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 want to mention that Ajin has two different continuities, the anime continuity here and the manga continuity, and they need to be differentiated. Maybe change the work name to something like Ajin (anime)?
A few notes on Hickey... Hickey cut his father's throat when he was ten, not fifteen (the burning of the orphanage came at that age). The entry also reads like an absolute mess of potholes right now, which I believe we've advised against in the past.
Ole' Chuck
How can I not Freddy?
That drugs thing is really weird though, Since it's not elaborated on, we'll just call it a very poor attempt at An Aesop and just imagine Freddy just doesn't like drugs because they steal his victims.
I'd also call that friendship Offscreen Heroism, so let's ignore that.
Freddy can be funny, but when he wants to be sinister, he is terrifying. He's always a cruel, sadistic predator and is played as such even when he goes more comical.
edited 5th Mar '17 6:02:29 PM by PolarPhantom
Wait, I thought consensus was for the Dark Danny entry to remain unchanged?
Hey guys sorry I've been out for so long.
had a lab report to do.
any who dear ol'chuck
call me crazy, but I am leaning on Ole' Chuck.
Mod note: There is no need for this level of detail.
edited 5th Mar '17 8:04:43 PM by nombretomado
jjjBob....I don't know what possessed you to write that, and I find that whole thing extremely troubling. You cannot do that and say "it's just my opinion," that doesn't work at all.
Child molestation is rape by definition and a terrible crime. Downplaying that is bad form.
another thing on Freddy...in the films, Freddy has at least once killed someone via drug injection. So, uhh...that attempt at standards is utter tripe.
edited 5th Mar '17 7:08:20 PM by Lightysnake
What I mean is, he doesn't seem much worse than that villain from a Very Special Episode ftom a family show that was brought up a while ago, who we voted down because he didn't physically hurt anyone.
jjjOkay, what episode and what crimes? A serial child molester is not something to be taken lightly and Iam not buying these situations are similar.
Here: [1].
I know that it's serious, it's just that I don't consider the non violent ones to be as bad as murderers. Still a serious thing. I want to stress that I am not trying to downplay the seriousness of it at all. I above all else do not want to offend anyone.
jjjOk, um....I'm going to be as objective and nonconfrontaional as possible right now, so just bear with me.
Alright, so, I tried to dance around it, but it seems I have to make it more explicit: Yes, Charles raped Mer until she bled. There are some sick implications that he "broke" something, for those who get my meaning, so there.
And yes, in the end, he was violently trying to rape Mer. I kinda thought the fact that I pointed out that she tried to drive him off by brandishing a knife was evidence of that.
But, ok, let's, for just a minute, say those didn't happen. In what world is doing what Charles did to them NOT still rape? This is extremely hard to lay out while avoiding something that could get me in trouble with the mods, but children can't exactly give consent to something like that.
All of Charles' victims note that he freaking forced them to beg him to stop while he was doing it. And after he is caught, two of the kids freaking break down in a wailing heap when they see him in court. He hurt them, it wasn't consensual, it COULDN'T have been, and Charles enjoyed it.
edited 5th Mar '17 7:21:03 PM by Ravok
WHAT A WONDERFUL DAY!Meh, his vote is no. Let's just move on and save the debate for another place(or not at all, since there is no worthwhile debate here). Also, better to holler troublesome posts and let the mods deal with cases like this than outright derail the topic.
I don't agree with him either, but let's move on instead.
Charles.
Okay, that's all I need to know. I' changing my vote to .
Should I delete the post I made? I don't want to offend anyone.
edited 5th Mar '17 7:30:09 PM by bobg
jjjCharles.
This might risk making a stir, but I'll just throw in my two cents about the child molestation thing.
While yes, having sex with a child is rape no matter what, in terms of the character's heinousness, if the child agreed to have sex, then, while it's still rape, it shouldn't go into account to the character's heinousness as much as if the child refused since the children would be having sex with them willingly.
However, seeing as how the sex didn't seem to be consensual (with one of them attempting suicide and Charles not giving a shit about it from the looks of the effort post) I'm gonna give him a
I literally just said that it would still be rape. But if a man offers sex to a child and the child says yes, that would be fucked up and I am not implying I condone it by any means, but that is by definition being willing to have sex with the man.
Edited by Awesomekid42 on Nov 6th 2019 at 12:15:23 PM
Wait, what?
No. No, that's not how it works. Children cannot give consent. There's no such thing as 'having sex with a child willingly.' A child CANNOT agree to that.
edited 5th Mar '17 8:04:54 PM by Lightysnake
Let's just drop this right now.
Children cannot consent. Saying child molestation isn't heinous because the child was okay with it really doesn't stand any kind of test.
Either vote or . Let's not derail further. The original post has been edited to remove everything besides the vote.
Yeah, dropping it
Alright, dropping that and getting back on-topic... I need to echo Awesome on Dark Danny's writeup. I explicitly remember that there was some agreement that the original writeup didn't actually need to be replaced... mainly, the current one serves the character fine and the new one just reads like a plot summary. Any other comments on that?
edited 6th Mar '17 6:57:03 AM by ACW
CM Dates; CM Pending; CM Drafts