So, is this for any instance of misjudgment of a person's trustworthiness (with the exception Tabs brought up) or is it a recurring thing for the character to have poor judgment?

Cause if it's the latter there might be more misuse then...

CSP Cleanup Thread | All that I ask for ... is diamonds and dance floors

I think if we specify that single instance doesn't count, that kills, like, the majority of examples... Seems like the inverted trope allows one-off excellent judges of character.

I think a one-off example counts if the misjudgment is clearly a manifestation of a greater flaw.

Is there anything else that needs to be discussed?

Edited by randomtroper89 on Nov 18th 2022 at 12:14:55 PM

Has anyone tried rewriting the description to match the revised definition yet?

Edited by GastonRabbit on Nov 19th 2022 at 12:25:59 PM

Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.

I'll take a crack at it.

Revised description:

Some people just can't read other people. They see the villain and think they're The Hero, they see a Sleazy Politician and think they'll change the world for the better, and they think Sergeant Rock is a Jerkass when he just wants to keep everyone alive.

This can be a matter of degree, ranging from characters who routinely get everybody wrong to an absurd degree, to normal people who are usually okay at judging other people but critically get one key character wrong, whether that be because the subject of their mistake is a Manipulative Bastard or because Love Makes You Dumb.

This can lead to a My God, What Have I Done? on the part of the character doing it if their misjudgement makes them the Unwitting Instigator of Doom. If they never do, they could continue being the Unwitting Pawn to the point of being Too Dumb to Live.

This is the inverse of Excellent Judge of Character, where a character is really good figuring other people out.

If everybody is a bad judge of a particular character, that character may be a Hero with Bad Publicity or a Villain with Good Publicity. If the work expects the audience not to figure out that an Obviously Evil character is a villain, that's Obvious Judas.

Edited by StarSword on Nov 19th 2022 at 2:59:21 PM

Ah, whoops... I meant rewriting the definition to match the revised definition, not match the revised description. I was tired when I wrote my previous post, so I accidentally said to make the revised description match itself. I fixed that post accordingly.

Edit: Since the below post combined with the fact that I didn't comment on the rewrite in this post seems to have caused some confusion, this post is correcting my own post, not the one with the rewrite.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Nov 19th 2022 at 1:14:24 PM

Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.

No, that was a rewrite of the description to match the new definition.

Edited by StarSword on Nov 19th 2022 at 1:37:41 PM

FWIW to the rewrite, with my only suggestion so far being to correct "characters who routinely get everybody wrong to absurd degree" to "characters who routinely get everybody wrong to an absurd degree".

TRS Queue | Works That Require Cleanup of Complaining | Troper Wall

I'm aware. I was correcting myself, not you; I originally worded the post above your previous post as "rewriting the description to match the new description"; the second instance of the word "description" was supposed to say "definition" before I corrected it in a way that wasn't redundant-sounding (you just happened to see the post after I corrected it by the time you made your second post).

Which brings me back to how not being completely awake (I've had coffee, but it hasn't had a chance to work yet) led me to neglect to comment on the rewrite. I think it looks fine.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Nov 19th 2022 at 1:13:08 PM

Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.

Didn't we say that trusting someone who shouldn't be trusted for a reasonable reason doesn't count?

Edited by badtothebaritone on Nov 19th 2022 at 1:13:07 PM

I don't see anything about that in previous discussion, but I don't think it's unreasonable. What do other people think?

EDIT: No, look at the top of this page.

Edited by StarSword on Nov 19th 2022 at 2:21:49 PM

How's the sandbox now?

Yeah, the sandbox is fine, the "without good reason" aspect was part of the original definition.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Well, regardless, I edited that part of the draft a bit.

The idea was to combine what you wrote with what Tabs wrote, do they blend well?

Whoops, missed that sandbox completely. Looks good, I added a couple more links.

Given no crowner seems to be needed, I will do the swap.

Great! I'm happy to help with wick cleaning, which probably won't be too troublesome — the effort will sweep out ZCE and examples that are still misuse.

Is wick cleanup even needed? We expanded to cover misuse, so I wasn't sure if there was anything left (or at least not much left) that still counts as misuse.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Nov 20th 2022 at 1:25:30 PM

Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.

It might be one of those things where the misuse can just be stomped out by whoever comes across it. IDK if we need a big effort.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Yeah, that was why I just put rewriting the description in the to-do list and omitted wick cleaning. I'm locking up since the description was already changed.

Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.