Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment - Violations, misuse, and other issues

Saying "excessive uncritical wicks" just makes it sound like you want us to overly editorialize the examples to shoehorn in messages about the work (i.e. "this work is bad because it presents X view.") If the example has nothing to do with the message, don't mess with it.

Yeah, but we're not gonna whitewash xenophobic views.

I didn't say to whitewash anything. I said to not use examples that have nothing to do with the topic at hand as a means to editorialize.

This entry got added to YMMV.Gen Lock. Since it potholes ROCEJ, I wanted to ask what people thought of it.

• Unfortunate Implications: A single eight-episode season is not nearly enough to say where the themes and messages of gen:LOCK will come down on the issue, or how it will resolve, and Chase's views toward his own existence are clearly portrayed as unhealthy. Nevertheless, the way Chase talks about his body—and the way other characters talk about him and his body—falls into several very old ableist tropes that imply life after a severe injury leaves someone multiply disabled somehow doesn't "count".
  • "You call this a life?" is the most obvious example, directly stating that it's impossible to "have a life" in Chase's condition.
  • In general, the fact that not only Chase but the people around him talk and act as if Chase is dead, "a ghost," somehow already only exists as an electronic presence ("I lost [my body] four years ago")...while his fully alive and responsive body is right there in the base and Migas has already been shown to have visited him in person...can be incredibly chilling and distressing to disabled viewers. Chase is not dead, nor is he in some kind of sci-fi Fictional Disability in which his mind exists solely in electronic form or his body is somehow disconnected from his flesh brain. He's disabled, in a manner not unlike many real-life disabled people who also depend on elaborate life-support and medical devices. He's even fully capable of communicating exactly as he could before his crash—something plenty of real-life disabled people with nearly identical physical disabilities/injuries cannot do in the same way, and who struggle every day against eugenicist views that do consider their lives "not worth living" as a result and thus disposable.

No citation, so that's an instant cut.

That's all insta-cut unless you can find a good citation for the Unfortunate Implications.

Edited by mightymewtron on Sep 19th 2020 at 10:16:46 AM

Couldn't find one, so cut.

I keep forgetting about the citation requirement of UI. Thanks for the feedback, I've cut the entry.

Per here, from Anatomically Impossible Sex:

Sadly, this trope sometimes pops up in works and speeches not clearly labelled as fiction: In Real Life, sex education fails YOU. The average high school sex ed course in many countries, especially the United States, is often so hilariously incomplete and inaccurate that it leaves you completely unsurprised that most students walk away knowing very little.

Would this be a complain-y ROCEJ violation?

Edited by ATricksterArtist on Sep 21st 2020 at 9:19:05 AM

It could be reworded to explain why this pops up unironically without getting into specific complainy soapboxing. Something like...

"This trope sometimes even pops up in works and speeches not clearly labelled as fiction. Given how many cultures have a taboo on sex, many people aren't educated on how sex works, and attempts to recreate sexual anatomy may rely largely on guesswork."

But this whole situation relates more to Miss Conception than this trope, anyway. Might be too tangential.

^That write up is a little too generic, IMO. Miss Conception has a terrible, type label dependent structure but it seems to be narrower.

Ms. Fanservice is a page in the "no real life" index. Listing an actress as Ms. Fanservice is wrong, I get that. But what about an actress that played many Ms. Fanservice characters in her career? Is it fine to point so in the creator page, making it clear that it's a trope of her characters and not herself as a person, or should I avoid it anyway?

I have not added anything yet, I just want to be sure before doing so.

Under an entry on TropesThatWillNeverHappen.Too Dangerous joking about a Politics subpage for Insane Troll Logic, somebody linked an actual political article about what they perceive as Insane Troll Logic^note granted, it's about some very....bizarre logic, but we don't need to talk about it here, which is a pretty bad case of Misaimed Fandom for that page. Permission to cut?

EDIT: Actually that page might need a look-over because it's full of natter that completely misses the point by making semi-serious arguments in favor of the controversial tropes. It's fine (in a darkly comedic way) to joke about how "Genocide Is Funny When It's Jew On German" would be a terrible controversial trope, but people going "Actually this might be real because etc etc etc" feels way too dodgy even for JFF.

Edited by mightymewtron on Sep 29th 2020 at 2:51:24 PM

Cut!

There's nothing wrong with noting that an actress plays a lot of sexy characters. Many have made careers of doing just that.

What you need to be careful about is making it clear that you're saying she frequently plays characters that qualify as Ms. Fanservice, not that the actress herself is a Ms. Fanservice.

On Memes.Super Smash Bros Ultimate:

• Sakurai acknowledging the community by including Creeper. ^Explanation The Smash Bros community has been under heavy scrutiny following several professoinal players getting outed as sexual predators. Following Steve's reveal, fans joked that including the Creeper is a nod to those players being creeps

I don't know what to say about this. The comparison of the Smash Esports sex scandal to explosive plant monsters is what got me.

Edited by PrincessPandaTrope on Oct 1st 2020 at 1:44:51 PM

...Yeah, that's a definite cut.

It's a joke but not what I'd call a meme as it receives little modification.

Might be overreacting, but should we cut the " There is some controversy as to whether or not [Dissociative Identity Disorder] even exists." part from the first paragraph of Split Personality? It seems redundant at best (it links to a section on the Wikipedia page, but that page was already linked in the previous sentence anyway) and prone to spark controversy at worst. Most of the page speaks with the assumption DID is real, so cutting it wouldn't really hurt the page, I don't think.

The existence of DID is disputed in the same way the existence of trans people is disputed. We say remove it.

This sentence from YMMV.Rush, part of the Misaimed Fandom example:

This kinda sounds like it's saying that having right-wing beliefs makes you incapable of logical thought or love?

As we all know, only Communists know what love and logic are.

Seriously, nuke it.

Axed the sentence, since the example still works without it.

YMMV.Superman Vs The Elite

• Misaimed Fandom: Manchester Black. We'll leave it at that.

I intent to cut as a Zero-Context Example and having nothing to do with RL issues. This is more Rooting for the Empire. Objections?

You could rewrite that one.