YMMV Steven Universe Discussion

Collapse/Expand Topics

06:18:20 PM Nov 2nd 2015
edited by Raidrik
I really do feel the whole Zamii070 incident needs to be mentioned in some form. Seems to be a delete-add war brewing around. I feel that as a very notable occurrence, both in the fandom and from outside perspective; it does deserve some mention. Some mention, nothing hugely explicit, but no sweeping it under the rug. Nothing informality, but notation should be accepted without getting deleted by the next edit. This is YMMV, not "Your Mileage My Vary as You Want It To". Like it or not, it IS important because it involved a huge portion of the fan base with both transgressors and defenders, even getting the show staff involved.
01:23:16 AM Nov 3rd 2015
There has to be a way to stop these pages from becoming battlefields. I've put a note in.
07:14:30 AM Nov 3rd 2015
edited by RavenKingSage
I see no reason why it shouldn't be mentioned here. It's been a big deal in the fandom. Honestly it looks bad on TVT's part that people keep removing it, because it looks like "oh we don't want people to know about this" and that you're seriously defending people who nearly bullied someone to death for their show. This issue, that is, whether or not she deserved to be bullied, isn't really an issue you should be neutral on.
09:47:03 AM Nov 3rd 2015
edited by MagBas
It sounds as a Fan Dumb example, and Fan Dumb is listed is Flame Bait, meaning that this can not be listed.
05:06:45 PM Nov 3rd 2015
I have to agree with Mag Bas, but I see where you're coming from Raidrik and Raven King Sage. The issue is definitely not something that should be ignored or thrown under the rug by anyone.
11:31:21 PM Nov 3rd 2015
Um, we don't have to mention that stuff at all. Especially since we can't help anybody here.
06:06:22 AM Nov 4th 2015
I think if it gets mentioned at all, it should be put along with other things the fandom has done as a reason for the Fan Haters trope being placed.

The SU fandom has had tons of shit being done in it's fandom, and everywhere, even on tumblr, there's an enormous outrage with how the people flocking to this show treat others. It wouldn't be inappropriate, imo, to have some mention of how the fans are seen.
02:32:12 PM Nov 9th 2015
Way I see it, it's kind of too big to end up ignoring even actively so. I mean, from now on whenever anyone explains why they dislike the fandom the incident's gonna come up. That doesn't mean examples of that WILL make it in, since this wiki doesn't exactly catalogue fandom hate, but it ends up being necessary at some point or another, to explain some things.

And depending on the creators' response it pretty much HAS to go in, what with Why Fandom Can't Have Nice Things. Either way, it's gonna end up inside, but let's not go out of our way to list it.
02:10:44 AM Nov 10th 2015
It's significant to the point that the creators got involved, and it sorta made Internet infamy. It deserves to be recorded for historical purposes at the least, and possibly so that future fans don't make the same mistake ("Those who do not know history's mistakes are doomed to repeat them", etc).
12:31:34 AM Nov 14th 2015
edited by Vi47
I further agree that some further notation is needed. If the creators got involved, it's a big enough deal that it needs mention. Almost every other YMMV or Trivia page for larger fandoms has some notation about the darker side and incidents within the fandom, deleting it here IS just sweeping it under the rug and acting like nothing is wrong. History is doomed to be repeated by those who don't heed it. Tvtropes is a reservoir of information for a lot of people and this would just be doing what TV Ts has been doing all this time.

As it stands, this is probably THE biggest event within the fandom that has occurred, causing many conflicts within the SU fan base (both internally with Transgressors vs. Defenders and explaining why many other fandoms now have a tainted relationship with SU). Leaving it out not only ignores probably the biggest problem the fan base has had, but also an explanation as to why things are the way they are between the SU base and others.

It's been about two weeks since the drama hit its peak, I think we can pen something now without it being provocative; just informative.
01:37:15 AM Nov 14th 2015
We strongly prefer not to have information on Internet controversies though, as it tends to drag us into the controversy. And it has nothing to do with tropes.
08:19:03 PM Nov 14th 2015
Well, except when it does, with some of the semi-outside-the-work stuff like creator breakdowns, take-thats, why fandom can't have nice things, things inspired by events outside the actual show and everything.

It'll be added when it becomes relevant to those, naturally. And my guess is it will.
04:12:04 PM Nov 19th 2015
Even if adding it were permitted, the only relevant trope here is Fan Dumb, which as mentioned is flamebait.

What else are you gonna put it under? It's not Why The Fandom Cant Have Nice Things unless the writers pull up stakes and quit the show over it.

Internet Backdraft is about backdraft specific to the show, non? This is fans being shitty to other fans. The show is only tangentially related.
11:41:52 PM Oct 15th 2015
On the Creator's Pet entry: doesn't that trope require a large majority of the fanbase to hate them? Pearl has a very large and devoted fanbase.
09:27:18 PM Oct 3rd 2015
edited by Codex
How is Connie worrying about her optametrist finding out about her healed eyesight narm? That's a completely valid concern.
01:33:40 PM Oct 17th 2015
She ISN'T worrying about her optometrist, which is why it's narm.

I mean, come on, she explicitly mentions how her eyesight was healed about a year ago, and her mother never notices, and she's worried about her mother finding out. The narm comes into play because she never mentions how her optometrist would react, given that you'd think her eye doctor would know more about it than her mother. How would she hide it from her optometrist?

That's where it gets narmy. She isn't concerned about her optometrist.
04:20:50 AM Oct 18th 2015
Her optometrist doesn't even play a role in the series, so I don't know why she (or the writers) would make such a big fuss over it, aside from one line.
07:31:00 PM Oct 18th 2015
It's more to do with her NOT being concerned, because...seriously, there's some major Fridge Logic involved with that.
10:02:37 PM Sep 27th 2015
There is no confirmation Peridot actually started or participated in the Cluster experiments on the on-set, much less knew a lot about the Gem Wars on Earth, given her confusion a la "the Crystal Gems?" during her introduction to them. Isn't it jumping the gun to say that she should be considered morally responsible for them? It always struck me more that she was just checking up on the experiments but otherwise had no more direct involvement, and so I feel like she shouldn't really be held accountable, and these can be edited out.
04:16:44 PM Oct 1st 2015
The most recent episode, When it Rains, confirms that Peridot was NOT present for the creation of the forced fusion experiments. I would, however, like to hear a counterargument before deciding whether or not to edit the page.
06:19:15 PM Oct 1st 2015
I was actually just about to remove that entry. "Catch and Release" and "When It Rains" make it clear that she had no part in the experiments and wasn't actually trying to reactivate Kindergarten. Given the nature of this particular trope I think it makes more sense to remove it, even if it is YMMV and that was the fanbase's initial reaction. The whole point of a Moral Event Horizon is that you can't return from it.
06:30:13 PM Oct 1st 2015
I edited the entry and a few similar ones.
08:20:11 PM Jun 15th 2015
This is just a trivia thing but it's not really that surprising that Nicki Minaj can act considering she went to school for drama...
07:16:33 PM Jul 13th 2015
Meh, I didn't think she was that great.
02:35:41 AM Mar 13th 2015
One of the storyboarders confirmed that Ruby/Sapphire was supposed to be romantic. Is their subtext still allowed to be under Les Yay?
01:26:05 AM Mar 5th 2015

This reads more like complaining about the actual episode than mentioning the subplot as the idea that went to waste, which is not what the They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot trope is about. (It even says "Note that this does not include those plots/ideas you dislike in an otherwise well-written story/well-made game/etc.") The fact that this is not the first or last time that the Gems have had an offscreen mission also raises suspicion that it's only going off of their mission and using that as means of getting the episode to fit the trope in the first place. Why exactly is that one instance listed on here and not, say, the Gems fighting a living island in "Cat Fingers?" If it's because Cat Fingers wasn't a "Wangst-filled teenage romance plot," then that kind of is complaining about the given plot while using something occasionally mentioned as the "Perfectly Good Plot" to say that it was wasted.

I and another editor have removed this before for almost the same reason (with an additional one that focusing on the Gems without Steven in any way might be contrary to what the show is about, but this alone is not grounds against the bullet point) but it was added back as it's fan consensus that they wanted the episode to be more about the Gem's underwater mission. Even if the majority of fans did not like the episode (unpopular episodes are not a trope as far as I know, the closest being Wall Banger or Dethroning Moment of Suck but neither of them are for YMMV pages), that's still not a reason to misuse They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot to list it. Again, the trope is about a good storyline idea that either never went anywhere or was executed poorly, not when one storyline is completely sidelined over another that people don't like as much. It's kind of like (though this is admitedly an exaggeration, it's the closest fit I can think of) going to the YMMV page for Super Smash Bros., making an entry under They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character for Geno/Waluigi/Ridley/etc, and saying that instead of them, there's Dark Pit/Diddy Kong/whatever hated character of note. It's probably a common fan opinion that pops up (a lot of people do want Ridley at least and Dark Pit and Diddy are Scrappies at least in the west), and under the list for subjective fan opinions, but it's not a real Waste since TWAPGC is about a character's spotlight or story role being executed poorly and not a less-liked alternative being in their place.

To summarize, this seems to be misuse, or at least more complain-ish than necessary. Is it?
03:09:41 PM Nov 16th 2014
edited by
  • Alexandrite, big time. Some fans kept on complaining on how her design was lazy and her color scheme was odd, even though actual alexandrite is a pink gemstone with shades of green. This, coupled with a disagreeing statement made by Pearl, garnered a lot of criticism. Said criticism itself is fairly divisive in whether or it was justifiably pointing out contradictions between episodes or downright harassment towards a particular writer (who ended up deleting his Tumblr account) over a fairly minor detail.

I think that everything in bold is not really necessary. Base Breaker is all about a controversial element within the show, not the controversy over how the fans discuss said element with the writer over Tumblr.

07:17:38 PM Jul 13th 2015
I agree. Everything that is bolded there isn't really needed.
Collapse/Expand Topics