Misused: Internet Backdraft

Per this and this ATT, Internet Backdraft is supposed to be an issue so contentious it triggers debate and flame wars when merely mentioned, but is currently being used for any complaints online.

It's supposed to be things that enrage fans when brought up but it's just used for when fans get angry.

After Broken Base and Base-Breaking Character were given six-month waiting periods, most of the complaints were moved there. Worse, they don't have the rules to counterbalance complaining or determine if it is or isn't an example. At this point, any form of complaining online falls under here when it's only supposed to be on issues, not the response.

As widely used, Backdraft is pure complaining. As intended, it seems identical to the misuse of Fandom Berserk Button that caused it to be renamed Fandom-Enraging Misconception.

Two proposals:

1. We enforce the intended definition, cleaning up any misuse of thing that got fans mad as opposed to get them mad when brought up. I'd propose waiting period after the work releases (any complaints beforehand is redundant with Tainted by the Preview) so we know it staled contentious enough to count.
2. If we use Backdraft for complaints, make it require citations (link to article covering, not partaking in, the issue) to prove it's widespread enough to count.

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Jul 24th 2019 at 3:40:31 AM

Since the matter was discussed prior to this thread with other users in agreement—a moderator being one of them—I'll go ahead and open for discussion.

I suggested in one of the ATT threads that Internet Backdraft should be like Unfortunate Implications and require citations (e.g. a news article reporting on fan backlash) to show that the backlash is widespread enough, instead of one or a few people getting upset. Because as of now, Internet Backdraft is a complaint magnet. And since it has no restrictions, it has been used to insert Base-Breaking Character and Broken Base examples less than six months after release or to insert Unfortunate Implications examples without citations.

Internet Backdraft is an inherently complainy trope. Given the nature of fandoms these days, there's a squad of people who flip out any time anything happens related to the work, and a lot of times these reactions are very toxic. I'm not convinced that this trope can be retooled. I think our options are

1. Cut the trope for being a drama/complaint magnet.
2. Accept that this is the nature of fandoms these days, decide it's worth documenting, and make a dedicated cleanup thread.

I don't really think citations would help much, as even well-sourced issues would still be complaints, and it seems like it might count as drama importation.

Edited by naturalironist on Jun 13th 2019 at 9:01:53 AM

I like to mention that Internet Backlash may have gone through a decay in meaning. This is the first sentence of it.

Some poor, innocent, hapless newbie wanders into a forum and wonders aloud if that guy in that show should be with that girl in that show. The forum erupts into flames, igniting all the boards that deal with the show, which ignites whole sections of the Internet into a blazing Inferno.

To me that meant mentioning a sore spot of a given media would called for a backlash. And maybe its not entirely negative.

Edited by WhirlRX on Jun 13th 2019 at 8:43:07 AM

I agree with the opening post's point about Fandom-Enraging Misconception and its old name's problems. If we keep Internet Backdraft, maybe giving it a time limit like Broken Base and Base-Breaking Character would help, but considering how much complaining this attracts (seriously, it shows up a lot in the complaining cleanup thread), I'm not sure if it actually would.

Just a heads up, Internet Backlash redirects to Internet Counterattack, which is a different trope from Internet Backdraft.

Anyway, the requirements for Internet Backdraft, as I can understand it from the trope's definition page.

• An issue crops up that's so contentious that it's a magnet for Flame Wars across multiple social media platforms.
• People get so sick of the arguments about the contentious issue that it eventually dies down due to people getting tired of arguing about it.
• However, it's still so divisive that merely being brought up by someone unaware of the controversy will reignite the arguments.
• Also: the issue is seen as trivial by people outside the fandom or who aren't involved in the arguments.

From personal experience I can offer an example that fits this definition of Internet Backdraft; Naoto's gender in Persona 4, which has been argued about for so long and so intensely that people in the fandom roll their eyes and complain whenever it gets brought up again. Moreover, people divorced from the argument don't understand what the big deal is, since Naoto's gender is a relatively small facet of their overall character.

To be honest, however, the original definition just seems to be an exaggerated Broken Base, and the way it's being used now is purely for complaints and knee-jerk reactions. I wouldn't be remiss to see it cut completely, and I don't think we'd be losing anything of value if we did so.

I forgot to mention before that between cutting this and adding a citation requirement, I'm leaning toward the former. As naturalironist pointed out, the citations could potentially end up being more complaining as well as doubling as drama importation.

Edit: As I said in a later post, I now favor making this Flame Bait.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Jun 14th 2019 at 11:43:06 AM

Gotta be honest, I'm leaning toward cutting too. I just plain don't see how this gets reworked to be anything other than a complaining magnet, and we already have plenty of different ways that people can say "this thing sucked and made people mad on the Internet" on the wiki.

Indeed, Dethroning Moment of Suck and other parts of Darth Wiki are contained in their own part of the wiki, in addition to being more thoroughly regulated.

See also: Wallbangers, a part of Darth Wiki that wasn't thoroughly regulated and ended up getting cut entirely due to being endless complaining.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Jun 13th 2019 at 9:36:32 AM

I'd prefer cutting over adding citation requirements or a deadicated cleanup thread.

If we're going to cut all or most of the content, we may as well just get rid of the page entirely.

I'll throw in a for getting rid of this as well since it's a major complaint magnet.

I say keep and clean to enforce the intended definition. Internet Backlash should redirect to Internet Backdraft, not Internet Counterattack.

I'm in favor of cutting for the same reasons others have discussed.

Edited by Mickoonsley19 on Jun 13th 2019 at 9:03:04 AM

Internet Backdraft as is is far too broad in scope - we could have and invent YMMV items for very specific kinds of complaints e.g.

• They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot and They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character for complaints of inadequate screentime given to specific elements of the work.
• Darkness-Induced Audience Apathy for when the cast or situation is so endlessly dark that people stop caring about how the story ends.
• Eight Deadly Words for when characters are so poorly written that the audience doesn't really care about them.
• Esoteric Happy Ending for when endings try to frame themselves as happy but the fandom rejects its supposed happiness due to the implications or how it was written.
• Ending Aversion for endings that are widely disliked by fans for being an unsatisfactory resolution.
• Unfortunate Implications for when a moment of the work implies an offensive message.
• Porting Disaster for when a game receives many complaints of a loss of quality when a version is released on another system.

among numerous other YMMV items. We could create more if needed (e.g. exclusivity backlash, given that Epic Games controversy; an item for people disliking a game over being buggy; etc.). At this point Internet Backdraft is turning into a list of complaints of anything work followers dislike, making it an overall meaningless item to have around on the wiki; in contrast, the YMMV items I've listed at least concretely communicate something tangible about what there is in the work to complain about. Internet Backdraft doesn't have this.

Edited by Albert3105 on Jun 13th 2019 at 2:14:57 PM

Yeah we already have a bunch of more specific tropes that would cover this. In fact many of the more valid cases of Internet Backdraft work better there anyway.

It's far too general to keep with its current definition.

Edited by miraculous on Jun 13th 2019 at 10:59:43 AM

Let's disassemble for example Kingdom Hearts III's IB section:

• Amazon incident: Could fit under a hypothetical item dedicated to backlash over merchandise.
• Kairi: They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character
• Missing Final Fantasy characters: also They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character

I'll disassemble InternetBackdraft.Fallout 76 in a few more hours.

Edited by Albert3105 on Jun 13th 2019 at 2:11:45 PM

Upon review, I'm leaning to cut now.

1. The intended definition of "something that makes fans angry" and misuse of "fans being angry" has a very fine line between them which is why it underwent Trope Decay. I see no way to enforce that distinction even with citations.
2. If citations risk adding to the drama (I realized how dicy it would be to determine what would be a viable source that wouldn't fuel further debate), there's nothing I can think of to salvage it.
3. The intended definition notes the backlash seems irrational, which suggests it can't be made objective enough to trope.
4. Any backlash widespread enough to note would fall under Memetic Mutation.

We could alternatively make Internet Backdraft Flame Bait (which it effectively is by intended definition), In-Universe Examples Only, or something that would let us keep the trope/concept but remove the examples.

Since the page already had an Example Sectionectomy, I'd rather move Internet Backdraft from No On-Page Examples to Definition-Only Pages.

I feel like InternetBackdraft.Fallout 76 is mostly correct, but goes too far in some cases, such as a link to Never My Fault (which is referenced as invoked by the complainers, but still) and a second-level bullet describing something that isn't even written up as something that audiences took issue with and just seems to exist for the sake of a joke-fulfillment pothole to Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking.

I could get behind making it a Flame Bait-flagged index of YMMV items that describe the audience being complainy at some element of the work.

Nevertheless the on-wiki examples need to be drained out and if valid, need to be moved to more meaningful or indicative YMMV items.

Edited by Albert3105 on Jun 13th 2019 at 2:36:21 PM

I don't see the point of keeping definition only pages around. I'm still firmly in the 'cut' camp.

Unless someone is going to volunteer to police every addition of Internet Backdraft to the wiki?

We keep these around to define the term. Inbounds are also a factor.

Making it Flame Bait seems like a great way to go actually. It’s a demonstrable phenomenon that causes flame wars.

Yeah Flame Bait seems the best idea.

I'm also interested in seeing how many wicks are In-Universe to see if In-Universe Examples Only is an option.