Misused: Internet Backdraft

If we go with the index idea, we'd need to go through those subpages to see which other Audience Reactions the examples would fit better under.

Edited by ADrago on Jun 15th 2019 at 8:31:54 AM

• Fallout 76: Most is redundant with Obvious Beta or Tainted by the Preview. There's microtransactions but people complaining about that is too normal and ubiquitous to be trope worthy. The duffle bag and Nuka Dark are all I see worth keeping, I say move to Horrible.Advertising or Horrible.Other.
• Marvel Cinematic Universe: Accusations by rival fandoms and counteraccusations (Fandom Rivalry). Accusations over lack of diversity (Unfortunate Implications). Firing James Gun (Overshadowed by Controversy and Never Live It Down violating their waiting period). A Continuity Snarl. The rest is just complaining or pre-release backlash.
• Vampire The Masquerade Fifth Edition: Complaints about pre-release (Tainted by the Preview). Changes (They Changed It, So It Sucks). Various Unfortunate Implications (I've moved the cited ones). Complaining otherwise.

All the have to do is find something for the Fallout merchandise, everything else worth keeping is already under other tropes elsewhere.

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Jun 15th 2019 at 8:20:44 AM

One question, since Internet Backdraft doesn't apply even if it outrages the fans (as per the edit note on Extra Credits' YMMV page, Internet Backdraft is not for things that got the fans mad), what do cases count as where a creator turns out to have harrassed others?

Role-Ending Misdemeanor is anything comes from it. It's complaining as opposed to trope worthy unless something objective comes out of it.

"Creator committed a social or legal offense" is not relevant to troping unless it specifically and directly impacts their work, including but not limited to cancellation, schedule slip, being removed from the production or cast, having sales drop, and so on. In those cases, it would be covered under the appropriate and already established trope.

"A bunch of people got mad at this person for something they did or said in RL" is not and never will be a trope.

Edited by Fighteer on Jun 17th 2019 at 9:34:14 AM

Should the subpages be cut or moved?

Should we make a crowner? These are the options I recall seeing in this thread:

1. Cut (mutually exclusive with all other options).
2. Make Flame Bait (not mutually exclusive with 3, mutually exclusive with 1).
3. Turn into an index/supertrope (not mutually exclusive with 2, mutually exclusive with 1). If 2 applies as well, it's possible for subtropes to not be Flame Bait themselves, similarly to Character Derailment's situation.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Jun 21st 2019 at 8:23:31 AM

3 seems the best tbh.

What would the subtropes be? It's a pretty narrowly defined phenomenon as currently written. I'm cautiously in favor of 2.

This post and this post listed potential tropes for an index/supertrope.

1 > 3 > 2, in my opinion. But I agree we need a crowner, otherwise, we'll just argue in circles forever.

Good point regarding the current status of the debate.

All right, here it is.

Edit: For clarification, PageAction/InternetBackdraft was already in use by a a closed crowner from a previous thread, so I had to go with "Internet Backdraft Redux" for this one.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Jun 21st 2019 at 10:38:58 AM

Thanks, it's hooked.

TBH, I'm not in favor of making this Flame Bait as it objectively happens in Real Life, unlike most other Flame Bait pages. I think "Internet Backdraft ensued over this event" can be proven more than "this character is a Mary Sue".

So does Hatedom, which is Flame Bait, but like Internet Backdraft it exists to describe Flame Wars that occur elsewhere.

My impression is we were talking about making it Flame Bait and making an index of backdraft-inducing trope. Why are they separate on the crowner? Are we doing both if they get enough votes? Are they mutually exclusive?

Making Internet Backdraft an index and making it Flame Bait are not mutually exclusive. The purpose of making it both Flame Bait and an index is to discourage people from wicking it if it becomes an index.

I already covered mutual exclusivity (or lack thereof) in the crowner header. The option numbers are the ones at the beginning of the options' text, not the order the options are listed in (since the actual order of the options changes alongside the vote count and ratio).

Edited by GastonRabbit on Jun 22nd 2019 at 5:19:13 AM

Can we have an option number 4 for "Move to Definition-Only Pages"?

I assumed Flame Bait would cover that, especially since the page already disallows on-page examples (that was decided in the previous crowner; said previous crowner is why I had to add "Redux" to this one's URL).

Edit: Courtesy link to the old crowner (which decided to do an Example Sectionectomy).

Another edit: I'll add that if I was wrong about Flame Bait automatically being a definition-only option, then it would make sense to add that option while noting that it's not mutually exclusive with the two existing non-cut options.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Jun 22nd 2019 at 5:44:28 AM

Well, what I meant was "make the move without moving to Flame Bait".

Definition-Only Pages (unless they are also Flame Bait) still allow examples on other pages, or at least doesn't enforce it. Flame Bait give the certainty to clean-up.

The organization of Example Sectionectomy is new. Definition-Only pages would not allow examples, but those pages could be wicked in the context of an example for a different work/trope. Flame Bait articles aren't supposed to be wicked anywhere except indexes and trope descriptions.

It's been a week, can we call the crowner now?

So is it for making it an Index and Flame Bait, or just an Index?

Index itself as Flame Bait. the tropes in said index may or may not themselves be Flame Bait.

2718 wicks to fix (as needed).

Edited by bitemytail on Jun 26th 2019 at 1:10:03 AM