Right; re-propose if you actually care to but nobody's gonna make you.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallAdmittedly, it's not like I didn't reluctantly relitigate a work based on a rule change once, since I felt not doing so would have been intellectually dishonest, but Pulp Fiction is not racist propaganda, and I have no interest in reading it, so I see no point in personally re-evaluating such works myself.
The thing I am more worried about is how it will look on the Former Complete Monsters page, where we have characters listed there that were removed that due to what has happened would no longer be a valid reason. And well that would probably compel people to repropose them.
Well... not really. Just say that they were removed because of an old rule. They're still "former complete monsters". If people want to repropose them, they're allowed to, but I'm not sure people will care that much about what a sandbox says.
That's if the sandbox is even necessary to keep, of course.
Edited by WarJay77 on Nov 23rd 2022 at 11:07:42 AM
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallOr, again, we can just repropose them as we go along like we would for any other reproposal. This isn't an emergency, it can be knocked out on its own time when the people who would consume that material want to have to go through it. Don't know about you, but I'm not exactly in a rush to tell people to watch Karla.
I'm gonna fight hard to keep that sandbox. It's a very necessary tool to keep track of past discussions for this exact reason - it logs not just who was once approved and removed, but it gives the why and links to the discussions.
Edited by STARCRUSHER99 on Nov 23rd 2022 at 11:08:15 AM
That's fine. I wasn't sure if it was considered important or another "fun" sandbox, but if it has a real purpose then it should stay.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallSo, there suggestions for Former Complete Monsters to be re-added because they were removed by the old rules but have the potential to be added back with the new rules, am I getting this correct?
Eh, good enough.What it means is those who are on said list could potentially be re-proposed later on if they come up, but we're not trying to "dig" for them anyway.
Things'll come up when they come up. Just that a good chunk of them may no longer be incompatible with our old rules and thus are viable candidates. Cause to be fair, we've undergone entirely new rules as is, which can change respective criteria, and thus, who knows what'll happen when it comes up.
Kind of like how Syndrome eventually was added due to rule changes.
...It is possible I'm misinterpreting something too, yeah.
Edited by Irene on Nov 23rd 2022 at 10:59:28 AM
Shadow?My two cents: If anyone wants to run through for XYZ, why not. Nobody, of course, is obliged to discuss or vote and if you're proposing the type of stuff nobody wants to discuss, then that's a risk you assume. But no issue with folks bring it up and handling it like anything else.
On the other hand, plenty of valid types of candidates to discuss people can focus on. Syndrome from the Incredibles is an example, Mario from Goncharov, and so on and so forth. Just best to use best judgment and nobody is forced to violate their own standards of taste while anything can go up for convo
So to clarify, we're not allowed to vote no on something like, say, Karla because of Creator Backlash, but we are allowed to abstain?
Right; you can reject candidates for failing to fit, but not for being from a shitty work, but you're also allowed to just not vote on things you don't want to.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallI agree that anyone from a work of that nature if the necessary plot is there could in theory count if the sufficient number of votes is there. It's not like we haven't put up shocking candidates in the past before—regardless of how respectable the works were otherwise deemed (it makes sense for instance that you can't say someone like Jack Hyde counts because the Fifty Shades trilogy is written with very askew and warped principles). This would be more akin to CM certainly as the intelligence of characters is certainly less flexible when it comes to MB after all.
As for the candidate hunting thing, it's probably best left to the discretion of the Troper in question. Also, most are definitely done in good faith and with the Troper likely believing they're making the best case they can too.
Anime & Manga: O to Z needs to have an example cut — or at least edited. The Tsugumomo manga was found to be heavily in violation of TV Tropes' content policies and the page is being rebranded to focus on the anime only. Since Dabada Dabaharl is a manga-only character, her example may need to be cut — I'm not entirely clear on that — but the namespace needs to be moved.
Edited by Arawn999 on Nov 27th 2022 at 3:41:20 AM

Well... yes.
A lot can be re-proposed. Though we haven't hashed out every detail yet, but yeah, the idea is pretty much "a lot more things can be included" so the trope doesn't feel like it's an actual hall of fame or super special awesome, which no other trope really has(same issue with Magnificent Bastard, but I think that trope was made quite a bit later so it had less baggage to deal with, arguably).
Shadow?