During the investigation of recent hollers in the Complete Monster thread, it's become apparent to the staff that an insular, unfriendly culture has evolved in the Complete Monster and Magnificent Bastard threads that is causing problems.
Specific issues include:
- Overzealous hollers on tropers who come into the threads without being familiar with all the rules and traditions of the tropes. And when they are familiar with said rules and traditions, they get accused (with little evidence) of being ban evaders.
- A few tropers in the thread habitually engage in snotty, impolite mini-modding. There are also regular complaints about excessive, offtopic "socializing" posts.
- Many many thread regulars barely post/edit anywhere else, making the threads look like they are divorced from the rest of TV Tropes.
- Following that, there are often complaints about the threads and their regulars violating wiki rules, such as on indexing, crosswicking, example context and example categorization. Some folks are working on resolving the issues, but...
- Often moderator action against thread regulars leads to a lot of participants suddenly showing up in the moderation threads to protest and speak on their behalf, like a clique.
It is not a super high level problem, but it has been going on for years and we cannot ignore it any longer. There will be a thread in Wiki Talk
to discuss the problem; in the meantime there is a moratorium on further Complete Monster and Magnificent Bastard example discussion until we have gotten this sorted out.
Update: The new threads have been made and can be found here:
Please see the Frequently Asked Questions and Common Requests List before suggesting any new entries for this trope.
IMPORTANT: To avoid a holler to the mods, please see here for the earliest date a work can be discussed, (usually two weeks from the US release), as well as who's reserved discussion.
When voting, you must specify the candidate(s). No blanket votes (i.e. "![[tup]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/thumbs_up_emote.png "[thumb up]"){kind=small}
to everyone I missed").
No plagiarism: It's fair to source things, but an effortpost must be your own work and not lifted wholesale from another source.
We don't care what other sites think about a character being a Complete Monster. We judge this trope by our own criteria. Repeatedly attempting to bring up other sites will earn a suspension.
What is the Work
Here you briefly describe the work in question and explain any important setting details. Don't assume that everyone is familiar with the work in question.
Who is the Candidate and What have they Done?
This will be the main portion of the Effort Post. Here you list all of the crimes committed by the candidate. For candidates with longer rap sheets, keep the list to their most important and heinous crimes, we don't need to hear about every time they decide to do something minor or petty.
Do they have any Mitigating Factors or Freudian Excuse?
Here you discuss any potential redeeming or sympathetic features the character has, the character's Freudian Excuse if they have one, as well as any other potential mitigating factors like Offscreen Villainy or questions of moral agency. Try to present these as objectively as possible by presenting any evidence that may support or refute the mitigating factors.
Do they meet the Heinousness Standard?
Here you compare the actions of the Candidate to other character actions in the story in order to determine if they stand out or not. Remember that all characters, not just other villains, contribute to the Heinousness Standard
Final Verdict?
Simply state whether or not you think the character counts or not.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Aug 31st 2023 at 4:14:10 AM
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
![[awesome]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/minis/award_star_gold_3.png "[awesome]"){kind=small}
Thank the Force. Honestly, I can;t think of any further SW monsters from the Legends continuity right now....or any others from the new canon EU now. Nobody, to my knowledge, has counted from Rebels thus far.
@A New Man: It's Ghetsis right?
Just earlier today I was flipping through the channels of my TV to find something to watch and saw the Shawshank Redemption. It's a great movie and Warden Norton makes a great villain, but I got to thinking in hindsight if Warden Norton is heinous enough to qualify. Over the course of the movie his crimes amount to money laundering, having the protagonist beaten and thrown into solitary, and even ordering a murder or two of relatively innocent people. By the standards of the movie alone, he is less heinous than rapist and murderer Bogs Diamond. He is a corrupt and malicious bastard through and through, but I seriously don't think he lives up to the Complete Monster trope that regularly sees Serial Killers, Torture Technicians, and Omnicidal Maniacs. On one last minor note, he did speak fondly of his wife at one point. While we never see him outside of the prison, it is worth noting.
Think you're tough because you made it through Lord of the Rings? Real men survive The Silmarillion.
I can feel it. Some idiot or troll is going to post a spoiler here or somewhere else on this site. It is inevitable.
When it is released, I will be avoiding the internet entirely until I have seen it.
Edit: Without spoiling myself, I have found that pre-release reviews are so far positive, so that's a relief.
edited 15th Dec '15 6:33:06 PM by SatoshiBakura
@De Carta On terms of writing, that's great to hear; by the looks of the writeups you've certainly got what it takes. I've a few manuscripts I've started myself; one's finished and in the editing process and I've a few I'm going through. Never give up on that regard.
Back on topic, I'm still for keeping Norton, and I say ![[tup]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Thumbs_up_emoticon_3268.png "[thumb up]"){kind=small}
to the Doflamingo image.
edited 15th Dec '15 7:33:56 PM by Scraggle
I like the Doflamingo image best, personally.
As for the Warden, it's been so long since I saw the movie not on TV that I have to think on it.
Caesar
@ACW: I guess we can go ahead and request that Everyday Heroes example be cut, since the YMMV entry was taken dkown years ago and no one has bothered to argue for his inclusion.
Excellent work on TFA mods. Still avoiding the thread until I've seen the film, though. ![[lol]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/lol2v12_4863.png "[lol]"){kind=small}
I'm for keeping Norton. He is a horrible, horrible person who is fully aware of the terrible things going on in his prison (sometimes even being behind them), yet does nothing to stop them, he murders a man so that Andy won't be released from prison, simply because he might expose Norton's crimes to the public, and he regularly psychologically and physically tortures the poor guy.
Finally, to the Doflamingo image.
It's been two weeks now since the game has come out, so can we discuss Just Cause 3's Di Ravello? I wish I could but I haven't actually played the game and only heard of his actions through watching some streams of the game.
I'm actually for cutting Norton. I think he crosses the moral event horizon but overall doesn't meet the baseline heinous standard. Bogs is worse, as is the real murderer who killed Andy's wife and lover. Heck, even Norton's right-hand man seems more heinous than Norton. At least that guy's psychotic enough that he beats a man to death for being loud and panicking during his first night in prison, and attempts to throw Andy off the roof because he thinks Andy might be questioning his wife's fidelity. Norton just strikes me as a corrupt asshole who makes the move to cold-blooded murderer and not much else. Especially since you could make the argument he thought he had a man killed out of self-preservation instead of just out of greed. If Andy goes free, he could spill the beans on everything and send Norton to jail. A warden in a prison, I imagine he'd have a long, long life expectancy.
TBH, I think I agree with OE
I agree with that too. I mean Norton does kind of use Bogs and the guards as the bad cop/stick to his good cop/carrot, but he's really more corrupt than he is sadistic or evil.
Messenger from another dimension.
Tentative ![[tdown]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Thumbs_down_emoticon_3571.png "[thumb down]"){kind=small}
Norton
I'm for cutting Norton, I've always felt that he may not be heinous enough.
I want to keep Norton, but at this rate I doubt he's staying. For what it's worth though, for him staying.
Unsure on Norton. He sounds pretty cruel to me.
Caesar
Well, breaking the villains actions down:
Boggs: Repeatedly raped Andy, the protagonist, and is stated to have done so to other inmates beforehand.
The Killer: Murdered and innocent man and woman then allowed an innocent man to be arrested for the crime (Off screen, but still)
Hadley: Regularly beats prisoners, kills two during the film (One on Norton's orders)
Norton: Allows said rapes and beatings to take place, and actually endorses some of them; Manipulates Andy into assisting him in money laundering; Has an inmate murdered because he could get Andy released; Threatens to give Andy back to the rapists, then throws him into solitary confinement (Basically a dark room the size of a broom closet), for a total of two months.
Hmmm, it is indeed difficult, but I'd still give Norton a tentative
edited 15th Dec '15 10:40:27 PM by Ravok
WHAT A WONDERFUL DAY!
Yeah, gonna Norton. That solitary confinement thing is really jacked up.
Lizzid people!
What I've noticed in some cases is people compare current proposals to the heinous standard of video games or Manga as a whole. It might not be intentional, but I've seen some pretty vile characters with virtually no redeeming qualities shot down on account of not being heinous enough. Like I think there was an instance where a murdering pedophile was down voted. Maybe in something like say Berserk that wouldn't stand out, but in most other universes that would certainly be horrible. I'm not saying which examples were shot down, but I feel that people should not compare the heinous standard of movies and manga in general. I have a feeling we should look at Sokakusei from Flame of Recca again because of this. For one, I think his victims were primarily teenagers and we usually lump teens into the "kid" category so wouldn't that be heinous enough, especially since he's an outright sadist about it? Just because a character wouldn't be heinous enough in Berserk doesn't mean they wouldn't be heinous enough in say Yu Yu Hakusho. You don't have to explode the universe, murder and rape an entire city, and perform sexual experimentations on little boys and girls in order to stand out for most works.
Just a thought. Not trying to sound angry or anything it just feels like people are judging certain works based off other works. If there's a serial rapist in a Shonen series, they would probably stand out even if they didn't murder too many people.
edited 15th Dec '15 11:00:42 PM by Klavice
I tend to consider characters' behaviour in regards to the type of character and the genre they're in. So, say, a Slasher Movie villain couldn't count just because they kill in creative ways, because that's normal for the genre. An Omnicidal Maniac also wouldn't count just for destroying worlds, because that's what villains of that calibre do.
Unofficial Wiki Curator for Complete Monster
I actually don't oppose cutting the Everyday Heroes example. After all, the entry says what he does. He's not in that many comics, but he's quite an asshole. the Doffy image BTW.
Klavice, stop with this "I thinkwe should..." If you think someone counts, make an honest effortpost.
to Norton.
A total has-been.
@Randomtroper 89: Kinda sorta. That character's game incarnation is definitely a closed case that no one wants to get into discussing again, but his manga incarnation could be eligible for discussion once his arc's conclusion finally comes (and who knows when that will be given the screwy release schedule of Pokemon Special?). And the other possible candidate I'll just say is from a still ongoing show that we don't like to talk about around here. 
