mods confirmed that La Tudor is now being suspended, does the last bit get re-added or should it be left alone for the time being?

I've just asked if it's okay to add it back. If the okay is given, I'd suggest citing the ATT thread in the edit reason when it's added back to make it clear it's not an edit war entry.

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

We may need to trim the last part down as well for verbosity.

He/His/Him. No matter who you are, always Be Yourself.

I think that might work. I'm taking a look at the already used examples of Out of Focus and added to it with what we know of Volume 8.

That's fair enough. I noticed that there are three RWBY examples on the work page, but only one on the trope page, so I've crosswicked the missing entries to the trope page. I've brought the entries on the character and main work page together, and crosswicked the character page entries to the trope page as well. That should make things consistent for you at the very least.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

People act like they were just having a tea party the whole time. 1. Nora was injured, possibly dying. They couldn't just leave her 2. Then Penny showed up 3. Not to mention they were waiting for word from JOYR 4. AND the fact that because Ironwood put a warrant out for their arrest if they had gone to help the soldiers they would have turned on them instead of fight the grimm (as we saw with Clover, Atlas troops are incapable of prioritizing)

I'd make the argument that the battle at the Manor was more worthy of the Fight Scene Failure trope.

Qrow seems to be the exception to the rule.

"Seems to be" is the issue. Just like Ironwood, we're never explicitly told whether there is an exception. It's just never brought up.

I feel like this would be more qualifying of the Fan-Disliked Explanation, since a lot of people have been split on Ironwood's Semblance.

Honestly, it could be both. As I said, I've never watched an episode of RWBY, but I've been reading and watching a lot of critiques (because I find these critiques educational for my own writing), and the issue of Ironwood's Semblance resembling mental health is definitely a somewhat common reaction.

Regarding your entry. You've only cited one source — a source that is (by himself) a very bad source to use as it's just a fan opinion on a YouTube video somewhere and, like lots of fan opinions, often doesn't cite the work accurately when making points. Lone fan opinions are not good sources for Unfortunate Implications precisely because of this.

As to what you've heard about Aura and Semblance, it doesn't seem accurate based on what you've typed here, but I don't know what your sources are.

Aura and Semblance is actually handled consistently in the show, but there is a lot of fanon about it that has been debunked by the show over the years (sometimes, repeatedly). It's very inconsistent with fanon. To briefly address your two examples:

Qrow's Semblance not being dependent on Aura is pure fanon. That is not a claim the show's ever made, and there has only ever been one ambiguous moment over whether or not an Aura inconsistency regarding his Semblance: the damage was done to the roof before his Aura broke, but the beam fell just moments after his Aura broke: so was that just gravity or an Aura inconsistency? That's a rhetorical question: the answer is that fans can interpret it however they please.

As to sneak attacks, that's been addressed in the show a few times. The first was when the audience was first introduced to Aura at the beginning of the show. It was reiterated several years later when a character got punched during training and had forgotten to activate his Aura because he wasn't used to using Aura. In short, people have to learn how to use their Aura. Once they've learned, it becomes an instinctive, unconscious reflex that doesn't require active thought. Passive Semblances don't require conscious thought to activate and tend to be in default 'on' mode. Even in Qrow's case, however, he can actively control the Semblance to achieve certain effects. His problem is that he can't always control it, and he can't switch it off when he doesn't want to deal with it. The show has also indicated that Qrow's Semblance is unusual and does work a little differently to other Semblances.

There are a couple of characters with strange Semblances that don't seem to work quite like Semblances are expected to, and they're always flagged in-universe: Qrow, Ruby, Jaune and the Schnee Semblance have been flagged in the main show, and Ozpin has been flagged in the accompanying mini-series (World of Remnant).

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

^ To start, I added another two sources in this thread, and that was after only a short Google. It's not really hard to find this opinion being expressed by swaths of the fandom.

The problem I have with your response is that you're using a chicken vs egg argument regarding Qrow's Semblance. Is it inconsistent in fanon, or is there a lot of fanon about it because it's inconsistent. The fact that your last sentence regarding it is: "Fans can interpret it however they please" confirms the latter. If fans are allowed to interpret something "however they please", then that flat out means there ARE no rules to keep consistent.

Regarding Aura, no...what you said is wrong. When Ruby is sparring with Oscar in S5 E4 (thanks to Twiins iink for sourcing this so I could find it), she manages to hurt Oscar with a punch and Ozpin tells Oscar "you forgot to activate your Aura again". So again, we're left either assuming that Oscar is another "exception" to the rules (which is not stated) or that this is a rule that has gone unaddressed. Either way, it is another inconsistency.

"The show has also indicated that Qrow's Semblance is unusual and does work a little differently to other Semblances."

When and where? You just said that fans can "interpret it however they like". If there are rules, then that isn't really the case.

Edited by NubianSatyress

No. It is very consistent in the show. What happened was that the original explanation at the beginning of the show (which was clearly worded) generated a lot of Epileptic Trees. The Epileptic Trees led to fanon, much of which contradicted things the show had already openly stated.

This is actually normal for the RWBY fandom, and has been happening from the moment the show's very first advertisment trailer was released in 2012 (the Red Trailer). The RWBY fandom tends to prefer its own fanon, theories and Epileptic Trees to the actual canon. Some of the biggest backlashes against the work and its creators have occurred when fan theories have been debunked.

For example, the most debunked fan theory is that Qrow is secretly Ruby's father. It doesn't matter how many times over the years the creators have debunked this, the fandom will not let go of it.

This is completely normal for the RWBY fandom.

Me being honest about there being a single scene in eight years worth of material where you could say a single moment within that single scene is ambiguous enough for people to wonder if there might have been an animation inconsistency is definitely not confirmation of what you're claiming. You're looking for confirmation bias there. I have not detailed the scene to you because this isn't the place, but if you want me to have a more detailed discussion with you about that scene, I'm more than happy to have it.

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

Whether or not RWBY attracts Epileptic Trees (like Qrow being Ruby's dad) is not relevant to this conversation. Whether or not it's common is irrelevant to this point, for the EXACT reasons you have stated.

To keep this on track, let me restate the point: the show never brings up what Ironwood's Semblance is or how it works. Even if it is a general rule that Semblances are connected to Aura and can be shut off if the Aura breaks, that really doesn't help in this situation because A) we know that there are exceptions to rules of semblances and B) we do not know which of Ironwood's actions are taken as a result of his Semblance.

The above, taken together, means that barring any other explanation, audiences have taken at least some Ironwood's actions as a result of his Semblance. And, even if this was not the case all the time, the very fact that a mind-altering Semblance could have a hand in the character turning into a violent extremist is considered Unfortunate Implications by a significant portion of the fandom.

Arguing over the exact specifics of how Aura and Semblances work in this case is extremely tangential to the problem, since again A) some Auras/Semblances work differently and B) we have NO information about Ironwood's at all and thus all we're left with are the implications.

Edited by NubianSatyress

Given the assumptions you were making, it was extremely relevant. The problem you have is that you're fighting tooth and nail for an entry you wrote about a work you admit you don't watch. What I'm trying to say, as gently as I can, is that this is showing.

Yes, the show doesn't discuss Ironwood's Semblance and how it works. Yes, it is frustrating for many in the RWBY fandom (and I include myself in that, by the way).

We have a single comment by the creators regarding Ironwood's Semblance. All these fan theories and fanon and debate aren't about the show. It's about the comment. It's fans trying to apply the comment to the show despite the comment not really giving us the ability to do that, except by guesswork.

Let me give you an example. Your third source talks about the light dying in Ironwood's eyes. It has become fanon that the light dying in Ironwood's eyes is evidence of his Semblance activating. The creators haven't said that. The show hasn't said that. That is something the fans invented. The problem with this theory is that Ironwood's eyes go flat like this when he has Aura and when his Aura is broken. But they consistently go flat when he makes a decision to do something difficult.

Your third source uses, as an example, his eyes going flat just before he pulls his arm free from Watts' trap. However, during the discussion where the creators mentioned what Ironwood's Semblance was, they also clarified that he was not using his Semblance to pull his arm free because his Aura was already broken at that point. So, the fan who has concluded that his eyes turning flat before he pulls his arm free is evidence of him activating his Semblance is wrong. It's essentially already been debunked.

By the same token, the fans that question the relationship of this Semblance to mental health or certain neurodiverse experiences, aren't actually discussing what's going on in the show at this point — they're creating a personal interpretation of a comment and then critiquing their interpretation of that comment. Let's say, for example, that your third source was correct about the eyes going flat as the signal that the Semblance was activating. The most extreme action he ever takes, the decision to bomb Mantle and kill thousands, was taking while his eyes were shining with light — they weren't flat; by their own argument, Ironwood's most villainous decision was made while his Semblance was deactivated and therefore not factoring into his decision at all.

This is the problem with making guesses about how something works — when you guess how something works and realise there's an unfortunate implication to that guess, the unfortunate implication is itself a guess.

Now, for all we know, this direction of guesswork might turn out to be correct, and therefore the unfortunate implications might also be right. But for now? It's just guessing.

That's the problem with having a lack of information.

However, as the troper who removed your entry pointed out: one thing we do know is that some of Ironwood's most extreme decisions were made when he didn't have any Aura and therefore didn't have access to his Semblance. A broken Aura and no access to his Semblance never changed his behaviour or his attitude. That's part of why it's so hard to for the fandom to figure out when his Semblance was active and when it wasn't. There are a few occasions when we know it was definitely deactivated because his Aura was broken at the time, but we're just guessing about everything else.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

I'm not making any "assumptions" here. As YOU have stated multiple times, "Yes, the show doesn't discuss Ironwood's Semblance and how it works."

"All these fan theories and fanon and debate aren't about the show. It's about the comment. It's fans trying to apply the comment to the show despite the comment not really giving us the ability to do that, except by guesswork."

YES. That's the entire point. The audience is stating that, with no other information provided about Ironwood's Semblance, it leaves the work with Unfortunate Implications in which all or most of his actions are the result of a mind-altering condition. That is the entire point.

"However, during the discussion where the creators mentioned what Ironwood's Semblance was, they also clarified that he was not using his Semblance to pull his arm free because his Aura was already broken at that point."

Actually, you've provided yet ANOTHER example of inconsistency, since at first, they DID say that his Semblance was what allowed him to do so, only to backtrack on that later. That is actually acknowledged within the very video.

"Now, for all we know, this direction of guesswork might turn out to be correct, and therefore the unfortunate implications might also be right. But for now? We have so little to go on that even the unfortunate implications are just guesswork right now."

Yes. And that is exactly the point. The entire point of Unfortunate Implications is that they are implications — it is a conclusion drawn by the information that the story has provided, absent of any other context which would reduce whatever makes it "unfortunate". Trying to argue that something can't be unfortunate unless more information is provided makes no sense; for all we know, RWBY could end tomorrow and nothing will ever be explained again. The argument that "we should wait for more clarification before acknowledging that fans have a point about the story" makes no sense because it would mean that even if we're up to Volume 99, after a 1000-year Time Skip, and all of the old cast have been replaced, it could still be argued that we should "wait" since the series technically hasn't answered the question yet.

Gonna jump in to agree with Wyld here. The show is very consistent that no Aura means no Semblance, and Ironwood shows his characteristics of general craziness and dumb decisions when we can confirm that he had no Aura to use for his Semblance. There's pretty much no way to "decide" when his Semblance may or may not have been active because we literally are given no information in the show and fans are extrapolating from a single comment. It's all guess work, and to go so far as to bring mental illness into the ideas is just the logical conclusion of a fandom that loves jumping on every idea they can think of being given the ammunition to do just that. I will also point out that the "divisiveness" in Ironwood's actions come largely from people who are eager to slap him in leather pants and forgive his actions wholesale anyway - it's a recurring trend that won't die any time soon. In short, the entry was going off of a single out-of-show comment that we literally cannot back up in the show with any factual evidence, so I agree that the entry should stay cut.

Edited by STARCRUSHER99

Well, at this point, I've already addressed why "Ironwood wasn't using his Semblance sometimes" doesn't address the problem, and if that's not enough, I'll just stop

Since I'm outnumbered with little hope of swaying consensus, I'll let it go. But I do not acknowledge the counterarguments as valid.

Edited by NubianSatyress

The entire point of the entry was that Ironwood's actions could have been controlled by his Semblance. We are stating that there are points where we can confirm he's not using his Semblance, yet keeps making his bad, reckless, and dangerous decisions. The entire point of the argument is that the entry is extrapolating on something that's been proven wrong in-story. If that's not enough then I really don't know what to say.

And FTR, saying "I do not acknowledge the counterarguments as valid" as you're leaving is really just a petty move, and I'd encourage you to not do that again in the future. It's not a sign of good faith debate.

Okay, I'm gonna weigh in one aspect, namely Qrow's Semblance.

Kerry Shawcross has confirmed Qrow's Semblance works independent of Aura.

Qrow's Semblance is passive, meaning it is permanently active, and as Kerry said, will spike at random. And according to Kerry, it only costs him aura if he tries to control it, namely, amplify it's effects. If it always required aura, Kerry wouldn't have said it only cost him when he amplified it.

Edited by RebelFalcon Vegeta: I'm back bitches!

The lack of information also makes it vague as to what Mettle actually does, which is obviously a problem. Personal interpretation of the comment is, I'd suspect, a way for fans to actually get a handle on what the Semblance is. I wouldn't be surprised if it was revealed that it personifies his 'positive' emotions into a chunk of bologna, which then goes the way of the Weighted Companion Cube.

More to the point, I do think that the lack of information regarding Mettle does create problems when discussing how it affects Ironwood. I can't find the creators' comment but having watched the show I can say that it does ...something to Ironwood that makes him even more extreme than he already is. I can further assume this effect is mental because it's the most likely (or it's a brain chemistry sort of thing). Point being, I agree with Wyld that it's too devoid of information for an Unfortunate Implications entry, but I do agree with the spirit of the thing.

So, let's hang an anchor from the sun... also my Tumblr

Okay, but I honestly am only conceding because continuing would be pointless. I do not agree with your arguments. I did not say that they are invalid, only that I don't acknowledge based on the logic provided.

For example, the argument about his Semblance breaking is muddled by the fact that a) we know Semblances can have exceptions to the Aura rule, b) the writers at first DID state that he used his Semblance while his Aura was broken, only to go back on it later and c) even IF we know there are some points when he isn't using his Semblance, that doesn't change what his Semblance is.

I will stick by this being my last post on the subject from here on out. I don't want to get into a last-word debate, but I wanted to explain what I mean by "not acknowledging" the validity of these arguments. I did not intend to argue in bad faith, but I also want to point out that "these arguments largely come from DILP advocates" and "the fandom is usually wrong" are "poisoning the well" and not good faith arguments, either.

Regarding these sections:

"The audience is stating that, with no other information provided about Ironwood's Semblance, it leaves the work with Unfortunate Implications ..."

"The entire point of Unfortunate Implications is that they are implications — it is a conclusion drawn by the information that the story has provided, absent of any other context which would reduce whatever makes it "unfortunate"."

I think all I'll say here is that you've misunderstood what I said. The fans made a guess based on a creator comment, not the work itself. The unfortunate implication came from the guess, not the work. An unfortunate implication would be this: "Because Ironwood's Semblance is making him do X, this generates Y unfortunate implications". What is instead happening is this: "If you interpret the creator's comment in X way, you can come up with Y unfortunate implication".

"Actually, you've provided yet ANOTHER example of inconsistency, since at first, they DID say that his Semblance was what allowed him to do so, only to backtrack on that later. That is actually acknowledged within the very video. "

I've seen the panel and the conversation the creators had about Ironwood's Semblance. Creator 1 tried to explain how Ironwood's Semblance worked and decided they needed an example to help explain it. They used Ironwood pulling his arm free as the example of what the Semblance can enable a person to achieve. Creator 2 jumped in to clarify Ironwood didn't use the Semblance in the scene because his Aura was broken. Creator 1 acknowledged that, saying they were using the scene to try and describe how the Semblance would work when active.

They were having trouble putting into words how Ironwood's Semblance works. Everything the fandom is doing is just guessing.

Edited to add: I didn't see all those extra posts, until after I'd posted this. So, apologies; the discussion had moved on by the time I posted this. @Rebel I'm aware of the Q&A you're referring to; I think Qrow is probably best discussed on the forum at this point.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

I will say this, I do think that most fans agree that Mettle was used as an excuse as to why his character change was so extreme. If not most people can agree this is a case of Character Derailment.

Edited by rinrinboss

Well, not really. As Starcrusher pointed out, there is an issue within the fandom where Ironwood's concerned; the issue of whether his character was derailed is part of that issue.

There is broad agreement in the fandom that transcends even the Ironwood debate that the creators' existing explanation of Ironwood's Semblance is currently very unhelpful. At worst, you get people spinning it in UI ways; at best, you have people pointing out that it's so vague, it's impossible to apply it to the show and figure out where his Semblance factors in (beyond scenes where his Aura is broken, that is).

I don't know what anyone else thinks, but I'm thinking that Psyga has made the best suggestion of how to record the issue: use Fan-Disliked Explanation.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

Alright, I'm going to write up something for Fan-Disliked Explanation, but I don't really have a good idea how to word all this. I also tried to keep it as simple as possible.

"During a convention, the writers revealed that Ironwood's Semblance is known as Mettle, which makes him hyper-focus. Fans disliked this explanation because it felt like an excuse to justify Ironwood's villainous actions. This, in turn, kickstarted a lot of debates such as when his Semblance ends and where Ironwood begins or even interpreting the Semblance as superpowered autism or even PTSD."

Seems good, but maybe it can be reworded.

“During RTX 2020, the writers that Ironwood’s Semblance allows him to hyper-focus when making decisions. Fans took issue with this information because it felt more like an excuse for Ironwood’s villainous actions in Volume 7. It also sparked numerous debates, ranging from how much influence it had on Ironwood throughout the series to interpreting the Semblance as superpowered autism or PTSD.”

I want to go to Tonio's.

I think the real issue is that fans dislike it because it's so vague; the fandom doesn't know how to apply it to the show, hence all the debates.

So, combining the two suggestions above...

"During RTX 2020, the writers revealed that Ironwood's Semblance, Mettle, allows him to hyper-focus when decision-making. The information is so vague that fans don't know how to apply it to the show, sparking numerous debates such as whether it feels like an excuse for Ironwood's villainy. Discussions have ranged from debating when and how much it influences Ironwood to interpreting it as superpowered autism or PTSD."

Anyway, that's a third suggestion.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

I'll take that one, if that's okay, Wyldchyld.

I believe Draco in Leather Pants is for how a character is typically portrayed in fanfiction rather than the fandom at large. Like Ron the Death Eater.

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

Same goes for Ron the Death Eater, since there are fans who overplay his actions in Volumes 7 & 8 to place the blame all on him.

Sorry it just that since Roman, Neo, Adam, and Raven are posted I figured that Ironwood should have been labeled as well. Sorry if I annoyed anyone with my question.

You didn't annoy anyone. Don't worry about that. :)

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

Little late to this, but no, Draco in Leather Pants is not purely a fanfiction trope like Ron the Death Eater.

Vegeta: I'm back bitches!

He should not have changed the spelling from American English to Commonwealth English. Zaptech was correct to revert those edits back. However, Zaptech's edit reason is incorrect. The only works that require a specific spelling are ones whose settings are rooted in a specific culture (such as Harry Potter pages using British English).

RWBY is a fantasy setting, so it is not an "American English only" work. The Wiki rules are "first come, first serve" for American and Commonwealth spellings. None of us should be changing one to the other, both are valid on RWBY pages.

There's an ATT thread clarifying this subject.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

And odd comma removals.

You might want to be a little more specific.

Like why are there links to the nightmare fuel, fan related and meme pages on YMMV? And some of the stuff in the other links don't seem long enough to even warrant having their own section or feel too opinionated.

There being links to YMMV tropes with their own pages isn't anything new. Just look at the YMMV pages for My Hero Academia and Fate/Grand Order. And which pages in particular feel too bare bones or opinionated?

Vegeta: I'm back bitches!

Like I said when I removed it: Stuffed In To The Fridge is not a YMMV trope so it has no business being on the YMMV page, its a Death Trope so the Weiss example doesn't count, and it had to happen solely for a character(s) to angst over which only applies to Weiss, and only in the broad sense.

Edited by RebelFalcon Vegeta: I'm back bitches!

Huh, surprising that it's not considered a YMMV trope, considering its negative connotation. Perhaps there's some other YMMV trope that this could be put under, as there seem to be a number of people who've noted the trend.

How about Unfortunate Implications? Maybe something like:

Some feel as though Jaune's motivation and development has too often come about because women were hurt or killed. It's sparked a number of debates as to whether Pyrrha and Penny's deaths and Weiss's near-death were at least partially employed as subconsciously sexist attempts to develop him as a character. See here,here,and here.

It doesn't fall into any of the categories susceptible to the trope, so no. Subjects susceptible to Unfortunate Implications include:

• Highly controversial topics such as politics, religion, and sex.
• Subject matter related to race, ethnicity, and class.
• Anything related to the Sexual Harassment and Rape Tropes, especially those that seemingly blame a victim for their own assault.
• Allusions to historical atrocities like the Holocaust, 9/11, and the Kennedy assassination.
• Anything related to Nazi Germany and (for some) the Soviet Union.
• Stereotypes of any kind.
• Double Standards and sexism.
• Sexual orientation and trans-related material.
• Parallels between fantasy/science fiction works and the real world, especially with Fantasy Counterpart Cultures and Space Jews.
• Subject matter related to disabilities and handicapped people.
• Lifestyle choices, such as being childless, having a large family, being single or being married.
• Anything cultural, especially when handled clumsily.
• Any words that are supposed to mean one thing, but may or may not be misconstrued as another.
• A lot of Glurge tends to fall into this category, too.
• Mockery of Unacceptable Targets and Once Acceptable Targets, as well as undeserving Acceptable Targets.
• Glorification of widely reviled cultural figures.

Unless you're arguing its about sexism... in a show where the title characters are all women, the main cast has a female:male ratio of 3:2, and that part of Jaune's original character arc was going against what is considered toxic masculinity, then it's amazingly reaching. The people who largely make these complaints I've largely found to be Jaune haters or people who think he's a self-insert for Miles, and they aren't even large enough to constitute more than a Vocal Minority. It's better to just ignore them and not even trope this since it falls more under Fan Dumb. Also, none of those links aren't credible:

• This one ignores the fact that by Word of God Pyrrha was originally created to die, and that in a case of What Could Have Been, the original plan was for Jaune to be the one to kill her.
• This one only has a 61 percent upvote with even the comments leaning towards the answer being no.
• This one is a blog made by a troper who was given a ban for blatant bad faith troping, and looking at their posts under the "Jaune Arc" tag shows they are more accurately just pissed at how the finale was handled overall and projecting their hatred onto Jaune. Hell, looking at some of their other posts, you'll find they hold issue when anyone is given more prevalence over Team RWBY, acting as if them being the Title Character means they are the only main characters, since they have made posts making similar complaints about Oscar too.

The links need to not only be credible, meaning not having a higher dislike ratio than like ratio or a low upvote count, they need to not be undermined easily. This is why tumblr, reddit, youtube, and deviantart links aren't used often. Normally only legitimate articles are used for citation, with only extenuating circumstances for other links. The Faunus subplot afterall needed five links from reddit, amino, and youtube to even be considered passable, and it was only because the creators themselves acknowledged the criticism and admitted it had merit.

Edited by RebelFalcon Vegeta: I'm back bitches!

For the record, I only readded the entry with additional sources because my original entry was removed for not having more than one source. I didn’t mean any trouble. Do with it as you will.

I think they have a point with the White Fang subplot, but the main problem is with the sources. So the solution is to either remove the entry or to find more reputable sources.

I want to go to Tonio's.

Unfortunately, I don't think The Wall Street Journal or any of the regular old newspapers care about a cartoon on the web.

The White Fang plot has been on the Unfortunate Implications citations clean-up thread. The issue is not the eligibility of the example. The general thinking is that the White Fang plot is indeed an example.

The problem is with the quality of the sources. However, blog posts can potentially count if there are several of them to show that this is a general fandom feeling rather than just an individual opinion. What I can say is this: The Volume 5 DVD Commentary has the directors (Miles Luna and Kerry Shawcross) discussing it during the Chapter 10 episode commentary, and I think that does constitute a 'from the horse's mouth' option that anyone who owns the DVD or Blu Ray can access for themselves. I just listened to it to transcribe the following (I'm not going to transcribe everything they say):

So, the creators have confirmed on the DVD Commentary that they didn't think this through properly, it was originally intended to be minor, that they realised late that the subject was too important for that and understand they could have, should have, done a better job from the outset.

I think the entry needs to be rewritten, but I think a variety of blog links that show there are several examples in the fandom (and not just one), combined with a reference to the V5 DVD Commentary, might be enough. So, how about something like this? It's a little on the long side at the moment, but this is just a starting suggesting, includes the three blog posts that were listed on the citations clean-up thread (and were therefore considered okay, if other information was added) and the two YouTube links from above. That's five fandom opinions combined with a direct reference to which DVD Commentary to listen to in order to hear what the creators themselves said about it.

• Unfortunate Implications: The fandom generally regards the Fantastic Racism of the Faunus as being badly handled, including portraying the only Faunus rights organisation (the White Fang) as terrorists, which accidentally sends the message that the fight for equal rights becomes morally wrong if it's not conducted in a passive way (e.g., see some examples as follows). The creators have acknowledged in interviews that they didn't handle it well, and discuss in the Volume 5, Chapter 10 DVD Commentary how they originally planned a minor background storyline before realising that the issue is too important for that, and that they should have handled it better. They attempt to wrap-up the White Fang terrorism storyline in Volume 5 by showing the terrorists don't represent the Faunus and their fight for equality, while acknowledging in-universe and out that the subject is too complex and nuanced for easy answers.

The last sentence may not even be necessary, in which case, it could be written as follows:

• Unfortunate Implications: The fandom generally regards the Fantastic Racism of the Faunus as being badly handled, including portraying the only Faunus rights organisation (the White Fang) as terrorists, which accidentally sends the message that the fight for equal rights becomes morally wrong if it's not conducted in a passive way (e.g., see some examples as follows). The creators have acknowledged in interviews that they didn't handle it well, and discuss in the Volume 5, Chapter 10 DVD Commentary how they originally planned a minor background storyline before realising that the issue is too important for that, and that they should have handled it better.

If we agree on an example here, we can put the entry on the citations thread to double-check that it stands up there. If there's a consensus post that stands up there (in terms of the source citations), then we should have an entry that no longer needs to be fought over. What do people think?

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

I like it! My preference is the second version, since I don’t think the last sentence in the first version is necessary to the main point either.

I like the second example, but I think the idea of "passive way" could be more elaborated on. Cause one wouldn't necessarily call "protests" passive, and yet the White Fang before Ghira stepped down did conduct protests. It may also be important to mention the implications behind making the leader of the White Fang antagonists, Adam, such a negative and vile character, since even without Adam's yandere tendencies, it's really not a good look to have the leading figure of the organization be A Nazi by Any Other Name.

Vegeta: I'm back bitches!

Not only that, but Blake brings up how the Malcolm X!White Fang worked and the Martin Luther King!White Fang failed. Then we get to Adam's trailer which showed that, were it not for Adam killing humans, Blake would have lost her dad.

Not really a good sign to say "these guys are evil" then proceed to show that the good versions failed while the supposedly evil versions worked.

Edited by Psyga315

Okay, how about this:

• Unfortunate Implications: The fandom generally regards the Fantastic Racism of the Faunus as badly handled, including portraying the only Faunus rights organisation (the White Fang) as terrorists that only achieve success when led by A Nazi by Any Other Name who abusively stalks his ex-girlfriend. It accidentally sends the message that the fight for equal rights becomes morally wrong if there's any deviation from peaceful protests while also portraying peaceful protests as ineffectual (e.g., see some examples as follows). The creators have acknowledged in interviews that they didn't handle it well, and discuss in the Volume 5, Chapter 10 DVD Commentary how they originally planned a minor background storyline before realising that the issue is too important for that, and that they should have handled it better.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

That looks better.

Vegeta: I'm back bitches!

Yeah, I like this one too!

To be honest, I feel that Adam being A Nazi by Any Other Name isn't inherently a problem, but only a contributing factor to the core problem, which is that no human equivalent has been shown and most examples of racism from humans are relatively minor in comparison to the WF's actions. The only real example comparable is the humans who were shooting at them in the character short. But this wasn't even in the show itself. In the show, we have Cardin harassing Velvet in one scene, in comparison to the numerous times he targeted Jaune, Cordovin questioning Blake's character once, and one drunk man in Atlas who called Blake stupid who's easily dispatched by Weiss. If you look at these examples and ask "which side is worst"? You would likely say the White Fang, which shouldn't be the case. Both sides should be fairly terrible to each other. I say this because another series called Attack on Titan did similar ideas, only to avoid such implications due to executing it differently. But in RWBY's case it accidentally gives off the implication that the humans are relatively harmless while the true danger is from the Faunus.

Oh yeah, most definitely a Base-Breaking Character to be sure. Don't forget how the scenes end up making it seem like Villain Has a Point.

Well, we'll have to see what the fandom's like in six months time. We have no way of knowing right now.

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

Things like The Scrappy can't be discussed until six months after the last episode has aired to the general public because it requires prolonged high-level conflict in the fandom. So, for now, there's no way to know. We'll just have to see how things look in six months time.

She certainly wasn't The Scrappy in Volume 7.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

Some people would consider her to be Unintentionally Sympathetic due to her whole "MUH CLOVER" thing on top of her wanting to commit war crimes.

Is that a typo?

Vegeta: I'm back bitches!

No, as in she's sympathetic to some viewers even though the show goes out of its way to make her the Hate Sink in a manner similar to how people felt for Ironwood despite him being evil.

The show doesn't make her a Hate Sink.

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

^Exactly how much does 'some' constitute? Even then, considering what Wyldchyld said previously, given that V8 only recently finished, we should probably wait a few months to see if the reactions are prolonged or not.

Psyga 315 just because a show might go out of their way to make a certain character unlikable that doesn't mean that there can't be sympathetic attributes people liked them for. And in some cases, a series going out of its way to make a character intentionally unlikeable can often have the opposite effect. For example, I found Ironwood shooting councilman Sleet dead in front of his enforcers to ultimately be nothing more than a superfluous event there just to have Ironwood do something blatantly evil despite Sleet being powerless to stop him in the face of martial law. Mostly because it feels like it really could've been cut without changing much and seems rather dumb for his character. When he shot Oscar, they were at least alone.

I think Psyga 315 is just saying that Harriet was portrayed as being clearly in the wrong throughout the season, meaning that viewers sympathizing with her more than the writers intended (i.e. beyond acknowledging that she is well-intended, but objectively incorrect) would make her Unintentionally Sympathetic rather than it being the other way around. Hate Sink was probably hyperbole since she isn’t a completely unlikeable character, but the term does get across the point that the unlikeable qualities she had this season seemed intentional.

Definitely intentional, since the entire culmination of her role has her undergoing My God, What Have I Done? as she realizes her behavior is going to get them all killed, only for Vine to give up his life to save everyone while Elm holds her back, letting out a Big "NO!" at the realization Vine is going to die because of her mistake.

The problem I've seen people have however is that it comes too little too late for Harriet. All Volume she has largely been an antagonistic bitch, with only roughly three prior moments of possible humanization: her horror at Ironwood killing Sleet, her denying that she is grieving over Clover dying, and her breaking down when Vine reads her the riot act. Each moment however is followed by her just doubling down on her behavior: she steels herself after Ironwood walks past, she tries lashing out at Ren and then Winter to deny her grief, and she tries to kick Vine out of the cargo hold after Robyn rams their ship.

For many people, the attempt at making Harriet come across as sympathetic or pitiful fell flat because it was her fault the entire situation got to that point, that she ultimately got the more likeable Vine killed just to stop it, and that they spent all Volume making her unlikeable that to suddenly make her sympathetic felt jarring, up to and including will to bomb Mantle rather than admit she's grieving. Now, this can be corrected in the future. The fact they let her live at all and have her with Qrow, Robyn, Marrow, and Elm imply she's gonna have some relevancy and possibly undergo a more fleshed out redemption arc, but the fact of the matter is that, at this point in time, the attempt to make Harriet feel sympathetic falls flat, and that any attempts at fixing her character would be an Author's Saving Throw.

Edited by RebelFalcon Vegeta: I'm back bitches!

They left addressing Harriet's real feelings and state of mind to the very final episode. The idea of redeeming Harriet clearly is not meant for this volume. It's set up for future volumes.

I very much doubt the situation will be Author's Saving Throw, given that it's a choice to leave it for the finale. And having someone react with grief to a friend's death doesn't automatically make them 'sympathetic' or mean that the creators want the audience to switch from criticising a character to siding with them and embracing them wholeheartedly. It's the start of something for her, not the end.

Harriet and Emerald are similar characters in a sense: they spend the whole the Atlas Arc in a state of denial about their feelings and their situation. There are cracks along the way (and doubling-down is a type of crack) until someone they care about sacrifices their life just to save them, and that completely throws them. Emerald's moment came just early enough for her to be useful to the heroes in the final conflict of the volume, but still not early enough for her to address certain things. It's clear that'll be ongoing. Harriet's occurs in the actual finale, meaning that everything will have to be addressed in later volumes. It's just as clear that it'll be ongoing.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

I think the Vine example could be expounded upon by mentioning that many felt it only happened as a result of Harriet's stupidity, and that people are expressing anger that Vine was the one who had to die just as he was being more open about his emotions, while Harriet got to live despite being nothing but a Hate Sink all volume and getting everyone in the situation to begin with.

Vegeta: I'm back bitches!

Okay, so adding Vine gives us the following:

• Viewers in Mourning:
  • Volume 3 created a big impact on the fandom with the dramatic events that occurred. The villains' assault on Beacon Academy saw the deaths of popular characters such as Pyrrha and Roman, generating a range of emotional outbursts from mourning extremely popular characters and the loss off a potential Jaune/Pyrrha romance to refusal to accept they were dead, anger over how they died, and feelings that the show was getting too dark.
  • Volume 7 brought yet another wave of mourners. The fandom became very invested in the possibility of the show's first male-on-male ship with Clover and Qrow's chemistry on-screen, creating a massive backlash when Clover was instead killed off.
  • Volume 8 produced a big response from the fandom due to how the finale unfolded. Penny's death as the unexpected conclusion to her 'become a real girl' storyline caused an outcry for reasons ranging from the traumatic use of assisted suicide to fans feeling bereft of the anticipated pay-off from the storyline. Vine's death caused an outcry as it was the consequences of controversial choices made by Harriet, leaving fans feeling the wrong character had paid the price for her mistakes.

If anyone thinks they can do a better job rewriting these examples, feel free to take a stab. I'm not convinced my write-up is a particularly good one.

P.S. Why have I only just realised the text box can be expanded to a much more manageable size for writing posts?

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

Not bad. For the Volume 7 example, you might add something like The fact that the death was a result of Clover, Qrow, and Robin's collective What An Idiot moment only fueled the anger. since it played into the fandom's discontent with the death.

Eh, I'd chalk it up only to Clover's actions being What An Idiot. Tyrian was explicitly goading Robyn, and even then she only drew her bow back the moment Clover made clear he was gonna arrest Qrow just because of orders. And while Qrow claims he "made a deal with the darkness", he didn't actually work with Tyrian, rather Tyrian just pushed him around and to the two of them separately fought Clover.

Clover meanwhile is the dumbass who thought it was a good idea to arrest them mid-flight rather than do so once they landed where he'd have more room to fight, and then proceeded to focus solely on arresting Qrow over the escaped serial killer! Seriously, Clover really was Lawful Stupid up until he was dying.

Vegeta: I'm back bitches!

Whether or not each of those characters fell into What An Idiot territory is some YMMV in itself. I think the general consensus is that at least one of those characters did something pretty stupid that gave Tyrian an opening to kill. In other words, the event felt like poor writing to a lot of people, which certainly doesn't help them accept what was already a controversial death.

Okay, to try and keep the issue as neutral as possible, how about I rewrite the V7 entry like this:

• Volume 7 brought yet another wave of mourners. The fandom became very invested in the possibility of the show's first male-on-male ship with Clover and Qrow's chemistry on-screen, creating a massive backlash when Clover was killed off in a controversial fight that fans felt did not do justice to the characters involved.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

Okay, that sounds good. Though maybe add in the mention that the possibility was a false one, since it was a Relationship Writing Fumble.

Vegeta: I'm back bitches!

All right, how's this:

• Viewers in Mourning:
  • Volume 3 created a big impact on the fandom with the dramatic events that occurred. The villains' assault on Beacon Academy saw the deaths of popular characters such as Pyrrha and Roman, generating a range of emotional outbursts from mourning extremely popular characters and the loss of a potential Jaune/Pyrrha romance to refusing to accept they were dead, anger over how they died, and feelings that the show was getting too dark.
  • Volume 7 brought yet another wave of mourners. The fandom became very invested in the false possibility of the show's first male-on-male ship with Clover and Qrow's chemistry on-screen, creating a massive backlash when Clover was killed off in a controversial fight that fans felt did not do justice to the characters involved.
  • Volume 8 produced a big response from the fandom due to how the finale unfolded. Penny's death as the unexpected conclusion to her 'become a real girl' storyline caused an outcry for reasons ranging from the traumatic use of assisted suicide to fans feeling bereft of the anticipated pay-off from the storyline. Vine's death caused an outcry as it was the consequences of controversial choices made by Harriet, leaving fans feeling the wrong character had paid the price for her mistakes.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

Sure, that looks good to me.

Wait, grammer check, You put "the loss off a potential Jaune/Pyrrha romance to refusal to accept they were dead". The proper writing should be "the loss of a potential Jaune/Pyrrha romance, to refusing to accept they were dead".

Vegeta: I'm back bitches!

Good catch. I've corrected those.

If that's okay, I'll add it to the page.

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

Go ahead

Vegeta: I'm back bitches!

If anything, he could be seen as The Scrappy for being the Unwitting Instigator of Doom for the entire show.

I don't think he's a Scrappy, since a big part of Scrappies are that they have a large and vocal hatedom.

I also question whether he's unintentionally unsympathetic, since Rhodes is shown frequenting an explicitly racist hotel. He's clearly not intended to be a pure paragon of virtue but a flawed person who made a mistake.

The entry was actually worse before I removed part of it. It initially had this at the end of it.

• Fridge Logic makes him seem downright amoral, as well, because he'd found a ten year-old who was enslaved and physically tortured by her guardians, but did not think to contact the police or social services. Even if Cinder's treatment was somehow legal in Atlas (despite the kingdoms generally being portrayed as having western-like human rights laws, at least on paper), he could have easily taken her away to a better family or orphanage instead of making her put up with seven years of hell while he trained her, making his death seem almost as much his fault as Cinders.

As I gave in my reason for removing it however:

• That requires a lot of speculation as to what the laws are actually like in Atlas, and that even then it's Truth in Television that a lot of times people who takes kids from abusive homes are treated as kidnappers, and that even when social services do exist, they may do jack and shit.

Most of the entry is taking what's supposed to be an intentionally ambiguous scene and specifically applying the most negative interpretation to it for the sake of making Rhodes look bad and absolving Cinder of guilt by placing it on him. It reads like Draco in Leather Pants for Cinder and a non-fanfic version of Ron the Death Eater for Rhodes.

Vegeta: I'm back bitches!

The Hindsight clean-up thread (which addresses all the hindsight tropes, including "Funny Aneurysm" Moment) dealt with the Professor Port example because he kept getting added to Harsher in Hindsight. A commented out warning note had to be added to the page warning people that this has been dealt with on a clean-up thread and if people want to discuss it further, they need to go to that clean-up thread.

The commented out note that's on the page is:

"Please do not add Professor Port and his voice actor Ryan Haywood to the below Harsher in Hindsight trope; he was removed by the Hindsight clean-up thread and should not be re-added. Any queries about discussing this as a Hindsight example should be taken to the Hindsight clean-up thread rather than adding an entry to this page."

Adding it to "Funny Aneurysm" Moment seems like an attempt to circumvent that decision. Port should not be on the page as a Hindsight example. It needs to go to the Hindsight clean-up thread. That's where the original decision was made.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

He wasn't the scrappy, nor was he a BBC.

Vegeta: I'm back bitches!

Seconded. He's been a popular character in the fandom, who have speculated since at least V5 that he might be a defection candidate as a result.

The only controversy I've seen regarding him was the fandom's 'is that it?' reaction to the V5 reason for why he hates Ozpin. All the creators said in response to that is that there was more to the story than V5 revealed, which would be dealt with later. So, the story was always moving in this direction for Hazel.

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

Though, and this is just speculation, I imagine there may be a bit of controversy if Hazel did indeed die during his restraining Salem, namely because the Redemption Equals Death trope has come under a lot of scrutiny in recent years for being a Writer Cop Out in regards to actually redeeming a character and making them atone for their actions as a villain.

Vegeta: I'm back bitches!

Okay, just wanted to make sure. Thanks for clarifying. If I have any questions on if a YMMV trope would qualify or not, I'll ask here.

MEH is currently in the Trope Repair Shop being voted as to whether it even remains YMMV, and so far it looks to be leaning towards no longer being YMMV.

Vegeta: I'm back bitches!

Good. With how many rules are in place for what is or isn't MEH, it should no longer be YMMV.

Okay, there's been no response here so I'm going to swap this suggested entry into the YMMV page.

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

The edit suggested seems to show a narrow worldview of the fandom and ignores the idea that other countries besides Japan and the United States watch the series. Much like the United States isn't the only Western country who follows the series, Japan is also not the only country that uses chopsticks and it also ignores that there is a fandom for the show in places like China and Korea.

Edited by starjewel

>>>he edit suggested seems to show a narrow worldview of the fandom and ignores the idea that other countries besides Japan and the United States watch the series.<<<

No. Not even close. My original edit reason stated the problem was with that wording of the original post. My edit wasn't related to the fact that many Asian cultures have specific chopstick etiquette. It was based on the fact that the edit itself seemed to be driven solely by a Japanese example.

The original edit states that the complaint came from Japanese fans towards the show's creators making it a very explicit Japanese-US comparison. Conflating a single incident across as many cultures as the original entry does is a really bad idea unless the post is well worded to show that the conflation is valid. The original post was really bad at that. It was easier to narrow the entry down to the specific incident it was talking about.

Now, having an issue with the edit I made is fine and perfectly valid, but you should have said you wanted to discuss better wording instead of reverting without any edit reason. That's just an Edit War.

Further, you've actually added in new information that wasn't present in the original post, which would have completely changed my original edit had it been present in the first place. That's because your new edit now hints that perhaps other Asian fandoms were also complaining about it for the same reason. That's fine, but that wasn't the claim the original post made. Now, if it is the case, then it can be worded appropriately to reflect that it wasn't just the Japanese fandom as the original post suggests.

That sorts the Asian side of the post. This does not solve the US side of the post. Like Asia, the 'West' is made up of many different countries and cultures. Now, an overlap between multiple Asian cultures is relevant here (chopstick etiquette at the dinner table), which makes it possible to word the post in a way that generalises 'Asian cultures' for this purpose. However, the problem is that you cannot make the same overlap for 'Western cultures'.

As I told you in my edit reason, there are examples of Western countries that would also regard Ruby's actions as bad table manners. You cannot conflate the US with the whole of the West for this example because it's not true.

So, assuming that you meant for the original entry to be changed to a more general statement about how various different Asian fandoms reacted, how does the following reword sound?

• During the dinner scene in Volume 5, Ruby gestures and points at Ren with her chopsticks, which was uncomfortable viewing for fans from Asian cultures where this behaviour is regarded as rude table etiquette. Because Ruby's table manners were not perceived to be a problem within the US, where the show is made, Japanese fans suggested that Rooster Teeth should have someone on staff who can educate the creators on table manners with chopsticks.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

I added the original entry before going back to read Chinese comments (as I'm in both Japanese and Chinese fandoms as well) so it's clearly not only the Japanese fans saying this. So having it reworded is for the best.

That's fine, that's much clearer, thanks. Are you okay with my rewording? Or do you want to reword it as you're more familiar with the complaints?

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

That or Ron the Death Eater because of the people over exaggerating his villainy and assume he's basically Mecha-Stalin with an idiot chip.

Ron the Death Eater is a fanfic only trope, not just the opposite of Draco in Leather Pants.

Vegeta: I'm back bitches!

That or a case of Never Live It Down.

Memetic Psychopath or Never Live It Down requires an explaining how is an unfair, comedic for the former, fan exaggeration of the character.

Well, in the meme comps I've seen, Ironwood gets depicted as killing off random people at the drop of a hat or offscreen, all of which is played for Black Comedy. Not sure if that counts, but that's what I've seen so far.

Having watched an awful lot of people scattered around the fandom ask if anyone who knows physics can tell them if what Penny says is feasible because they have no idea about science, I don't have your confidence about that being common knowledge.

On a side note, Penny's explanation suggests that the creators were inspired by massless particles. I have a sneaking suspicion that they're trying to create a link between Ruby's Semblance and her silver eyes through a play on the phrase 'speed of light'. Yes, I am cringing as I type this, but discussing why they might have been inspired by massless particles tends not to be high school science. It might involve a certain US military experiment that was once done to see if Star Trek transporter technology could be created in real life — their description of how the real-life equivalent would work is suspiciously similar to Penny's description (with the context removed and the holes filled in with 'magic').

That pretty much sums up fantasy and science fantasy works in general — cherry-pick real life science and fill in the gaps with 'magic'. We've seen this happen with other Semblances as well (Yang's in the Companion, for example). Yes, they're mangling physics, but I also don't think they care because physics isn't so important in a setting than runs on magic and the boredom of lonely gods. Fantasy isn't a genre that has to care about how real life works if it doesn't want to, which is why it's normal for fantasy to use, abuse, and refuse real-life science as the creators desire.

My point is... given the setting we're dealing with, it's hard to know how much is them not understanding physics and how much is them dismissing it when they want 'magic' or 'superpowers' instead.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

It's pretty clear that Ruby's abilities are not remotely base doff real-life science. Also remember that very few Semblances are. Remember that we a character who can literally compress objects into her hand (Fiona), and another who can shift molten glass to solid obsidian without any heat being released (Cinder) and another character who can alter time, momentum, and gravity at will (Weiss). Semblances pretty much ignore physics. It's not really a CRF because Penny just explains how it works, not the underlying physics that let Ruby do these things. If you're going to call that a CRF you've got to call pretty much any form of magic in this setting and others a CRF.

Also, this is information from a FIRST episode so even if it counted, it shouldn't be put up until 11-28-2020.

Edited by Zaptech

@Wlydchyld Well I am a college dropout who did not major in physics so everything I know comes from K-12, and I knew immediately that Penny's explanation made no sense. But before we can even have a discussion over whose anecdotal evidence is better, I'm obligated to point out that relying on anecdotal evidence to prove your point is an informal logical fallacy. What is true within the setting is irrelevant because the explanation is not only makes no sense in universe it makes no sense out of universe as well. If Ruby has no mass when she uses her Semblance, as Penny claims, then she has no kinetic energy which means that she could not interact with the rest of the world using her speed, whether that is destroying doors or pancaking classmates into walls.

@Zaptech The issue at hand with Penny's explanation is that she attempts to use real science to justify Ruby's ability that is just plain wrong. The act of spreading out molecules does not decrease their mass. This is, again, rudimentary science. They could have literally invented a scientific concept for the show to explain this, like Mass Effect did, but instead they just threw words into a sentence. Or they could have not tried to explain it at all, like they do for every other power you mentioned, which would leave you to assume that those abilities must simply work somehow. What they did was have a character make "a statement... that is so egregiously off-the-scale in terms of inaccuracy that anyone with a high-school education (or less) and/or a cursory knowledge of the subject realizes the writers made the whole thing up." That is the definition of critical research failure taken from the page on this wiki.

I was not aware there was a blackout period on things from new episodes, so to that I will gladly concede. But if there are no reasonable objections after that date, then I would like the entry restored.

My post wasn't designed to debate the quality of the science (I think it should be clear from what I said that I agree that it's awful). Nor was my decision based on my personal anecdotal evidence; I've only seen examples of how the fandom's been reacting since removing the post, not prior to it — I always mention when I'm influenced by personal anecdotes precisely because they're only anecdotes. My comment wasn't in relation to why I removed the post, it was in relation to your assumption that everyone should know basic physics. Yes, anecdotal evidence isn't a winning argument, but I wasn't trying to make a winning argument with that observation.

As I mentioned in my post, applying the laws of real life physics to a magical setting just because something mentions molecules and mass doesn't automatically mean real life physics has been critically failed. If this was a hard-core science-fiction story, it would be easy to create a Critical Research Failure example. This is a fantasy setting where magic trumps real life science every time the two conflict (which is regularly). And that makes it extremely difficult to assume Critical Research Failure applies.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

This point is largely irrelevant but based on the testimony from the show's creators at the RTX 2013 premire, RWBY is explicitly a setting with many non-magical elements. Semblances, Dust, and the weapons are not magic. Only the maiden powers and their source are explicitly magical abilities. So your assertion that magic trumps real-life science is wrong on its face because almost no one in the setting is actually using magic.

But that doesn't matter because I'm not the one that is introducing science to the setting. The character is doing that. Penny is explicitly invoking real science in an assertion that is laughably incorrect. I can point you to dozens of entries in the Critical Research Failure page that all come from fantasy series because the setting of the story does not matter and neither does the subject under discussion. A character who makes a wild claim about any topic which is factually inaccurate is just as much this trope as a claim about science is. Such as in the original Godzilla films where a character stated that dinosaurs died out 2 million years ago, instead of 65 million years ago.

All that is required is a "mangling" of the subject matter, which you have already admitted is exactly what happened.

I think that Artistic License would likely be a better option than CRF in this case. You might want to write up a draft using Artistic License instead - though of course, keep in mind Artistic License is for how a work deviates from established science to tell the story, not quibbling over scientific inaccuracies.

I was going to suggest Artistic License – Physics originally, but I remember a discussion occurring about not using those tropes for works with magical elements that can't guarantee real-life science even when in-universe technobabble is used. I decided to hunt down the discussion first to refresh my memory, but I can't find it anywhere. I'm therefore fine with an entry being placed under ALP instead of CRF.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

Given that you both just made two separate, compelling arguments for why Artistic License - Physics would be a wholly inappropriate category for this trope, I'm going to have to insist that after the blackout date has past that it be restored as is.

May I suggest you explain your reasoning instead of leaving it for others to assume?

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

I'm pretty sure I already have: because the dialogue presented in the episode fits exactly the definition for the trope Critical Research Failure and it is comparable to many of the examples given on that page.

As Zaptech noted, Artistic License is for when the author is putting the story first and changes do not interfere with the willing suspension of disbelief. As you claimed you saw a number of people ask about this moment, that suspension is most assuredly broken. Zaptech additionally noted that AL is not appropriate for simple scientific inaccuracies, which is what is happening. Then, you noted that it's not a good category for works with explicitly magical elements before immediately before performing a 180 and saying it would probably be fine. "Techno-babble" is not at play here because there are no words being invented for the sake of the dialogue. It's all basic science being horribly misconstrued.

May I ask that you explain your reasoning for why this should be categorized under another trope? Neither of you actually offered any justification for why ALP would be a better choice. Just that you thought it would be "fine."

As I stated before, none of us know the motives of the writers. You have made the assumption that the reason the science is inaccurate is because the writers screwed up. We don't know if they screwed up or made a deliberate decision to sacrifice science.

I suggested ALP because it's the most neutral trope I know of to observe an event happened for the purpose of pushing the story along (it was used to progress the characters towards their goal) when we don't know why it happened (we don't know the writers' motives).

ALP, like all tropes, is neutral — it's neither good nor bad by default. You can trope good examples of it happening and bad examples of it happening. We can objectively say that the description of Ruby's Semblance breaks the real life laws of physics, how it breaks the laws of physics, and that the reason the description was given in the story was to progress the characters by resolving an obstacle to the completion of a plot-relevant goal.

Critical Research Failure requires us to know that the creators were trying to use real life science properly and completely screwed that up. That's really easy to know when the work is supposedly set in the real world or based in science-fiction, where the expectation is for the science to be correct. In a magical, fantasy setting it is not possible to make this assumption because it's common, and even normal, for real life science to be tossed or twisted in favour of magic or the flavour of magic.

So, given the fact that this is a magical, fantasy setting that regularly tosses away or twists real life science to suit the magic and fantasy setting, we're stuck with needing some kind of context from them regarding what they might have been thinking that we wouldn't normally need in a work with a solid expectation for science to not be tossed or twisted. Until we have that kind of guideline, we're just engaging in speculative troping about the creators. Even YMMV isn't supposed to engage in speculative troping.

I think ALP works as a suitable compromise so that the occurrence can be troped without needing to know what the creators were thinking. What I think Zaptech was saying (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) is that ALP is about what is scientifically inaccurate and how — but what you cannot do with an objective trope is make it audience reaction, such as having YMMV arguments about scientific details or speculating about the author's level of knowledge relative to educational attainment levels. You simply point out the event happened and the context in which it happened in an objective way.

If, at some point, we get something a bit more concrete that, yes, the writers screwed up and it wasn't about twisting or breaking science to fit the fantasy setting, then by all means create a CRF entry and I'll support you 100% in doing so.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

Whenever a trope has rules about when it should be applied they are clearly spelled out in the page, such as on Xanatos Gambit. Where in the Critical Research Failure page does it stipulate that we must know beyond a shadow of a doubt the writer's intent, rather than examining the body of work as is standard for every trope?

Examining the body of the work is precisely what my post is about.

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

Author intent is not part of the dialogue in a work. Nor is it required for Critical Research Failure that you prove the author did the research before writing. There's actually a whole other trope for that— Dan Browned. It really feels like you are arguing this for the sake of arguing rather than for the purposes of arriving at the truth of the matter.

You don't need an interview with a sci-fi author to know that the work is going to use real physics. If it deviates, and it's not normal for the work and its genre, it's easy to see that CRF is in action. If you're dealing with a fantasy story where 'magic' is constantly trumping real life science, you do not have a work where it's easy to claim CRF is in effect, but it is easy to say that ALP is in effect.

So, again, examining the body of the work is precisely what my post is about.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

We are not dealing with a fantasy story where magic consistently trumps science because the creators said so at RTX 2013. You are arguing in circles now.

I'm saying exactly the same thing I said at the beginning. So are you. The argument becomes circular because we're both raising the same points we've already raised.

When that happens, the best thing to do is ask for input from others to try and build a consensus. I've therefore asked for some input on ATT.

You can find my message here.

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

Having never watched this show, my understanding of the situation is this:

Critical Research Failure is about when a show gets something wrong that is so inaccurate, even a layman would know it's wrong right off the bat. The page example is Calvin saying "Bats are bugs." Nobody would need to have a lengthy explanation about why he's wrong in saying bats are bugs, we wouldn't need to discuss species categories, most people would just know for a fact that he's wrong. The fact that this Critical Research Failure entry has to go in-depth about why she's wrong, and that several people are asking if it's correct or not, says to me that this is not an example. I mean this specifically for the first part of the entry, since the second part (how can she not have mass and also exert mass) seems like just a logical Plot Hole.

I do think it would fit better under Artistic License – Physics, as it sounds to me that they were trying to use physics to have something in the story make more sense to the audience. The fact that they utterly failed is irrelevant to that, unless you're arguing that they knew that all their viewers would know they're bs'ing it and yet put in that explanation anyway.

• Edit*: To address your other replies, I don't see it being relevant at all what genre of show this is. It used physics in its explanation, i.e. a real-life concept that can be fact-checked. If the show outright says that magic is what causes the physics to differ from real life, only then would it be relevant.

Edited by Octoya

Yeah, as a rule of thumb, if you have to debate over the accuracy or popularity of a certain fact, then it's not CRF.

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

From reading it critical research failure does not apply here. What Penny describes it entirely possible and we observe it happening all the time in real life with particles. The most famous example is light, photons are massless particles or so close as to essentially be massless. I'm pretty sure they have even confirmed outside the show those particles were an inspiration for her power.

If anything it's the exact opposite of a lack of research, they've done plenty of research.

@Octoya The fact that so many people are asking if this is correct is exactly why CRF is more appropriate. Even lay people who possibly have less than cursory knowledge of the subject matter instinctively know that something is wrong with this dialogue. That's the whole point of the trope. If this is not CRF then that page requires a massive revision in the description and the removal of dozens of entries. There is nothing in-depth about the explanation I wrote. It is regurgitating grade-school science in a more concise manner.

@War Jay 77 According to whom? Where is this rule and by whose thumb is it written? So far every argument against this entry has been literally against the trope page itself. So again, I'll ask you whether or not that should be the page that needs to be revised.

@poph Your assertion is flatly incorrect. What Penny states violates the the law of conservation of mass. This, again, is grade-school science, and you are arguing that that's a matter of opinion. That this is grade-school science is not a matter of opinion, no matter how much you feel like it isn't. Providing that link where the claim the creators said this would merely change this entry from CRF to Dan Browned, because they would then be claiming they did research, but still got the answer horribly wrong.

Edited by LordKnightcon

Because the idea behind CRF is that it's basic knowledge everyone knows. If it spawns a debate over accuracy then how can we claim it to be knowledge that "everyone knows"? If you have to argue with people about how true it is, then there's enough misinformation and confusion surrounding the subject to where it's not blatantly obvious as an error, at least not to everyone in the work's audience.

See also this thread about another CRF example where people agreed with me that the amount of on-thread debate meant that the example didn't qualify as CRF.

Edited by WarJay77 Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

As others have noted even the fact it can be argued over is enough to not constitute critical research failure.

Though I'd also just like to say again that it is actually accurate. I've done a month long college course on physics including particle physics and nothing Penny said is entirely implausible. Physics is weird though meaning what one is thought in grade school can seem to contradict what you learn later. Things taught at grade school are often simplified for understanding rather than diving into all the complexities of stuff. Minute physics has a video touching upon the topic of how physics is taught here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IM630Z8lho8

Mass is a form of energy (for an example of this I'd recommend comparing the mass of the object put into a nuclear fusion reaction and the mass of the objects that come out. Note how the two do not add up meaning somehow the mass left or was added to the reaction. This is how they initially realised mass is a type of energy actually. It's also where E=mc^2 comes from, it's the rate of conversion between energy and mass.) Ruby becomes massless when she achieves super speed, thus requiring energy to do so. Meaning in theory what we see her doing is entirely possible, her mass is converted into the energy needed to achieve high speed. That is her semblance. (With some fuzziness on the specific numbers involved of course but that's the case with all of fiction I feel.)

To address the other concern of how Ruby can exert force and have momentum in this state, this also actually happens. It's actually the basis that light sails function on, sails that are pushed along by light which as previously mentioned are massless particles.

So it is possible, meaning there was no lack of research. What we are told and see here is theoretically possible. Although as someone else said an artistic lisence for physics should probably be added.

@Warjay 77 Let me take a quote from your own post in that thread: "Critical Research Failure is about things everyone should know about. Things that would take a five-second Google search at most to learn about." Fair enough. Penny's offending dialogue in that episode is that "Ruby is capable of traveling at an extreme velocity... by breaking herself down to her molecular components, thus negating her mass." Now let's type the sentence, "does spreading molecules decrease mass," into Google and see what the top result is: "Based on the animation, students should understand that the spreading apart of the molecules increases the volume but does not affect the mass of the water." This comes from a website titled middleschoolchemistry.com So now this entry satisfies both your own criteria, and the criteria set forth in the page entry itself.

@poph I'm going to stream of thought part of this reply as I watch the video you posted.

Video: "You probably learned that objects attract each other based on mass." Me: "Sure." Video: "So you probably grew up thinking that light cannot be affected by gravity because light is massless." Me: "...No. I learned in grade school that black holes generate so much gravity that light cannot escape them and that's why we can't see them. And because I was also taught critical thinking I realized light is obviously affected by gravity in some way."

So we're not off to a great start...

Video: "Velocities do not just add together." Me: "Right. They are approximations." Video: *Explains that special relativity creates a minor variance.* Me: "Who is the target audience for this video? People who never went to school?"

Unrelated, but I found it a little weird that the video then for some reason felt the need to end on an explanation regarding the difference between circumference and absolute distance, but moving on...

Your physics lesson is besides the point of Critical Research Failure. It's not about whether or not an explanation potentially exists. It's about whether or not the explanation provided by the work has any semblance to reality. A "simple five-second google search" proves that it does not.

To compare RWBY to the Calvin and Hobbes strip that makes up the example on the Trope Page, the comic strips that lead up to that moment are Hobbes starting the report by asking Calvin to just make a list of what he knows about bats.

Calvin: "They're bugs, right? Yeah. Put that down." Hobbes: *writes down '1. Bats = bugs'* "Are you sure?" Calvin: "They fly right?? They're ugly and hairy right?? C'mon! This is taking all day."

Now compare that to the dialogue that we got from Penny in RWBY. It's essentially identical in scope. She says a lot of science-y words, but when you sit down to actually think about them you very quickly realize— with only a cursory knowledge— that what she said is completely wrong.

When you see the class shout, "Bats aren't bugs!" just imagine that same class shouting, "Spreading out molecules doesn't decrease their mass!"

>> It's about whether or not the explanation provided by the work has any semblance to reality.<<<

Except we're not dealing with a setting that attempts to create a semblance of reality. We're dealing with a setting that constantly breaks our sense of reality with magical powers. Penny isn't giving a science lesson. She's explaining how a character's magical power works. Even in-universe, where characters don't interpret their personal superpowers as 'magic', the characters are listening to a description of how a character's superpower works. There is no expectation here that the scene is about scientific reality. It's clearly about the reality of Ruby's superpower and nothing else.

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

Yes we are. The dialogue is explicitly invoking real scientific terms to provide an explanation that makes no sense. It's gibberish thrown on a page.

We're talking in circles at this point. Listen, the issue was brought to ATT, and it's near-unanimous that it doesn't apply. Majority rules states it doesn't get added. So let's move on from this topic if all that is gonna happen is everyone repeating themselves ad-nauseam.

Edited by RebelFalcon Vegeta: I'm back bitches!

Edited because I didn't see the post above mine until after I posted.

I agree there's no point repeatedly rehashing the same points. It won't get anyone anywhere.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

How does that even work? There's been zero back and forth debate. Not one person has refuted any argument I've put forth on here. All that has been said in response is the equivalent of, "Well I personally disagree," over and over again. Wyldchyld has consistently and repeatedly revisited talking points that I have already addressed while bringing nothing new to the table. This is the dictionary definition of bad faith debate.

Is all it takes to get an entry stricken from a page is baselessly arguing against it for long enough?

Edited by LordKnightcon

Your points have been addressed just as much, and other tropers have been brought in and argued against your points, so it's not just Wyldchyld. In the event of a trope being debated as to whether or not it gets added, then Majority Rules takes effect. Right now, not posting it is the majority. So it's best the topic be moved on from lest the Mods come here yet again. This fandom already has a bad enough reputation with the Mods, and we don't need to exacerbate the situation when it's been made clear you are the only one arguing for the trope to be added. Majority rules stands, ATT made clear that it is not proper use of the trope, end of discussion.

Vegeta: I'm back bitches!

@Rebel Falcon "This fandom already has a bad enough reputation with the Mods,"

Given the direction you've taken this thread, that doesn't at all surprise me.

Direction I've taken it? I only came in because this thread has been just people repeating things ad nauseum with nothing changing. Don't try and pass the blame off to me when everyone is telling you it doesn't apply and you refuse to listen. This is how the site works. If ATT is brought in, it becomes a case of Majority Rules. And the majority is that it doesn't work. Don't like it? Deal with it. I've run out of patience dealing with you. The example does not fit. Now drop it or I will report you to the mods myself for making inflammatory comments towards other tropers.

Vegeta: I'm back bitches!

@Rebel Falcon, thank you.

• There are those fans who feel Ironwood's Face Heel Turn at the end of Volume 7 has made him one of these, pointing out that while his plan to abandon Mantle is framed as a Moral Event Horizon, no viable alternatives are presented beyond fighting what may be an unwinnable battle, and that his futher villainous actions were poorly handled attempts to hide this fact by making him as unsympathetic as possible, argualy to OOC levels. In the same vein, they argue that Team RWBY are Designated Heroes because their plan potentially risks the destruction of both cities.

There, how's that? Does it sufficiently avoid hurting anyone's feelings?

"In a world without gold, we might have been heroes!" — Edward "Blackbeard" Thatch.

I think it's fine. I'll pitch this to the RWBY discussion thread to see if there's any further tweaking.

This still seems to ignore that he is flat out planning to abandon Remnant, not just Mantle, and saying the further actions are OOC when he is established as far back as Volume 3 as being willing to shoot his own men if they pulled what Qrow did. It was Played for Laughs at the time, but it as such is still consistent with the fact that Ironwood is willing to shoot someone just for opposing him, since all Qrow did was pick a fight with Winter and break two Atlesian Knights... that's it. And Glynda points out the only reason it escalated as far as it did is because Winter took Qrow's bait and initiated the fight. Yet rather than actually chastise Winter, he does so to the one he has no control over and more accurately pissed him off. So him shooting Oscar and killing Sleet do fall in line with his characterization.

• And yes, she did. Qrow was goading her, but she's the one who drew her weapon first. He didn't draw Harbinger until after she had tried to stab him in the face, meaning, technically speaking, Winter started the fight by giving into his taunts.

This really feels like a severe case of Draco in Leather Pants for Ironwood, since people try to either justify his turn to villainy -with the excuse of "bad writing", or downplay his actions to give him some level of moral superiority. Especially when there are options aside from fucking off into the sky, namely, evacuating Atlas and Mantle and fleeing Solitas, which, even if still a hail mary, is more feasible than just fucking off into space and letting the rest of the world die. But no, the only course of actions is The Elites Jump Ship and hoping you have enough food, power, ammo, and control to actually survive up there for more than a month.

This doesn't mean the gang are in the right, since their plans are poorly thought out, and I believe the narrative is intentionally doing this so that, when Atlas does fall, and it shouldn't need to be sad that Atlas' fall is an inevitability, they'll be forced to look back at their decisions and start asking themselves: "What did we do wrong?", effectively being a wakeup call that, while opposing Ironwood's plans was a good thing, their not having a good enough plan isn't better.

---

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13639868050A17401700&page=2769 This is the thread by the way.

Edited by RebelFalcon Vegeta: I'm back bitches!

I frankly think it's far too early to think about Designated Villain. He only became a Hero Antagonist at the end of last volume with a debat existing in the fandom as to whether he's a Hero Antagonist or villain from his declaration of martial law onwards. While people have been much more on board with thinking of him as a villain since Volume 8's first episode, we're only three episodes into Volume 8. Right now, he's had barely any time as a villain at all. It's nowhere near enough time to see if he's being portrayed as a real villain or a designated one.

Yes, it's a YMMV item, but the character actually needs some time in the role of a villain before people have a portrayal they can interpret. Using feats from where he was sliding from hero towards villain isn't going to be a 'real' villain portrayal because he isn't a full-blown villain at these points. That's not Designated Villain. That's Jumping Off the Slippery Slope. The original entry is just premature troping to complain about part of the fandom.

I'm not saying that Designated Villain won't become relevant or that people will view him that way after he's been portrayed as a villain for a little while. What I'm saying is that it's not going to hurt people to wait a few weeks to see how he's actually being portrayed.

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

Yes Rebel his actions would also abandon everyone else in Remnant. But then again it’s not like the other kingdoms have a immortal witch hot coming to their doorstep to start causing mayhem. I get your point but the other kingdoms aren’t really relevant to the overall situation they were faced with.

And your point about his actions not being OOC seems like a bit of a stretch. Your taking his hyperbolic statement towards Qrow as evidence that he would shoot his own men, when he has never been shown to actually do so at that point in the story. And while he did indeed do this in Volume 7 conflating that to his character in the past is ignoring the context that it’s after a period of time where Ironwood’s sanity has been put through the wringer, in part due to his trauma over the events of the Fall of Beacon. There’s not much evidence there to believe that Ironwood, before the fall, would have done something as ruthless as that so it doesn’t seem like a strong case.

And it seems like your downplaying Qrow’s actions to make his anger sound less reasonable. While yes, Winter took the bait and engaged in fighting him, it still doesn’t change the fact that he intentionally goaded her into doing it in the first place.

Which isn’t really a good thing since a professional Huntsman goading another to fight them in public, during a international event, at a school, isn’t really a good look for the people who’s job are to protect the people from monsters. Which could breed doubt and insecurity in the public, which is just asking for Grimm. Overall Ironwood had legitimate reason to be angry at Qrow for what he did.

I've removed it for that reason. If someone does try to readd it, we'll probably have to put a note in place.

Edited to add: I didn't read your post properly and didn't realise it's been removed twice previously. I've added a note to the page. Feel free to edit the note if you feel it can be better worded. I'm never sure what to say when it comes to these things.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

I've tried to respond to this all day but the stupid thing wouldn't let me, so I'll just add this:

Yeah, this seems like a big case of Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment considering its an ongoing issue rather than something like with Joel or Kathleen.

Vegeta: I'm back bitches!

It is just so insubstantial, fluffed up by weasel words. The core idea is that RWBY has a hatedom on You Tube. Has the show been panned by any non-RWBY focused critics? Do I have really have to search You Tube myself to know that?

There was H.Bomberguy who did a video on RWBY

There were a few anime reviewers who seem to think the show is avenge at best.

I think this fots honestly.Maybe cut the part about the fans being terrible since thhat as noting to do with the trope.

RWBY does seem to have an issue with Complaining About Shows You Don't Watch, especially when it seems like certain viewers only make RWBY videos for the sake of views. Before H.Bomberguy there was Jello Apocalypse with his series So This Is Basically..., when beforehand there was never even any indication he knew about the series, and only did it because his patrons voted for it.

Yeah, there are a good chunk of youtubers who just hate on the show for views.

Vegeta: I'm back bitches!

I wouldn't be so hasty to say that anyone who critiques RWBY only does it for the views, since that encourages the mentality of "oh, who cares what they say, they didn't watch the show despite the video clearly showing proof that they have."

I didn't say anyone, I was specifically mentioning there are certain people who only make the videos for the views. There ARE actual critiques amidst the youtubers, it's just quite a bit of them seem to only make them FOR the views. Especially when there are signs in the videos themselves that the person didn't pay attention while watching. Jello Apocalypse DID watch the show as by his own admission he recommended Volume 6 and had apparently auditioned for Volume 7, but even then he only made his video because his patrons voted for it, meaning he was effectively PAYED to make it, and there is no indication he would have made it otherwise. And as Kylotrope/Snoketrope detailed on the forum, H.Bomberguy had quite a bit of Critical Research Failure and had a bad habit of Accentuate the Negative in regards to certain things just to pad out a two hour run time.

Edited by RebelFalcon Vegeta: I'm back bitches!

There was also Jesu Otaku and fatmanfalling (He did a Mr. Plinkett style long form review of the series), as well as Draco Lord Nick 67, TheLaserLord, adel aka (who believes the characters need total re-writes), Unicorn of War, Vexed Viewer, Hero Hei, lelzer and a few more I probably missed.

My point with the Critical Dissonance is that these critics often make very hyperbolic claims. They state that the show is a failure, the latest season is RUINED Forever, ect. on top of often expressing Fan Hater sentiments. (Those weasel words were not mine. I do not agree with the critic's statements, I was merely summarising them)

Despite constant doomsaying from these critics though, the show seems to be doing well for itself, which I believe is the definition of Critical Dissonance, is it not? When a show is successful despite being panned?

EDIT: Also, yes, I have seen a lot of bad faith, Did Not Do The Research critics as well, but my point wasn't so much that the critics are bad, more that their view doesn't seem to match the wider fanbase's. At least, not to the extent they express it.

Edited by Giantleviathan

I think my question about Critical Dissonance would be this: what does the trope mean by critics?

I think most of the names everyone's listed here are just content creators, rather than real critics (which is an actual professional job). So, does Critical Dissonance cover content creators or is it supposed to be aiming towards actual, professional critics?

Even a show like RWBY has professional reviewers... albeit not necessarily easy to find. I just did a Google search to see how easy it would be to find examples, and there are some out there (one example of a positive review of Volume 7 by a professional reviewer and one example of a negative report of RWBY merchandise — this one's notable as the reporter lists some of the big RWBY names (including a couple mentioned above), but regards them as fans who are airing complaints and not as professional critics).

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

I know at least one small time youtuber who did a rwby review out of nowhere and at least one person who reviews the show despite not having seen an episode for at least two seasons (who reacted badly to being called out), so i would say there IS some demographic that's of reviewing it for views or out of spite. I also found an open letter from a former moderator on the rwby critic reddit who resigned because of the critic culture.

Edited by strange_idea

@Wyldchyld I think "critic" can include "amateur" critics as well. The Professional Wrestling folder for example, is almost exclusively the opinion of amateur critics. Plus, the "amateur" term is a bit of a misnomer too, since many of them do make money off of their videos.

Yeah, I'm not judging. I just wanted clarification.

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

As stated in my edit reason, my issue with the entry is the fandom civil war aspect of BBC. I'm certainly not objecting to him being the most contentious character in the show, but half the entry just isn't relevant to BBC because it's not being fought over to BBC levels — mostly, it's not fought over at all. I'll explain that:

The entry is acting like the war is between people who like Adam because he's a Hate Sink and people who hate Adam for being badly written based on certain imagery. Now this entry focusses on minority cultures. We recently had a discussion on the RWBY forum about a YouTube review that made IRA comparisons (poor ones, was the widespread feeling).

My point is that there is extremely widespread agreement that Adam and the White Fang have been badly written in the show and that issues of equality, minority rights, and terrorism are not well-handled by this show. It's such a pervasive feeling in the fandom that the creators have been forced to acknowledge it and agree they handled it badly. By comparison, people who like Adam uncritically, as if there's nothing wrong with the way he's been written, are not widespread.

The entry eventually gets around to the problem (in a throw-away parenthesis) that some fans thought Adam was going to be portrayed in one fashion and felt the show did a complete 180 on his character versus those fans who feel the signs were all there from the beginning. However, both sides tend to agree that he was handled badly. It's therefore a 'derailed character' versus 'consistently portrayed' debate, which does cause widespread fandom splits. That's the bit I can see being a BBC, the rest of the entry, however? Not a BBC issue.

This is just off the top of my head so would need a rewrite anyway, but this is an example of where I think a BBC entry may be salvageable:

• Base-Breaking Character: Adam Taurus is inarguably the most contentious male character in the show. Introduced as a terrorist who is willing to kill humans, he is described early on by Blake as warrior for Faunus equality who fell from hero to monster so gradually, his violent actions initially could be explained away as "accidents". However, from the moment he confronts Blake at the end of Volume 3, he's portrayed as an obsessive Pyscho Ex Boyfriend who never had any interest in equality, was always out to spite humanity for the pain he's suffered, and is willing to abandon everything he's worked for just to make Blake pay for leaving him. The fandom tends to split into a camp that feels there were signs of this all along and a camp that feels this came out of the blue, thus derailing the character from what was originally perceived to have been the show's best candidate for a nuanced exploration of minority rights.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

Any comment i make on this matter would ultimately be taking a side, so i don't know if i'm qualified.

FYI, Emerald-Theorem has been suspended for textbook edit-warring. This was not the first time they had a temper issue against their edits on this page being deleted, making it clear that they are not the negotiating type.

"They played us like a DAMN FIDDLE!" — Kazuhira Miller, Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain

The issue I take with @Wyld Chyld statements is it's an unqualified claim. It's easy to claim that one or another side of a broken base is "the minority". But the fact that there is an edit war at all seems pretty evident of a broken base.

^^ In fairness to Emerald Theorem, I have engaged with them about rewriting edits before, so we have negotiated over edits in the past.

Well, an Edit War doesn't automatically mean that. Sometimes it's more about what goes on here than in a fandom.

However, you're right. It is an unqualified statement. I honestly don't know the best way to measure what classifies as a fandom civil war beyond my experience. Obviously, my experience isn't the total sum of the fandom, and it is a difficulty that exists with both BBC and Broken Base.

I do, however, think the original entry is complaining too widely, and the real issue is lost in the middle of it. It did come across to me as complaining rather a genuine BBC entry originally, which is why I removed it. However, after reading it again, I do think that it is salvageable. It just needs a rewrite. I suggested one rewrite above, but that was an example off the top of my head — I'm not expecting that to be the entry that gets used.

Ultimately, BBC comes down to a consensus, and I will always go with the majority. So, if everyone does feel that the original entry has no problems, then I'm happy for that to be the end of it.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

I'd be fine with a rewrite so long as the overall point is maintained.

Vegeta: I'm back bitches!

Do you want to have a go at a rewrite? I don't mind giving it another. If I do, what overall point do you want maintained — I ask just to be absolutely clear so that I don't lose the overall point if I try another rewrite.

Of coure, if someone else wants to try a rewrite, I've got no problem with that either.

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

The overall point that should be maintained is how Adam's character was handled. There is of course the argument over his trailer depiction vs. Vol. 3 and on in terms of consistency, but there's also the divide over his character in general and whether or not he was wasted.

Vegeta: I'm back bitches!

Okay, how is this as a starting point?

• Base-Breaking Character: Adam's portrayal is extremely contentious as the fandom strongly disagrees over the consistency in his portrayal. He is introduced in the Black Trailer as a powerful warrior who looks after Blake even as he robs trains and doesn't care about collateral loss of life. In the show, Blake describes him as a hero who gradually fell into extremism while fighting for Faunus equality. However, his confrontation with Blake during Volume 3's Battle of Beacon solely focusses on his abandonment issues, portraying him as a domestic abuser who intends to punish Blake for leaving him and who never believed in Faunus equality. The fandom is split between those who feel he's consistently portrayed as a character whose full truth is revealed over time to both Blake and the audience, and those who feel there's such a dissonance in this characterisation that he was derailed from a potentially interesting equal rights extremist into a one-dimension abusive stalker with wasted potential.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

A good start. It may also be a good idea to mention how, because he IS the face of the White Fang, it carries with it some Unfortunate Implications in how homicidal/genocidal he comes across when the White Fang ARE a minority group fighting for change rather than just flat out terrorists, especially when in Volume 5 he starts speaking of "Faunus Supremacy" and wears a very nazi-esque outfit. Since another issue with the divide is whether or not he is a good reflection on minority rights movements or if he's even meant to be one.

Vegeta: I'm back bitches!

To be fair, this has actually happened to a number of movements, and he's not presented as representing the views of faunus as a whole, he even starts killing off other members of the group because they aren't so extreme as himself. He's introduced opting to lie to the fang in order to maintain an ally. Blake even calls him out as not caring about the white fang and sierra exist to set him apart from even the 'well intentioned extremist' that the they thought he was.

I'd argue he really ISN'T meant to be the face of the white fang. Additionally, AS we discussed in the forum, the implication that a 'righteous' cause would be justified no matter their motivation and no matter the length they go to is another problem, something a number of historic revolutionaries have commented on.

Also, plenty of people have pointed out that brushing over or even excusing the heavy emotional abuse of a charismatic leader is not only a bad implication but an unfortunately realistic one.

^^ Well, we can't go the route of invoking Unfortunate Implications because that's a citation required item. I also don't think that's base breaking issue because most people agree that's an issue, regardless of whether they're on one side or other of the consistency debate. It was such a widespread feeling that the creators were forced to acknowledge it.

So, perhaps there's a trope or YMMV item that can cover that issue separately. In fact, given that the creators were forced to acknowledge it, perhaps we can address that in an actual Unfortunate Implications example with an accompanying citation?

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

Yeah, I feel like it should be just so that everyone's on the same page.

OK lemme try this then.

Broken Base: Team JNR and their handling after Volume 3 have been the center of an ever-growing argument about whether or not they should still be part of the series as it goes on, which intensified after Volume 6. Jaune has always been at least partly controversial due to his rocky beginnings with the Jaundice arc, and while the fires have lessened in the years since he still invites disucssions due to a belief that he was the only character allowed to extensivley mourn Pyrrha following her death, something Ren and Nora weren't allowed to do themselves due to screentime limitations. Ren and Nora have also invited discussions about their continued presence in the cast, as both at times are criticised for their lack of importance within the main plot, that neither ever contributes much to group fights, and lack of serious growth or development outside of Volume 4. Following Volume 6, a growing trend of wishing that at least Ren and Nora should have stayed in Argus to thin out the cast began to surface, with detractors arguing that they're only adding to the series' issues with cast bloat, while fans of the trio feel that they're too important for the show to leave behind now, and that any attempts to do so would feel arbitrary and forced.

That looks good. I'd also probably mention something about their involvement in V7 when the embargo lifts.

A few things. For starters this could use some proofreading due to some grammar issues. Then there's the fact that they do mourn Pyrrha on screen, it's just not to the extent Jaune does, since the end of Volume 4 has them joining Jaune as he laments her death, and the entire scene at Argus' statue being about her too. There's also the fact that their characters do progress in Volume 7, with 7 being the first real development for Nora, and furthering Ren's development. As for the contribution to group fights, it was thanks to Ren that the Argus Limited could escape the Manticore swarm, and it was largely Nora who managed to hold off Hazel at the Battle of Beacon after Ozcar got too tired and Weiss was still injured.

Vegeta: I'm back bitches!

In the places I've been (which is hardly everywhere), I've never seen a fandom war over this. Yes, I've seen people disagree and discuss it, but not in any kind of base-breaking way. Where does that level of fandom split crop up? How widespread is that level of disagreement?

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

As far as I'm aware, it's an issue that is discussed but not a deep, divisive issue with no middle ground, which is one of the defining elements of a Broken Base.

Personally, I think it needs a bit of a rewrite. It comes across as complaining as it currently is. Among other things, it's incorrectly describing the role of the Grimm invasion of Volume 7 (the Grimm aren't a massive plot point that cause the end-game. They're one of several tools used by the villains to contribute to the end-game).

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

Yeah, but the whole point was the endgame. "The Grimm are overruning Mantle, we need to continue evacuating them!" "Lol, no. Arrest them".

That wasn't the end-game.

The Grimm invasion was never the point of the volume. The point was for Salem to have an unexpected arrival at a kingdom whose resources were exhausted and whose defenders were divided.

The Grimm invasion was a tool used to exhaust the kingdom's military defences and distract the defenders from realising that Salem was destroying the long-range sensors to hide her approaching army. It was also one of several tools that was supposed to contribute to the kingdoms defenders becoming too divided to protect the kingdom when Salem arrived. In this third point, it actually failed, but it succeeded on the other two points.

The heroes thought the Grimm invasion was the point. They thought they were dealing with another Beacon scenario: Salem's subordinates being sent into the city to cause an invasion that will allow the school to be destroyed. They didn't know that the villains' plan was different this time, that this was about prepping the kingdom for Salem's arrival.

Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

But the Grimm Invasion was the reason why the heroes were getting divided. It was the tipping point for Ironwood (he was freaking out because he thought Salem wanted him to get Mantleans onto Atlas) and RWBY's group.

No, the Grimm invasion was the reason the heroes came together. Remember how frustrated Tyrian became that they were uniting instead of dividing?

Cinder's little mind-game in Ironwood's office is the reason that alliance started falling apart. She was the reason that Ironwood started second-guessing and reinterpreting everything. The discovery that Yang and Blake had leaked intel about Amity to Robyn helped cement Cinder's mind-game.

The reveal that the Grimm invasion had been used to distract the kingdom from learning the long-range sensors were off-line to hide the approach of Salem's army until Salem was ready to announce her presence was then the final straw that convinced Ironwood they'd run out of time and that it was now his way or the highway.

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

The current version is this:

• Despite everything, the Grimm themselves barring very specific exceptions (the Apathy specifically) are usually seen as a joke. They barely ever get onscreen kills or even do significant damage to the heroes, and most Grimm fights are curb-stomps in the heroes' favour. Intentionally or not, it undersells the Grimm's threat-factor in the world at large that they lose their fights, and subsequent attempts to make them scary again have either been seen as isolated successes (again, the Apathy) or are undershot later in the series (the Goliaths in Volume 7 after being built up in Volume 2). The Leviathan Grimm from Volume 6 has gotten this the worst thanks to its derpy design from some angles and, despite its immense size, how little it actually does before Ruby uses the Silver Eyes to weaken it and Cordovin finishes it off. The breaking point for some is that, despite it being a massive plot point that causes the endgame of Volume 7, the Grimm are still easy to take care of and come off more of a nuisence to the civilians than a serious threat.

Part of the problem with the entry is that it reads like it's complaining, rather than showing how it's an example of a meme. A Memetic Loser is a character who, no matter how badass they are, they're still memed as being pathetic or weak. The vast majority of the entry can be cut out completely. I propose rewriting it:

• The Grimm are presented as a dangerous force in-universe, with frightening visual designs and unsettling behaviors. However, because they get frequently slaughtered in the majority of fight scenes without seriously harming anyone, a lot of fans have joked about them being akin to the Stormtroopers from Star Wars or other ineffectual, easily-stomped Mooks.

This is short, simple, and straightforward, and doesn't read like a lengthy analysis but rather an example of a meme.

Edited by Zaptech