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. "
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
![]()
I agree, having a kids show means that the heinous bar is lower, however it also makes it less likely for a character to meet it. Kids films/shows/books can have CM's, but not always. Heinous by the standards of the story is emphasized in this case.
Good point
Thanks
edited 9th Dec '12 12:01:53 PM by DrPsyche
There is a YKTTW underway for 99% Monster
. Giving a heads-up.
The nature of a Complete Monster intrinsically has traits so absolute that they just aren't congruent with most things that are aimed at a younger audience, namely that they're irredeemable. It's like those terrible MLP examples; in a universe where the main theme is ostensibly friendship, you can't claim that someone is truly beyond redemption without veering into the nasty territory of bad writing. There's a bit more leeway in a grittier, more mature setting (I.E the DCAU), but it doesn't seem like our current subject is so dark as to warrant that.
Alright, that proposal needs to be nuked from orbit. That is definitely just a thinly-veiled attempt at saying "well, you couldn't make it through the qualifiers for Complete Monster, but you still are one anyway. So there." It carries all of the same connotations that this trope has, existing only to subvert this effort and open up the floodgates for abuse.
edited 9th Dec '12 12:17:32 PM by AquaRegia
![]()
![]()
Looking at the YKTTW, I think that it's actually been launched with good intentions (convincing people to put their worst examples elsewhere). That said, it's not a trope. It could just as easily be called "really nasty guy" or something equally inane.
I'd also say Kill It with Fire. Kind of interested to read this edit under Chronicle made by the troper who created that YKTTW:
- Even Evil Has Loved Ones: Similarly, Richard sincerely loves his wife. Not really all that helpful to her, but still. It's the only thing keeping us from considering him a Complete Monster.
So yeah, the trope intent seems to be an excuse to add examples that couldn't quite make the cut.
HodorIf that YKTTW ever gets launched, I'm of the opinion that it should be instantly cut.
I checked on the Metroid YMMV page and found this:
Complete Monster: Ridley in the manga, which isn't all that far off, all things considered. His whole motivation for what he does is implied to be nothing but simply For the Evulz.
The manga is essentially the same as the games except with a little backstory. Ridley murders Samus' parents in cold blood but at the same time it's ambiguous as to whether or not Ridley is truly a CM.
Should he count? The act is on screen and not offscreen villainy, but I still have my doubts.
edited 9th Dec '12 2:52:45 PM by Klavice
I'm going to agree with you guys, the YKTTW shouldn't be passed.
Oh boy, time for a lot of talk.
For 99% Monster, burn it to the ground now. If I knew how YKTTW worked I would throw a vote against it already.
@ Krystoff, just give it a rest already. You've been so incredibly petty this entire thread, your first attitude here was "Drop what your talking about and look at my examples," now you're "pay attention to what I say!" I honestly think you've reached the end of your usefullness for this thread.
And Jesus Christ Almighty, you brought up another resolved character again and your not bringing any new facts to the conversation again and you clearly don't give a fuck about the rules of this thread.
And by the way, the reason why I want those examples spoilered is because Wreck-It-Ralph won't be out in Australia for another 16 days, and I just want a little consideration that not everyone lives in North America and those tropers might not want this brand-new work spoiled for them.
@ The point about kid's works, basically, what Aqua said, most kids work are too light-hearted for a character to be completely irredeamable (that being that redemption is literally impossible, even if the character never sought it out). I'm also of the opinion that a work has to meet a bare minimum level of heniousness to count as a Complete Monster, to avoid bullshit examples about characters counting for being mean (or avoiding Loophole Abuse with the criteria).
@ Dr Psyche, I say that MLP:Fi M as a whole should just be ignored, as the work itself makes being irredeamable and truly henious impossible.
@ Jordan, god that example is terrible. Breaking the line between readers and editors and backhandedly calling the guy a Complete Monster.
@ Klavice, I'd say he would count for the Manga, but not for the Games, unless there was an effort somewhere in there to cement the relationship between the two. He's vicious even for a Space Pirate, and enjoys the carnage he brings.
I made a slight tweak to that Chronicle example.
Also, I'm not sure Krystoff's conduct is that bad. I too have a habit of bringing up examples as I notice them. I'd cut him some slack...
edited 9th Dec '12 3:22:53 PM by Jordan
HodorIf anyone agrees with me on this, Tsukasa of all people becomes this trope in the Lucky Star fanfic The Library
. Gets Konata and Hiyori to team up with her in a shootout which she intends to start some kind of revolution with. Along the way, she suspects Hiyori of considering betraying her when she simply stalls after she gives her an order, shoots her when they have some privacy, and lies to Konata that she sent her on some kind of task that involves speed. The only good thing she's done all fic long was to let Miyuki run free while shooting people in the library, before claiming more victims. She then has Konata help her drag Kagami and Misao out into the hallways, and then rapes Kagami, her own twin sister, with one of their guns. Next thing that happens, she shoots Misao through the cheeks after letting her decide between that and getting shot in the stomach and feet. Towards the end of the ordeal, when they're about to enter the cafeteria where they killed a good portion of the student body with mustard gas, Konata ditches her and goes to hide inside a closet to feign victimhood. Konata is very remorseful about everything she's done with Tsukasa. Miyuki forgives her, telling her that at least she had shown through her body language that she wasn't enjoying things nearly so much as Tsukasa was, and that she can either continue living a normal life, continue the path of evil, or atone for everything she's done, while mentioning that Tsukasa (who is dead by the end of the the fic) very much should be a pariah.
@Sea Rover: Can't see any immediate reason to exclude that entry (apart from an Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking issue), so I'll vote in favour.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanAnd I am going to say that the only person who currently received any offense is me! Calling me petty and useless after so much help that I provided in this thread? The only user who really was petty and useless was Brony99. Yeah, I was pushy a little bit in the past but not anymore.
And I actually had new argument about Turbo; I just did not want to post it because I did not want to spoil it for you Shaoken.
edited 9th Dec '12 4:35:06 PM by Krystoff
My advice man? Let it lie. Show that you've changed, contribute productively, and eventually people will find something else to complain about.
![]()
Shaoken, I get where you're coming from (I can be pretty vindictive myself) but it doesn't really do us much good to go over stuff like this. If Krystoff (or anybody else for that matter) screws up we can address it when it happens.
Back to why Turbo is apparently listed as having some sort of ending redemption when he has none - I just went through the character page, and think that you may have gotten him confused with Vanellope, who is transformed into the princess of Sugar Rush when Turbo is deposed. I can't find any other notes implying that he reforms. He gets completely eviscerated, so there really wasn't room for that. The only note that might've been confusing would be Reasonable Authority Figure, which regards a scene that 32 Footsteps and I debated endlessly via PM for a while.
![]()
![]()
Offenses, as in, you've violated the rules several times. Like you're doing now with Turbo, bringing up an argument that has been had two or three times. Tell me, this new argument of yours, does it include something that was not addressed by any troper before? Because it it was included, you're breaking the same rule you've been breaking over and over again.
Yes, you've been in this thread a long time. And for over half of it the rest of us were cleaning up your mistakes, and half of what's left was you breaking one rule or another. So drop the victim card you've been going on about, stop badgering other posters like Footsteps just because he doesn't pay attention to your examples, and if you're going to bring up a new argument then for God's sake actually bring it up, none of this "I want to restart this conversation but I won't say why we should because that would spoil it" nonsense. You broke this rule before with Rodrigo (where again, you badmouthed Footsteps because he hadn't played the game), and you're doing it now.
![]()
The issue is he did Screw up; he complained that Footsteps wasn't paying attention to him, when the first three months of Krystoff's involvement was interupting any discussions we had on other characters with the ones he wanted debated and then chewing out people for not talking about them, and he's brought Turbo up again when that debate has come up three times before, which is just bogging down the thread and is a violation of our policy on the matter.
Honestly, my patience with Krystoff is wearing thin since we've wasted more time with his mistakes and his breaking this thread's policies than we've gained from his actual contributions.
edited 9th Dec '12 6:06:14 PM by Shaoken
Well, I partly understand where are you coming from but I wouldn't say that Turbo situation is the same as Rodrigo's. With Rodrigo, I was arguing for his inclusion (and still am actually). With Turbo, I am arguing against him! Turbo has been ruled out, and all I want to do, is give one more argument against him.
As for badmouthing Footsteps for not playing the game?
1. Well firstly Assassins Creed is an awesome game and I am surprised that some people don't want to play it.
2. All him arguments against Borgia seem to be based only on what you say. I doubt that he read Occasional Exister's post because if anyone would read, it is impossible to still argue against Borgia.
Of course, since the issue with Borgia is closed, lets not talk about it anymore, unless somebody brings him up again.
edited 9th Dec '12 6:20:03 PM by Krystoff

It really depends on how young the film is aimed at, and just how mature the film is trying to feel. A film that's trying to feel like a kid's movie, probably isn't going to have a qualifier. Something like The Hunchback of Notre Dame which tries to feel a little more mature, and include some more adult themes, has a better chance of having a qualifier.