a ymmv on the rapelay page

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RapeLay

Complete Monster: You rape a woman and her two daughters, and afterward, force them to have sex not just with you but your partners too, with the explicit task of making them your sex slaves. Critical Dissonance: The Something Awful review is just one of a couple "negative" reviews lying about. Crosses The Line Twice

Why are these ymmv tagged? I hope, for the sake of my faith in humanity, that we can all agree that rape is wrong, so why tag these at all?

The player character can never be a Complete Monster, by definition. So it does not apply.

so it should be axed then.

edited 8th Feb '11 4:30:20 PM by thatguythere47

BTW, it's not the examples per se, it's the use of subjective tropes that gets tagged. You can make a YMMV subpage and move 'em.

edited 8th Feb '11 4:31:19 PM by Fighteer

Actualy, the description of Complete Monster says nothing about one player character can not be one Complete Monster, only says their acts can not be glossed out or put in one positive light.

edited 8th Feb '11 4:47:29 PM by MagBas

Presumably the people who buy and play rapelay won't regard the player character as a Complete Monster.

Can't a Villain Protagonist be a Complete Monster?

Also, I doubt that even those interested in the game consider rape to be moral, so much as it's kind of a turn-on.

edited 8th Feb '11 5:26:04 PM by Iaculus

But a Complete Monster isn't someone who's merely immoral.

As for why it should be on the YMMV tab (if anyone cares to move it back), it's a rule. Complete Monster does require a subjective judgement, even if in the case of Rape Lay most of us would agree.

And by the arguments we're having in this thread, apparently not everyone does agree.

While you will always get subjectivity, even with the complete monsters (people are weird that way), I don't think this counts, if only because it is a porn game. There is no moral event horizon, there is not real characterization, it's a game where people can be raped. I think calling the character a complete monster would be like calling the main characters of shooter games complete monsters.

Saying "as for why, it's a rule" turns us into Wikipedia. Rules used in ways which violate common sense need to be looked at carefully, despite being rules.

Pulling out Tropers Law makes you fail the argument, arromdee. It is a rule, because it needs to be one, otherwise why are we doing all this work to split out YMMV's? Exceptions are handled by the "in-universe" keyword, except that in this case it can't apply at all because of the context of the work: one assumes the players doing all this raping don't consider themselves to be Complete Monsters.

edited 9th Feb '11 9:27:50 AM by Fighteer

"It's a rule, because we worked so hard to implement it" isn't much better, though I actually do agree with you.

While it's very obvious that the game wants the main character to be considered this (the "bad" ending, for instance), it's not enough to keep it on the main page, because there are people who won't see it the PC as a complete monster. Subjective tropes are still subjective even if anyone sane would agree with you.

edited 9th Feb '11 3:37:39 PM by Redhead

Well, I suppose if the creator of the work agrees with you and admits it was intentional, it should be able to go under the main page as "According to Word of God, They Plotted a Perfectly Good Waste."

I hope, for the sake of my faith in humanity, that we can all agree that rape is wrong, so why tag these at all?

If what statistics say are right, then plenty of people think rape is fine. Or even most. As long as it stays in fiction anyway. The player character is doing this to fictional characters. I don't know if there's options to choose from though, I never actually played this. Considering how this game is a rape fantasy porn game, the player character probably has like zero personality worth talking about anyway.

That said, I can imagine lots of cases where people cross the "Moral Event Horizon" like 9,001 times and still be considered "good" so...

It is a rule, because it needs to be one, otherwise why are we doing all this work to split out YMMV's?

We're doing this because since YMM Vs depend on a person's opinion, they can be subject to a lot of dispute and Natter.

The spirit of the rule is that YMM Vs that are clear cut enough cases that they won't lead to dispute or Natter are not problems. If you put Complete Monster on the Rapelay page, nobody's going to add a comment saying "Actually, the player has quite a number of redeeming features", at least unless they're deliberately trying to cause trouble.

(And no, the fact that people are disputing it here doesn't mean they'd dispute it in the field.)

edited 10th Feb '11 8:33:41 AM by arromdee

Determining what is "clear-cut enough not to be a problem" is impossible to do ahead of time. You can't know for certain that no one will disagree with it nor can you know that no one who disagrees won't edit to say so.

But you can know that there's a low chance that someone will disagree to that extent.

And you don't need to reduce the chance to zero. You just need to reduce the chance to the point where it's no worse than the chance that a non-subjective trope causes trouble. I suggest that calling the hero of Rapelay a complete monster has a low enough chance of causing trouble that it fits in this category.

Considering that there is at least one troper who has actually played this game enough to trope it, I don't really agree with you that there's a low chance that no one will contest it. I doubt the sort of person who plays this game considers himself (or herself, I guess) a Complete Monster, and the player character is a player avatar.

So, no, I don't think you can know that, either. It only takes one editor who disagrees and doesn't know or care about general wiki policy to create natter, and this trope for this game in particular has already shown itself to be disagreed upon right here in this thread.

Additionally, I am pointing out the problem with adopting that as a policy. I would venture there has been very few cases of someone adding a subjective trope to a page that they, personally, didn't think was self-evident.

How many times have you seen examples of Complete Monster or Canon Sue or other contentious tropes that are written as though the writer can't conceive of the character being seen any other way? I know I've seen hundreds.

Simply allowing subjectives on pages because one (or two, or a dozen) tropers think it won't be contested is a very bad idea. It opens the door for any subjective trope to be added, regardless of whether it's actually a trope, because the person who added it thinks it's self-evident.

That just strikes me as causing much more work in the long run than simply allowing all YMMV "tropes" on the pages.

I can see why it was tagged now.

Looking through a few of the complete monster pages I've noticed an insane amount of natter. Might go after a bit of it with my axe tomorrow.

It only takes one editor who disagrees and doesn't know or care about general wiki policy to create natter

It only takes one editor to do so on every page. This doesn't mean we're going to remove every page from the wiki.

It makes sense to say that we can't tolerate a page if it has a high chance of causing trouble. But your "just one editor" standard implies that we shouldn't tolerate a page that has any chance at all of causing trouble. That's not sensible.

and this trope for this game in particular has already shown itself to be disagreed upon right here in this thread.

I already covered that. The fact that something gets discussion on the thread doesn't mean it would get that discussion if the page was just sitting there. Once something becomes a forum topic it has a much higher chance of producing a dispute than a reference on a trope page.

You covered it, but that doesn't make you right. It's been shown right here in this thread that it is, as classified, a case where milleage can and does vary. If people are debating if it fits, then it isn't a clear-cut case that no one will ever disagree with on the page. Insisting that it still is is baffling.

We're not going to remove every page from the wiki, but we are going to move all YMMV "tropes" (using the word trope loosely, here, since many don't fit the definition) off the main pages and onto the YMMV tab unless it is used in-universe. Trying to make more exceptions to that rule, especially an extremely subjective and speculative exception like "unlikely to be contested", only makes for more work and more headaches. It would be a logistical nightmare trying to determine which pages and which tropes on those pages are exempt.

You're still holding YMMV to a higher standard than ordinary tropes. There are plenty of tropes that have some minor subjective element without being problems. Nobody says that we should get rid of Big Eater because people can disagree on whether a character is shown as eating enough food to count.

And I'm sure that if I opened a forum topic, I could bring up an example of Big Eater that would lead to dispute over whether the character eats enough. The fact that topic contains disagreement proves nothing, and for anything except YMMV it proves nothing even to you.

I'm simply following policy on YMMV "tropes". If you have a problem with that policy "holding those tropes to a higher standard", then take it up with the people who make the policy. But whether you agree with it or not, it is policy to move YMMV tropes to the tab, unless they are an in-universe example.

What I'm doing here is pointing out the flaws in your proposal. First, in your assumption that this is not likely to attract natter, which is, when it comes down to it, your personal opinion and not based on any evidence. And second with making exceptions for tropes which, again in someone's personal opinion, are unlikely to attract natter.

It honestly doesn't matter if there exists a currently classed objective trope that might attract natter on some page somewhere. There's not much we can do about that except what we've always done. There is, however, a way to identify these tropes as natter magnets and do something about them.

edited 11th Feb '11 9:42:30 AM by ccoa

"This example is not likely to lead to a dispute" is itself a subjective call because of Opinion Myopia.