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
Just because somebody has called a character a complete monster does not mean that they are using the same criteria as this wiki uses.
But isn't the trope and it's criteria on this wiki (where it was invented) meant to be the be-all, end-all truth of who's a Complete Monster and who isn't? Is the objective to make Complete Monster examples fact, not opinion? Again, it ties into the question I posed. Is there really such thing as a "factual Complete Monster?" Or is in a YMMV Trope in all senses of the term? And this isn't a challenge here: it's a legitimate question I'm asking myself and others here.
Some other guy on the Internet calling Spectacular!Osborn a CM proves what exactly?
Nothing. I was just putting something into perspective. Also, this whole wiki and the CM Trope is on the internet.
Syndrome, whom you mentioned, only tries to kill the heroes. Same with Turbo, and quite a few others on the banned list. That's why I brought it up.
With Syndrome, I was agreeing for why the "he only succeeded in killing himself" thing in his Not CM description should go, not arguing that Syndrome belongs on the trope. ('Cause he doesn't. At all). Such a phrase implies that a Complete Monster HAS to succeed in doing a terrible thing, not just attempt it, even if the intent is clear.
Turbo...I never even mentioned him trying to kill any hero. Where'd you get that?
Finally, if you've got a specific complaint about how we do things here, let's have out with it. Because frankly, the snide commentary and hints about bias are starting to get wearing. Tell us what the issue is that has so offended you, or kindly cut it out.
I have a question that I've already raised. I'm not meaning to be snide here. I'm all for the intent behind what you do here. The only thing that kind of offends me is how against subjective opinions it often seems to be. Like we're looking for a "truth" in a subjective trope where there is none. In a trope like this, which is about interpreting fictional villains a certian way, there seems to be a blurry line between opinion and fact.
edited 17th Apr '13 7:22:08 PM by AnewMan
![]()
I can see I'm going to be outvoted on the grandma and i'd really have no objections; I was just struck, viewing the episode, by how utterly, horrifically, backwards she was. Her morality was straight out of the freaking Bronze Age: "Rape? Not so bad. Losing your virginity before the wedding night? Filthy slut deserved it."
Sounds revolting, and I'd qualify her in a second if it wasn't Criminal Minds. Given that it's a show about serial murderers, serial arsonists, serial rapists, etc, though, I just can't see any abusive parent, however godawful, qualifying (in a different show, Charles Hankel would probably make the cut as well).
![]()
![]()
![]()
There are fairly clear cut general requirements listed in the FAQ (the link is at the top of the page). The forum is to argue the finer points.
EDIT:
If the victim committing heinous acts was not a desired outcome of the torment/abuse/torture I don't think it counts.
edited 17th Apr '13 7:32:40 PM by SophiaLonesoul
![]()
![]()
![]()
I've read the FAQ. It still doesn't quite answer the questions for me. I ask again: Isn't the trope and it's criteria on this wiki meant to be the be-all, end-all truth of who's a Complete Monster and who isn't? Is the objective here to make Complete Monster examples fact, not opinion? Is there really such thing as a "factual Complete Monster?" Or is in a YMMV Trope in all senses?
I would totally understand if this were just from cutting examples that don't match the exact criteria from the CM pages and cutting some blatantly bad examples from the YMMV pages. But apparently, the wiki cannot even acknowledge that there are fans with differing opinions who do consider some villains who were deemed not examples to be examples. Even though it's a YMMV Trope. And that makes me wonder...is what the wiki says makes a Complete Monster meant to be absolute law, fact, or truth? Or is it, in of itself, opinion? It's not even something that ought to be bugging me that much, but it is.
edited 17th Apr '13 7:38:45 PM by AnewMan
The objective is to come to a consensus on whether or not a character counts. This is in response to a large amount of miss-use. This is an attempt to have a single definition for Complete Monster that has persistence meaning not just "really really bad dude". With the more precise definition this trope has moved away from being an audience reaction trope and has become something that is more measurable. We can debate the ethics of X is morally worse than Y, moral agency etc. and come to a supportable conclusion.
![]()
To answer your question: It has not yet been determined. Yes, there are some people who want the trope to stay YMMV, and yes, there are some who want to be able to be put it on a trope's main page. Yes there are people who have different opinions on whether or not a character counts and that is why we work to build consensus on this forum to determine who counts. As of yet, we have not determined what will be the trope's ultimate status because we're busy with cleaning up each subpage. I imagine once we've locked all the subpages, we'll be in a better place to address this question because the knowledge of our new standards for the trope will have spread more throughout the site.
![]()
![]()
The goal here is to make it as objective as possible. We want to eliminate the massive misuse of the trope, and the tendency of people to view their favourite/least favourite character bieng classed as a CM as some sort of badge of honour. We want to clean out all the subpages, and get them ready for locking. What will happen afterwards we don't know, because it's going to take years to clean out all the bad examples anyway. Every time we think we've got them all, we tend to notice a bad one that just wasn't quite as awful as the ones we just did a hatchet job on.
We will therefore cut anyone who does not meet baseline heinousness.
We will cut anyone who is not heinous by the standards of the story.
We will cut anyone who lacks moral agency or possesses a strong enough Freudian Excuse.
We will cut anyone who is not played seriously.
The FAQ more or less covers all those details though. I'm really not sure just what it is you are trying to get at. The fact that members of the fandom really hate the guy, or some such, does not make it this trope, and cannot be taken into account. I (and everybody else in the Gundam fandom) loathe Katejina Loos. We still burned her for failing the criteria. A non-example is a non-example, and to put not to fine a point on it, we don't care what the fandom thinks.
edited 17th Apr '13 7:51:24 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
@Sophia Lonesoul: I already understood that part of this effort thread, and agree wholeheartedly with it. There were just some problems I was seeing with the criteria, and how we supposedly can't even speak of the fact that there still are and always will be people who think of certain villains as examples, even when the main page and wiki disagrees.
It has not yet been determined. Yes, there are some people who want the trope to stay YMMV, and yes, there are some who want to be able to be put it on a trope's main page.
So even though we've defined it now, it might not be final? And I'd rather it stay a YMMV trope, but in a way that's clear enough to keep the REALLY bad examples (Discord, Mr Krabbs, Katejina Loos, etc.) off for good, but maybe allow more leeway for at least acknowledging the some current un-examples of Complete Monster (Scar, Turbo, Ghetsis, etc.) are still regarded as valid examples by others. Like "one man's non-Complete Monster is another man's Complete Monster" or something.
I imagine once we've locked all the subpages, we'll be in a better place to address this question because the knowledge of our new standards for the trope will have spread more throughout the site.
That's actually comforting to know.
The goal here is to make it as objective as possible
As objective as a Subjective Trope can be? Or just plain objective?
We want to eliminate the massive misuse of the trope, and the tendency of people to view their favourite/least favourite character bieng classed as a CM as some sort of badge of honour.
I do hope that gets cuts down on, though unfortunately there will always be morons. (Thankfully not as bad as that Brony person...)
We will therefore cut anyone who does not meet baseline heinousness.
What exactly is "baseline heinousness" anyway?
We will cut anyone who is not heinous by the standards of the story.
Does this have to relate to the baseline heinousness? (For example, Turbo was heinous by the standards of the Wreck It Ralph verse, but wouldn't seem so heinous in any other work.)
We will cut anyone who lacks moral agency or possesses a strong enough Freudian Excuse.
I've seen this is a criteria in the FAQ, but it's not mentioned on the main trope itself. Should it be added?
We will cut anyone who is not played seriously
But there's a difference between being Laughably Evil and being flat-out Played for Laughs, right?
The fact that members of the fandom really hate the guy, or some such, does not make it this trope, and cannot be taken into account.
With Osborn, it wasn't that the fans really hated him: it was that most of them saw him as pretty damn pure evil by any standards.
I (and everybody else in the Gundam fandom) loathe Katejina Loos. We still burned her for failing the criteria.
I kinda felt a little bit sorry for Katejina Loos, actually. And I do not think she's a Complete Monster, for that matter.
A non-example is a non-example
In whose opinion, though? The wiki and it's criteria, I suppose. And I guess maybe that's the crux of my question: does the wiki have to be a Hive Mind in these matters?
edited 17th Apr '13 8:14:35 PM by AnewMan
So, if Spectacular Goblin can't be a Complete Monster due to failing the heinous standard, I wonder how this will fare for Ultimate Goblin? (Only asked about Spectacular Goblin in the first place because searching "Complete Monster" plus "Green Goblin" only brought back results for movie verse and comic verse Goblin.)
I mean, White Tiger's back-story has Kraven the Hunter successfully killing her dad. Norman/Goblin hasn't killed anyone that we know of, yet. However, until new evidence pops up, I will still argue that Goblin is a monster just for the way he treats poor Harry. (Is not saying that we stick him on the trope right now, since it's still too soon to tell.)
I haven't re-watched the show in a while, but the worst things I can recall Spectacular!Norman/Goblin doing are:
- Set a bomb in the Big Man's ballroom with the intention of killing everyone there. (He didn't know everyone had evacuated at the time he revealed this to Spidey, but the way he put it was "Any moment now, the Big Man of New York's party is going to paint the town red! Well...the ballroom, anyway. *cackles*)
- Directly caused Otto Octavius' accident that caused him to snap and become Doctor Octopus.
- OK, this is the big one: when Spidey guessed the Goblin was Norman Osborn and called him out, he faked a leg injury as he "limped" towards his glider and escaped. He did this 'cause he knew Spidey would come to Norman's place to investigate, but he'd see that Osborn wasn't limping like the Goblin had been, therefore could not be the Goblin. However, when Norman got home he found his son Harry drugged up and passed out on the floor from taking too much Globulin Green formula. So Norman decided to improvise with his excuse. He took off the Goblin costume and dressed the unconcious Harry up in it, put him on the couch, and then for the final meassure, twisted his leg. The set up was complete and when Spidey came to investigate, a drugged, crazed Harry was revealed under the Goblin mask. Norman lies and says Harry had developed a split personality through taking the formula, and used that persona to fight the Big Man so that the Big Man would leave his father alone. Spidey bought the lie and agreed to not tell anyone about Harry's deeds as the Goblin.
- Norman returned to the Goblin identity when he helped orchestrate a three-way gang fight between Tombstone, Doc Ock, and Silvermane. A fight at a public fancy resteraunt/opera house at that. At the end of it all, the Goblin takes over as the new Big Man of crime.
- The Goblin manipulated Mark Allan into taking the path that led to him turning into Molten Man, and then blackmailed him into doing his bidding, when led to Mark putting his own sister in danger when he fought Spider-Man. In the end Mark goes to prison and his life has pretty much been wrecked.
- He traps Spider-Man in a prison vault when Spidey's there to test a security system, then proceeds to orchestrate a prison riot that gangs up on Spidey. He does most of this For the Evulz.
- He uses all the resources he has as Big Man to rig the entire city with explosives as a death trap for Spidey. Think about that for a sec: he's risking the lives of several people in the city for the sake of killing one target.
- When the Goblin is unmasked as Norman, it's revealed that the "Norman" that had been on the scene before was actually the Chameleon impersonating him. Norman was paying him off to do this specifically to fool people, including his son Harry.
- Norman reveals he wants domination of the whole city this whole time, and though he used the Goblin formula on himself, he's never drank it and is thus in his right mind: he's less crazy as much as he is pure evil. And then when he reveals how he framed Harry, and what he did to do it, he rationalizes it with "By covering my own tracks by framing Harry, I saved Harry! If I had been caught, who would've been there to make a man out of him?" And considering what that means to him...yeah. His Evil Gloating is completely straight as well. There is no shame or remorse for his crimes at all. After all, he never apologizes.
edited 17th Apr '13 8:54:18 PM by AnewMan
Yeah, we have got rid of a lot of bad examples in the past. We have come a long way, but theres STILL much more to do, not nearly as much as before, but still more than enough, ignoring the iffy examples like The Creeper and the Green Goblin, there are still a few Really bad examples left, like this one fromFelix the cat the movie, it says on the very same page that lists the villain as a CM that he's Designated Evil.
Not sure on Osborn, have not seen the series, sounds pretty evil though.
edited 17th Apr '13 8:56:11 PM by bobg
jjj
Because I don't think it's a good idea to give any leeway to the Single Issue Wonks. There's already been evidence - such as the last few pages - that even the "never again" list hasn't managed to entirely shut the "no, X is too a Complete Monster" stuff down.
- Colonel Joseph Broga, is the commander of the artillery base in the Free Fire Zone, and ends up on the receiving end of a morally dodgy Pay Evil unto Evil scene with a side of Cold-Blooded Torture in the mission Catch and Release.
- Captain Halvar Gunnarsen was responsible for the deaths of over 300 miners in Chryse (we are not given many details, however), and attempts to trap workers during a protest in one of the industrial zones with a message over a PA system. They expect a peaceful protest, but he's given his troops orders to open fire.
- General Bertram Roth is an incompetent liar if the Voice of Mars is to be believed, and is constantly assuring the citizens that, even as the Faction tears it's way towards the mass accelerator on Mount Vogel, the Red Faction is a crippled organization that is on it's last legs and in it's final death throes.
- Admiral Lucius Kobel (who has been engineering the entire situation to take over from Roth) takes his bigass spaceship to Mars to put the Faction down via all out assault and orbital bombardment. The civilian population? ...expendable.
- Capek, from Red Faction 1. He performed horrifying nanotech experiments on the miners, turning them into disfigured monsters. He's also behind the the plague that is painfully killing off the civilians, but then anyone who's ever played a videogame before knows "mysterious plague" + "evil corporation" = "evil experiments" anyway.
- Adam Hale
Broga and Roth don't sound heinous and Adam Hale has no context.
How are these Revenge examples?
- Complete Monster: Dr. Michelle Banks, the psychologist who was in charge of Amanda after her father's arrest. It's not only that she caused Amanda to be institutionalized after accepting a bribe from Victoria, but the glee she took in telling Amanda how she could never see her father again, that she was a bad girl, and could never do anything more than pretend to be good. After Amanda's revenge ruined her practice kidnapped her, and locked her in a shipping crate for several hours, the only complaint fans had was that the doctor had gotten off too easy. Although her revenge is pure Nightmare Fuel - with everyone else, the damage is done by the end of the episode. Dr. Banks still has no idea who kidnapped her or why, and will likely spend the rest of her life terrified they'll come back.
- Grandpa Grayson blackmailing Charlotte, a seventeen-year-old girl who's just suffered severe emotional trauma, into not visiting a therapist … simply because of the possibility of the therapist blabbing the family secrets to the media and ruining the Grayson reputation. Harsher in Hindsight in light of Charlotte's attempted suicide in the season 1 finale.
- Victoria's mother, Mary. She attempted to con her way into a man's wealth and when he refused, shot him, then ordered a fifteen year old Victoria to shoot the body postmortem and claim "he came at you". After spending six months at a psychiatric hospital, Victoria was returned to her mother only to be raped by her mother's boyfriend, who blames her, throws her out and marries the guy. Certainly explains why Victoria is the way she is.
Because I don't think it's a good idea to give any leeway to the Single Issue Wonks.
Were that to be the case, then the wiki is being draconian and absolute in it's assertion that a villain is "factually" not a Complete Monster. For some examples that don't even come close to matching the criteria, there should be no leeway. But for those who really are pure evil (or could easily seen as pure evil even by non Fan Dumb or crazies), they could stay. That is, assuming we ever get to this point.
There's already been evidence - such as the last few pages - that even the "never again" list hasn't managed to entirely shut the "no, X is too a Complete Monster" stuff down.
I never argued for the "never again" examples. But if there are people out there who think "no, X is too a Complete Monster", it's because it's their sincere (and possibly valid) opinion that X is indeed an example.
edited 17th Apr '13 9:55:46 PM by AnewMan
So.
Right now, locally, it's 12:30 AM. I've been a father for seven days. The city I've been in has been, as been noted on the news, bombed this past Monday. My sleep schedule is thrown off, I'm on a jumbled mess of emotions, and I really should be getting back to bed.
I just want to point all that out, because I have a reputation for being rather curt in this thread, and if anyone's wondering why I might seem way beyond my usual standard for bluntness, that's what's going on.
Right now, if you're thinking about having the argument over whether this trope should still be YMMV or not, you're not just trying to put the cart before the horse. You're throwing five tons of cargo into the mud before you bought either a cart or a horse, and you're effectively wondering why the cargo isn't being moved. Getting all the entries to meet a particular standard of solid writing and fitting the trope definition is vastly more necessary than trying to figure out if it should go on white pages or blue.
Second, on the search bar - are you familiar with signal/noise ratio? If you keep repeating the same points over and over, it just becomes noise that muffles out people signaling an attempt to progress on the cleanup. Plus, there are only so many times folks want to hear the same arguments over the same characters repeatedly. Mods will take action if it persists as a problem.
Third, honestly, I'm a bit surprised that folks have been as forgiving about people trying to go over the "Do not bring up again ever" list as they have. I wouldn't push people's patience much further, as I imagine the mods wouldn't be too thrilled about seeing the names Ghetsis, King Candy, Hopper, Syndrome, and a few others being discussed yet again.
Fourth, the crux of the matter - who are we to say that our definition of Complete Monster is correct?
Well, that has a few components.
The moderators all know about the work we've done here, have given our work their imprimatur of approval, and several moderators do occasionally contribute to this cleanup as well. So The Powers That Be have been approving of what we've done.
If you want to start splitting linguistic hairs, I'd like to point out that language inherently has no meaning unless a majority of the users of said language (or dialect or jargon within said language, such as the case in a media-focused wiki such as here) agree as to the usage of said language. It wouldn't matter if I could come up with scientific, philosophical, and moral reasons why Eulard was right in that the world is blue like an orange (insert Blue-and-Orange Morality joke here; I'm blanking). Everyone who can rationally see both a lack of blue in an orange and how much of the world is neither will define the language such that I would be a complete fruitcake (likely figurative, but again, they could end up defining me as a rather literal fruitcake). We can't force anyone to use our particular definition of Complete Monster outside of the wiki. But due to our work in strictly defining its meaning here, yes, on TV Tropes, we are deciding what is and is not a Complete Monster, and that anyone who wants to use the term within this wiki will need to listen to how we've defined it.
This is actually how every trope works. It doesn't matter what you might think counts for a Magnificent Bastard, or a White-Haired Pretty Boy, or even a Big Bad. If you don't have the weight of the wiki as a whole behind your usage of it, it won't pass muster here.
Finally - since it caught my eye, I played through Radiant Historia. Excellent game that handled time travel much better than most games do. Hugo honestly gets overshadowed; Heiss is the villain that actually tries for the grandest ploys (however, Heiss has an extremely sympathetic backstory). So I agree with that cut.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.I'm going to agree with everything Footsteps just said. The thread feels like it is slipping towards derailment, and all of us have worked far too hard to let that happen.
People are on the never again list because we and the moderators who visit the forum agreed they should never be talked about again. If people want to complain about the existence of such a list they can take it up with Fighteer or one of the other moderators who are involved with the forum. I am not going to respond to any more questions about characters on that list, and I strongly advise other forum regulars to do the same thing.
@Anew Man
To answer your question about heinousness baseline heinousness and heinous by the standards of the story are two separate things. A CM has to be both. To use an extreme example Swiper is the most heinous character in Dora The Explorer. But as a petty thief, he doesn't meet baseline heinousness (which requires, at minimum, rape, murder, a spectacularly brutal assault or the like). Laughably Evil and Played for Laughs are two very different things, and both are well-defined on their own pages. And again, we do not care that the fandom is in agreement about his being "pure evil". Most of the characters on the Never Again list, are agreed to be pure evil by their respective fandoms too. We don't care.
Now let's talk about Spectacular!Osborn. The fact that you label what he did to Harry as "the big one" indicates to me that you are struggling with a case of Protagonist-Centred Morality. Harry suffered a mild injury that he later recovered from. That doesn't stack with anything else that Osborn did.
More to the point, you've raised no new points. All of these issues were raised during the initial discussion of Osborn (Occasional Exister was kind enough to list them). And none of them standout all that much. All of the villains in-show have attempted murder on their rapsheets. And all of them have regularly endangered huge numbers of innocent people (the Sinister Six attacking Spider-Man in Times Square during a street party springs to mind). The Goblin might have orchestrated the battle at the opera house, but the participants chose to open fire; he didn't make them do it. He doesn't run the prison riot either; he just lets them out of their cages; Silvermane actually takes charge. And of course Tombstone is responsible for the creation of numerous supervillains, eclipsing the Goblin's manipulation of Mark.
Is Norman the most heinous character in the show? You could make a good case. But he's not the worst by a longshot, and his actions do not stand out. Tombstone and Doctor Octopus are damn near as bad in terms of supervillains created and willingness to tolerate collateral damage.
This is the exact same conclusion that the group of us came to last time. If you read through the posts on the subject, the similarities will stand out. Either make a new argument, or please, let the matter drop.
EDIT: Someone added this to the literature page.
- The General in Gabriel Garcia Marquez's novel The Autumn of the Patriarch is one of these by design, as he's a composite of pretty much every evil dictator of the 21th Century.
I think that we need to pay some more attention the lit page. There have been attempts to clean it, but we always seem to get distracted partway through. As an unlocked page it is constantly being flooded with bad examples, yet we've never cut enough to justify a lock. I think we need to axe enough bad ones to call for a lock. That way there will be no more awful examples added in the meantime.
edited 17th Apr '13 11:48:12 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

Agree with Sophia on the Grandmother. The child abuse she inflicts is awful, but as Sophia noted Anita Roycewood, people. Plus a dozen+ child molestors, child murderers, and family annihilators, all of whom have actually killed or tried to kill children. She just doesn't do enough.
@Anew Man
Some other guy on the Internet calling Spectacular!Osborn a CM proves what exactly?
Syndrome, whom you mentioned, only tries to kill the heroes. Same with Turbo, and quite a few others on the banned list. That's why I brought it up.
Read the requirements and the FAQ if you are unsure what goes into CM these days.
All of those characters were discussed in detail, thanks very much. Assuming you've used the search function, you know that.
Finally, if you've got a specific complaint about how we do things here, let's have out with it. Because frankly, the snide commentary and hints about bias are starting to get wearing. Tell us what the issue is that has so offended you, or kindly cut it out.