Is the wiki the place to discuss scandals that have nothing to do with works?

The history for RoleEndingMisdemeanor.Web Original mentions others involved in the scandal, but neither of them had a 'role ended' so to speak, and from what I understand PBG sincerely apologized after learning the full story, which made people warm up to him again.

given how nebulous a role doing videos on YouTube is anyway I think the page as a whole should get looked at.

Just going to ask, since they don't often use personas what of tropes regarding Let's Players and vloggers?

Let's Players and Vloggers often do use personas, and when it's part of the particular Let's Play episode or individual vlogs then that's part of the work itself (otherwise they would have edited it out).

I'm not sure what this has to do with the question in the topic, but our general rule is that we can trope an online alter ego as a fictional character, as long as it doesn't overlap or fall into troping the real person behind it.

Note that there is a difference between someone role-playing or creating a fictional personality for themselves, and someone exaggerating or embellishing while doing a Let's Play or vlog. To take an example from Live-Action TV, Steven Colbert, the host of The Colbert Report, is a fictional personality created for a comedy show. Steven Colbert, the actor/comedian who created and portrayed that character, is a real person. We can trope the former, but not the latter.

Edited by Fighteer on May 26th 2019 at 10:14:23 AM

To be more precise, we can trope Colbert the person only to the extent of how he appears in works as himself. Anything that takes place "off-screen" (with the exception of obvious biographical details or the like) should be avoided.

More specifically, we can list tropes that help describe their professional career (acting, writing, directing) but want to avoid things that describe their personal lives. As an example Harrison Ford is naturally a Guttural Growler and The Comically Serious, which impacts the characters he plays. But to list him as a Serial Spouse for being married three times or Your Cheating Heart for reports of infidelity is frowned on.

I was thinking three things:

• If we're talking about groups or bands, should we only discuss the band rather than the individual, or should we leave out the real life tropes that don't affect their work? Say a band breaks up due to Creative Differences; should we leave out the real life tropes that lead to their breakup? Should we trope about of the individual's perspective of the breakup?

• Do historical figures apply to this, or do they get a pass? One example is Fatty Arbuckle whose career got affected by the scandal. Another is Coco Chanel, who got into a huge oopsie for dating a Nazi agent, but got acquitted by the British and Americans because they love her designs.

• Writers? When it comes to literature, their writing somewhat reflects their real lives.

Edited by alnair20aug93 on May 28th 2019 at 1:55:50 AM

Re: Peanut Better Gamer.

Just looked at his Twitter and confirmed. He apologized while admitting he lashed out in a fit of grief and denial regarding his "friends" actions and it seems to have blown over for him with most people accepting it (one one person that attacked him for it apologizing in return for not considering the emotional impact it was having on him and that he spoke out of anger) so he's definitely not CEM.

If he's listed for this trope it needs to be deleted.

Edited by CryptidProductions on May 28th 2019 at 12:04:06 PM

Edit: NVM, I misunderstood the issue Rallybot was trying to raise. Carry on.

Edited by HighCrate on Jun 6th 2019 at 3:11:25 AM

:I have noticed that the Projared Let's Play channel seems to have ground to a halt in the wake of the controversy affecting its author. Wouldn't that be considered "affecting the work"?

Edit: I just noticed the channel is currently mentioned on the RoleEndingMisdemeanor.Web Original page.

Edited by Medinoc on Jul 19th 2019 at 11:05:51 AM

• Should we delete that?
• Regarding KSI, there seems to be no mention of the feud between him and his brother Deji. Though it's likely that feud has nothing to do with his work.
• Just boosting up this query.

YMMV.PMD Explorers and YMMV.Floraverse both violate the ROCEJ, trope real-life people, and cite a troll website as a source of info. (Horrible.Literature does as well under the Gloria Tesch section.)

Edited by lalalei2001 on Jul 22nd 2019 at 9:39:03 AM

I'd definitely remove those links for the same reason we had a rule against citing ED back in the day.

It's just ASKING for someone to import offsite drama or start shit.

So, um, should we not talk about Ninja leaving Twitch for Mixer?

Why are we talking about Ninja at all, other than for his creative work? Does he have any of that? I don't care how popular he is as a Fortnite streamer: unless he produces creative content, he doesn't get a trope page.

Edited by Fighteer on Aug 14th 2019 at 11:21:16 AM

,: Some streamers can qualify under the Let's Play namespace, but I'm fairly confident that Ninja is not one of them.

If he were eligible for a page, it would be perfectly fine to say there that he left Twitch for Mixer as it is a change in the method of distribution of the work.

Similarly, on YMMV.Twitch, it's fine to mention as it resulted in the content of the website (the work) changing. Just keep the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment in mind.

Twitch is no more a work than YouTube. It is a livestreaming service; the content is what should be troped, not the service. Unless Twitch makes creative content under its own brand, it doesn't get troped as a Creator.

Real life people, places, and companies do not get YMMV subpages, so YMMV.Twitch is right out. I'm cutting it. And done.

The only way Ninja would be relevant to the Twitch article is if it indexes a work article for his own content. As it doesn't, the factoid above doesn't go anywhere on our site.

Edited by Fighteer on Aug 14th 2019 at 2:14:10 PM

Some may have heard that James of Extra Credits was accused of sexual assault. This has been added to the Overshadowed by Controversy part of the YMMV page of EC.

According to a note by the person deleting that entry, they deleted it because Real Life deeds don't count but the trope page itself says "Frequent displays of offensive, embarrassing, or questionable behavior. This includes public intoxication, impulsive offensive comments, vulgarity, and rudeness, political extremism, sexual harassment, etc."

On that count, I would like to defend putting scandals on the YMMV pages at least in sexual assault cases.

I'd also like to ask how we define "frequent" in these cases, as some would say even one is too many.

Edited by akanesarumara on Aug 19th 2019 at 2:55:31 PM

We only really care about such things if they affect the creator's body of work in documented ways. For example, a work getting negative reviews because of something one of its actors, or its director, did; or a video game selling fewer copies because of a scandal involving its developer.

We aren't TV Gossip, we're TV Tropes. We care about the works, not their creators.

Edited by Fighteer on Aug 19th 2019 at 1:42:09 PM

It seems like this situation is relatively recent (June of this year). Per No Recent Examples, Please! and consensus of the associated cleanup thread, Overshadowed by Controversy requires a six-month waiting period to ensure that the work is actually, well, overshadowed by controversy even after it's no longer breaking news.

I'm not familiar with this situation, but I did a simple Google search for Extra Credits and found no mention of the controversy on the first page of search results, which makes me think it's not a good example. That might change as events progress, but for now, it should stay off the page.

As for recency, in the deleted segment it said it happened in 2018 June so the half-year is up.

In that case why even have Overshadowed by Controversy? If we don't care about the creators, they can't overshadow the work. Or why have creator pages or Word of God and related tropes at all?

Creators also work well as valid Index-like pages. We give the quick relevant information and move on.

They admittedly are less important to the wiki than a lot of other pages.

Overshadowed by Controversy is meant to be literally for a work only. It's only relevant to that. It is possible for it to be affected due to a controversy related to a Creator, but it has to directly affect the work. If it doesn't affect the work, it has no business on YMMV(which only should exist for a Creator if it's covering their works to begin with, as a page isn't made for it yet). For instance, it can be valid if it's an Internet Personality which is controversial. You aren't talking about the Creator, but a character in their work.

Edited by Irene on Aug 19th 2019 at 7:50:24 AM

An internet site/youtube channel/similar losing subscribers and viewership because of the controversy should count as affecting the work the same way an actor/actress/author not getting contracts would I think.

Depends the context. If it's the channel itself, which houses all their works, making a quick note on the main page is better. Otherwise it's a rather general example of YMMV, since it doesn't specify one single work. That'd be rather broad. I don't know if that kind of example is allowed, saying which specific works are affected. If we do, we need to explain how each work is separately affected by it, to have full context. However, seeing as how ROCEJ exists, a quick note on the main page may be better or worse. One has to look at each work that's affected as is(including ones with their own page). Those also should have the proper trope.

Either way, the YMMV entry cannot be specifically about the user alone. That's definitely not allowed.

Well in this case, the YT channel is pretty much the only channel where the work is released. The channel content is created by a group of people, and the one caught up in the scandal is one of the main/most important guys who's been with the channel from day one.