Subpages cleanup: Complete Monster

In the interest of being productive and saving time, I thought I would compile all the Sword Art Online write-ups into one entry. Here we are.

• Sword Art Online has the main villains of the Alfheim Online and Gun Gale Online arcs:
  • Suguo Nobuyuki is the director of research and development at RECTO Progress Incorporated, and the one-time fiance of female lead, Asuna Yuuki. He was also completely obsessed with research into the manipulation of human emotion. Following the clearing of Sword Art Online, Suguo obtained information on 300 of the surviving players, and trapped them in his own game, Alfheim Online so that he could run experiments on them. Kidnapping Asuna in the game, he keeps her trapped in a gilded cage at the top of Alfheim's World Tree, while plotting to wed the comatose girl in the real world. When protagonist Kirito reaches the top of the World Tree, Suguo uses his administrator abilities to paralyse him, tortures him, and then sexually assaults Asuna in front of him, gloating the entire time about how, once he's freed, he will rape her again in real life. When the plan fails, he attempts to kill Kirito in the real world, attacking him with a knife. Guilty of attempted murder, torture, trying to rape a teenage girl, and putting three hundred people who had just spent two years fighting for their lives through an additional two months of trauma, Suguo is as bad as SAO's villains get.
  • Red Eyed XaXa (real name: Shoichi Shinkawa), one of the top three members of the Laughing Coffin Guild in SAO, and the Guild's Master Swordsman. During the Murder Investigation Arc in SAO, XaXa, alongside PoH, and Johnny Black ambushed and attempted to murder players Caynz, Yolko, and Schmitt; when Kirito intervened, the trio also tried to kill him. After making his way back to the real world, XaXa, bored, and seeking a way to kill again, took advantage of his younger brother Kyoji's fragile mental state, to convince Kyoji to create the online persona of Sterben/Death Gun in Gale Gun Online, ultimately hijacking Kyoji's desire to be "the strongest" for his own ends. Using Kyoji, and his old partner Johnny Black as aides, XaXa was able to arrange the murders of players Zekushiido, Usujio Tarako, Pale Rider, and Garret, before sending Kyoji to murder his own crush, Shino Asada. A sadist at heart, XaXa makes a point of crippling his opponents before delivering the coup de grace, and during his Sword Fight with Kirito in GGO does his best to cut him to ribbons, mocking him the entire time.
  • Johnny Black (real name: Atsushi Kanemoto), one of the top three members of the Laughing Coffin Guild in SAO. As the Guild's Master Poisoner, Johnny came up with a way to paralyse opponents so that they could then be tortured to death, and puts this poison into effect during his, XaXa, and PoH's attack on the members of the Golden Apple Guild. When discussing what they will do with the captured trio, Johnny expresses a desire to make them fight each other to the death, promising the survivor that he or she will be released; when PoH notes that Johnny will just kill the survivor, Johnny complains about how the Guild Leader has ruined the surprise. He subsequently attempts to poison Kirito when he comes to the Golden Apple trio's rescue. Escaping into the real world, Johnny was recruited by XaXa during the Death Gun murders, poisoning Pale Rider and Garret, before again making a getaway. He was finally arrested when, after having lain in wait for six months, he attacked Kirito and Asuna on the street, intending to inject them with poison from a syringe, and hospitalising Kirito. Unable to quit killing in the virtual world or the real world, Johnny is the show's definitive Psycho for Hire.

Does anyone think I should mention the fact that XaXa and Johnny are both in their late teens, early twenties? Just to emphasise the lack of resources? Or expand on XaXa's Ill Boy status? I think that if you are sick enough to require hospitalisation, and you still drag yourself through somebody's window to murder them, it really shows a dedication to being a jackass that few people can demonstrate.

edited 22nd Apr '13 5:03:19 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

You sure? Here's her battle quote◊.

edited 20th Apr '13 6:46:41 PM by HamburgerTime

Yes. Their deaths mean she's lost a lot of prestige and power. The manga elaborated on this as well. She cares about her family as tools, nothing else.

Otherwise...Broly has some tragedy to him. Other characters calling him evil matters to this not at all. That's You Monster! at work

Yeah, the question does become: is she saying "I'll never forget you for killing my son and husband" or "I'll never forgive you for killing my heir and meal ticket?" The manga implies it's the latter? Do elaborate.

From what I know it makes it clear by way of a few scenes all she cares about is prestige and power. She's less upset when her son is gone and more upset he elevate her more. Hence why he pushes her daughter at the prince

Otherwise...Broly has some tragedy to him. Other characters calling him evil matters to this not at all. That's You Monster! at work

I didn't just mean that. I also said Broly called himself pure evil, and then described the heinous things he knowingly, delibrately did.

Also, that's another contradictory criteria. You Monster! means little, yet the second criteria says "The character's terribleness is played seriously at all times, evoking fear, revulsion and hatred from the other characters in the story. Naturally, characters express "fear, revulsion, and hatred" for the villain by invoking You Monster!!

A character has to fulfill all of the criteria, not just one.

I'm not a huge fan of how that criteria has been...interpreted as it seems to restrict a villain with good publicity. My point is just because Broly is called evil and te devil doesn't mean he fits here

@11927: For the Monster.Dragonball examples I'd say keep Freeza, Cell, Taopaipai, and maybe Super Buu provided he has moral agency, cut the rest.

@11943: Maybe on Sikes. Nancy's murder sounds brutal but I would need to know if he did more before casting a vote for his inclusion.

@11944: Grubba we already decided cut on long ago so he needs to be axed.

@11951: Entries look good. I agree that it'd be a good idea to mention XaXa's Ill Boy status to show how dedicated he is towards killing people.

We see Bibidi in flashback ordering Buu to kill all the inhabitants of a planet, and having him attack the suppreme kai's. While Buu is killing people Bibidi is saying "yes kill them all majin Buu".

on Buu since he was designed by Bibidi like that. The Super form arguably has a Freudian Excuse too given what Van Zant did to him in Fat form.

I didn't just mean that. I also said Broly called himself pure evil, and then described the heinous things he knowingly, delibrately did.

And? Show, Don't Tell is in effect.

Also, that's another contradictory criteria.

Really isn't.

You Monster! means little, yet the second criteria says "The character's terribleness is played seriously at all times, evoking fear, revulsion and hatred from the other characters in the story. Naturally, characters express "fear, revulsion, and hatred" for the villain by invoking You Monster!!

That can happen, but You Monster! itself is irrelevant. IF they are invoking fear, revulsion and hatred that fact by itself is self-evident, you don't need the characters yelling "You're a monster!" in order for the audience to get that, it's already self-apparant.

And as always stated, you have to hit all three criteria in order to count. Broly doesn't do much, he has limited Moral Agency due to being raised by his Uncle whose also apart of a race that glorified genociding other races for profit and is kept under mind control. So he fails on several levels.

@ Lightysnake, with villians with good publicity, it would be the reaction of anyone who finds out about their evil.

edited 20th Apr '13 8:44:43 PM by Shaoken

Back from reading up on Oliver Twist villains. Basically, Monks controls Fagin, and Fagin controls Sikes, but Monks doesn't really interact with Sikes. Nancy's murder comes about when she rats out Monks, so Fagin has Sikes get rid of her. Essentially, all three of them are responsible for her death to varying degrees.

@11963 - Just re-read the relevant parts of Oliver Twist myself earlier today, that's essentially my impression of how the responsibility for Nancy's death lands (and Monks and Sikes have no scenes together that I remember). Fagin had Sikes get rid of her rather than doing it himself because, near as I can tell, he knew Sikes had it in him; contrary to what that may imply, Sikes isn't Fagin's dragon - they're more like partners in crime (literally), and in their scenes together, it's fairly clear that Fagin is afraid of Sikes, who wouldn't hesitate to throw Fagin under a bus if the need (or even desire) arose. And Nancy's murder is actually depicted (if perhaps tersely) - Dickens tells us that Sikes hits her twice with the butt of his gun, then finishes her off with a club.

As to what else he does, that's his only actual murder (but it's also the only murder in the book), but he comes close to killing Charley Bates when the latter runs at him for killing Nancy (Charley ends up on the ground with Sikes' knee on his throat, and only the arrival of the authorities makes Sikes go back on the run instead). He also threatens Oliver with a loaded gun (pressing it against his head several times) if he gets any ideas about giving the game away during the aborted burglary on the Maylies' house. There are also several scenes where he attacks various other members of Fagin's gang (not sure about Fagin himself). Yes, he has a dog, but the dog is no Morality Pet (quite the contrary, he's as much of a target for Sikes' violence as anyone else). Not all of that is CM stuff, of course, but it does give a more complete picture of who he is and what he does (as to why he does it, he's not lacking in moral agency, and has no Freudian Excuse).

As the entry as currently written states, he commits all of the acts of true brutality and violence in the book - the only crimes committed by Fagin and the rest of his gang are various forms of theft, while Monks is just a greedy Manipulative Bastard who tries to prevent Oliver from inheriting anything from their father - so he's certainly heinous by the standards of the story (even allowing for the usual darkness of Dickens' works). And, like Fagin, Sikes gets no redemption in death - rather, again like Fagin, he dies a coward's death, but by accidentally hanging himself while trying to flee the authorities rather than being deliberately hanged by said authorities (as Fagin is).

Again, it looks as though Sikes has been discussed several times in this thread already (most recently Pages 394-395), and the inclination was to keep him, but there was never a "formal resolution" to do so. Again (again), my own inclination is to vote "keep", but I'm more than willing to hear counterarguments.

edited 20th Apr '13 10:22:46 PM by mlsmithca

@Anew Man

One of the issues with Broly is that, irrespective of how he describes himself, his moral agency is seriously in question. Broly's basically mentally handicapped. Remember, this is the guy who can't differentiate between Goku and Gohan. His rage has eaten away at his mind to the point where I'm not sure he's morally responsible for anything he does. If a schizophrenic, or somebody with a severe handicap (and Broly, at times, comes off as though he has both) told you he was "pure evil" would you take him at face value?

I think it is safe to say that Sykes is the worst person in the story. My only question is if he is enough worse to qualify? I will say that of the Dickens villains I am familiar with, he's certainly the closest to the trope.

@11960

I think destroying worlds is pretty old hat at that point in DBZ, is it not? We've seen Vegeta do it, we've seen Frieza do it, we've seen Cell try it, so I'm not sure Babidi (by the way, Bibidi, Babidi, Buu? Seriously, DBZ? And I thought the vegetable name scheme was stupid) is really that bad comparitively.

RE: Being Human

Going to go with lightysnake's recommendations. Owen in particular needs to go. A long time ago, I looked at the YMMV sheet for the show, and he just didn't seem bad enough, but at the time, almost no other villains were listed for me to compare him to. Ditch him.

We're probably going to have to look at the American remake at some point. I'm pleased to note that at the moment, nobody is listed, but one or two sound like they might. I figure if we get rid of it now, we can prevent people from adding bad examples in the future.

edited 20th Apr '13 10:52:21 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

True Blood examples: Agree with Lighty's proposed Cuts.

Aaron Murphy, Mage The Awakening: Given what Icarael posted @11871, I'm now officially leaning Keep.

Occasional's tally @11872: All good. Man, you're diligent.

Great Expectations examples: Gonna agree with Cut.

The Condemned examples: Agree with cutting Saga. McStarley I'm still leaning a bit towards Keep, as the Aesop he's used for is not so much broken as put through a woodchipper, burned to ashes, mixed with tar and gravel and used as a poor man's substitute for drywall (no, this makes no sense. Yes, it was intentional.). Breckel's a Keep of course.

Ambar's writeups for XaXa and Johnny Black: Good work, would read again.

@Another Duck, RE: Sword Art Online: Notwithstanding you've just been rehashing the same arguments over and over again for a long time (which is bad form), number of murders in this instance takes a backseat to quality, intent, callousness and threat level. Anyone who just killed while trapped in SAO could be somewhat excused with being incapable of considering it "real", even XaXa and Johnny Black. Even then their clear intent to poison and torture other players For the Evulz, and the sadistic way they express it, makes them stand out from Kuradeel. Also, We have zero idea if Kuradeel would have continued killing once outside the game, where "it's just a game" loses all justification; XaXa and Johnny Black are clearly shown doing just that, taking pains to mimic the experience from SAO, and one does so by co-opting his mentally unsound brother and siccing hin on his crush in the end, while the other gets his fun from personally poisoning his targets, and instead of keeping a low profile after that little scheme is stopped, decides to try and murder two of his enemies with that poison the first chance he gets. AFAIK, anyone supposedly worse did it offscreen and thus they and their actions are non-applicable.

Suguo's the only one who manages to top them, but only due to his much greater power; they're just two ordinary guys with no special abilities except those they developped to help them in being sadistic serial killers. So yeah, they count. And most people here so far seem to agree.

As for Precia, Show, Don't Tell applies, as well as what appears onscreen, so whatever she did in the movie to get disqualified is immaterial to her TV version if said version does not do the same or similar. If her Nec Romantic goals are enough to you so she's disqualified, that's okay; personally I don't think so due to her treatment of Fate (which makes me believe what she desired was more the return of her former situation than that of her daughter), but it's an acceptable argument nonetheless.

As for Quattro, the fact you said she's loyal but not to the point of risking her life seems to point out that it's more a case of Pragmatic Villainy- i.e. letting her "sister" get creamed by Hayate's mega-spell would have hurt her side's ressources, so saving her was just good sense if it didn't put her own life in danger (barely escaping is still escaping, and being something of an Evil Genius she had the ability to determine whether it was doable or not). As for the lives saved by Jail's research being more important (value or numbers-wise) than those lost because of it, it smacks of hypocrisy -something which disqualifies her from Well-Intentioned Extremist- and ironically deconstructs her argument, because she would consider the lives saved to be just as expendable if they'd helped the research by being sacrificed; it's blatant Hypocritical Moral Myopia bordering on Tautological Templar territory.

As for Jail bothering with the pretense? There's a trope for that. He just takes it a bit farther than most (also, he doesn't exactly go through the total meltdown lots of villains go through after his defeat, which contribute to the image). If I was him, I'd still bother with the pretense because 1- It ensures those still loyal to me stay that way, and 2- it messes with the heads of the turncoats, who'll probably have feelings of doubt as to whether they did the right thing switching sides (and thus could potentially be turned back) or guilt at having broken up the "family". And giving them numbers instead of actual names is a low-key reminder of what he really thinks of them- it's a common enough dehumanizing tactic in Real Life (or The Prisoner).

Being Human examples: Agree with Lighty's prognosis for all examples.

@Another Duck: No,it's not ignoring the setting. If just one guy is shown who Eats Babies, but everyone else is said to do it, it's probably not enough to qualify; he'd have to go beyond that. You'll note that currently, the Berserk page has only four people on it, despite having at least a score of villains who could qualify. Why? Because what we see them do is far worse than the standard kill/rape/torture late-medieval or demonic assholishness we see from the rest of everybody else. The baron of Koka Castle, from the manga's first volume, would fit almost anywhere else, but here, just being a sadistic cannibal who decides to slaughter a whole town For the Evulz is too tame compared to the really horrible monsters of the series. Same thing with the other Godhand- did they do stuff as heinous as Griffith/Femto to get where they are? Undoubtedly. Do they still do horrible things to screw with humanity? Obviously. Do we see enough of those acts which make them as heinous as Femto? Not really, no. Femto's the one that does the most onscreen heinousness of the five by far.

Agree with Iaculus @11898 about why Sundowner still counts.

Phantasmagoria 2 examples: The first 2 don't strike me as heinous enough, the last one seems to evoke sympathy due to his Tragic Monster status. Unless compelling evidence is brought up, I say Cut them all.

Double posting of Shidou, Highschool Of The Dead: Maybe a rewrite with elements of both would be good instead of just nuking one and keeping the other?

Mistuko's stepfather and and mother, Yuko's father, Battle Royale: Cut for failing heinousness standard set by Yonemi Kamon (FUCK. Now I just remembered how much I hate that guy).

Grubba, Paper Mario The Thousand Year Door: Gonna trust you on this, Klavice. Cut away.

DBZ again: Cooler: See my remark about the movie/OVA villains. Methinks it applies even though he seems to cross the Moral Event Horizon and thus come closer than the others, but no cigar. Cell: If he really has the capacity for choice, then Keep.

@Another Duck: Are you shitting me!? Having disagreements is okay. getting in a strong argument is okay too as long as both parties remain polite and civil. But 11932 is where I draw the line. This is dangerously close to an ad hominem, notwithstanding your annoyingly frequent use of the "You don't understand me otherwise you'd agree with me" defense. ONE more shenanigan and I'm hollering a mod. Consider yourself officially warned.

Lee Jordan, Where On Earth Is Carmen Sandiego: Cut, fails heinousness even if he is the show's worst scumbag. Also, good one, Hamburger!

@Anew: I've argued with Ambar before, over stuff we disagreed with, both in this thread and by PM. It never soured to the point it has with you. Just sayin'. You're also dangerously close to ad hominem, which I won't tolerate from you either.

Bill Sikes, Oliver Twist: Gonna go with Keep. IIRC he goes farther onscreen than pretty much any other Dickensian villain.

Fire Emblem Jugdral examples: Rewrite, but Keep Manfloy. On the fence for Hilda (she goes way beyond what could be excused by her Avenging the Villain motivation, but if she's shown by the work to still truly care for her husband and son -instead of just using them as a convenient excuse- she may not count; also, her battle quote tells us nothing about whether she's pissed because they were loved ones or because it's cost her power-wise), and Cut Travant, his entry outright states he avoids the trope.

Fire Emblem Akaneia examples: All zero context. Cut.

Sword Art Online writeups: Again, good job. Could be nice if you could add that info about Johnny and XaXa, but not sure how to do it without shoehorning.

@Lighty: Yes, it limits a bit, but if the character's heinous enough and if the arguments in favor are good enough, they get a pass anyway. Just look at Griffith (yeah, yeah, again with Berserk...); the whole continent bar about ten people consider him to be The Messiah. It does take a bit more work on the thread, but usually we get to take the right decision. And as long as they're not on the "Never Again" list, we can still discuss them. It's not a perfect system, but it's the best we got.

@Ambar: HA! Another stupid naming theme in DBZ! Hadn't noticed that one yet. 100 bucks sez Dabura's a bastardised "abracadabra".

Fine, fine, I'll explain myself, as that seems to be the most prudent at this point if I am to continue reading this thread at all. Bit of a disclaimer, this is my perception of what's happened.

@Ambar:

The problem is that I don't see a significant difference in how those two guys were heinous than what's already been shown, mainly with regards to Suguou. I don't think a higher success out of the game shows a higher level of heinousness. All of them show the same kind of thinking. I don't see having less means to do it to be of importance. And other than that, I don't see how they stick out. I read most of what you wrote, and my main reaction was just "so what?" This is primarily what I don't expect you to understand, as it's an opinion, and I've stated as much. It's not something I expect to sway the end result, so I didn't bother elaborating on it, and I don't really see the point in doing it further.

As a side note (which is more relevant to the actual thread), I think XaXa sounds worse than Johnny, reading the last description. Also, the description is unclear about what occurs in the game and not. Does XaXa only cripple people in-game, or also out of game? As it's written, he seems worse at the torture aspect than Johnny, which is the only thing he has going for him.

You don't count Kuradeel because he's overshadowed by actions only present in the books and not in the anime. In the anime, you referred to kill count, which is off-screen, and doesn't count. I found Kuradeel to be the worst shown in the anime, and not just implied or talked about. This mess about what counts or not is primarily why I got confused about what counts, when and what part of the setting is important, how standing out is defined, and several other things. I know more now than what I did in the beginning, but at this point, other than saying this, I don't see a point in arguing it further.

Now, the parts I took offence to were you throwing words at me aimed at how I was thinking and my motivations (gung-ho, sour grapes, that I couldn't think of any names just because you did it first, trying to take the moral high ground, etc.). The disillusioned comment was a direct response to the contrary of what you claim, and pulling that out of context to respond to is manipulative (a form of lying) and offensive. You say I don't have an argument, but I do. It's not necessarily the best argument, nor one you agree with, but it's an argument, and saying it's not is what I take to be a lie and basically high-horsing. I'm not trying to present me as the moral victor, because frankly, we both suck at it. I found it insulting, and it provoked me above what's probably acceptable for this thread. I've been through worse, so I'm not sure exactly what is and what isn't acceptable, though. I tend to be more direct if I'm actually aiming a comment at someone, and I very much dislike underhanded comments that flow under the radar of most people. At this point, if you want to argue about it, I think PMs would be best (I only wrote it here because it seemed like more people wanted an explanation, or I'd have used PM for this part myself). I know it probably wasn't intended to be as insulting as I took it, but there you have it.

Finally, I do accept that people disagree with me (which is why I attempted to stop that discussion) so I'll at least try to avoid further arguments on that, side note aside. I tend to be easily provoked, though, as said.

@Sophia: See above for your unfounded comment about my accusation being unfounded.

@Pairon:

Precia's treatment of Fate strikes me as specifically directed due to the circumstances of who and what she is. Basically motivated by the loss of her daughter. That's evident within the TV series.

For all Quattro said, she didn't act on much, if you want to go the Show, Don't Tell route. She was a bit mean to Vivio, which is more of a Kick the Dog moment than a Complete Monster moment. She's overshadowed by Jail and Due in terms of what she actually did.

Jail's pretense is speculation. How he really feels simply isn't known, but he shows that he does. For me, setting him as a Complete Monster means he absolutely did fake it all, and there's just not enough evidence for it. It's an Alternate Character Interpretation.

About the setting, I do appreciate your explanation, but I don't see how it isn't what I thought. If that really is the case, it's better than I was led to believe.

Finally, don't misrepresent what I say. I've never said nor implied Ambar would agree with me if he understood. It was also clearly not an argument I intended to "win" with, but rather meant I didn't think further discussion would be productive. Claiming that is a false assumption, and, in my opinion, a lie. Now, I disagree with Ambar, and I think some of his comments are offensive, but I think that what you said here is more offensive. If you want someone to be more polite, being offensive about it is not the way to go.

edited 21st Apr '13 4:30:04 AM by AnotherDuck

The Governor from ComicBook.The Walking Dead (but not the show) was voted, a good while ago, as a CM keep.

However, the page for the prequel novel (counts towards comic canon) The Walking Dead: Rise of the Governor lists him as Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds, with the entry "The novel shows how the Governor came to be and he's actually a pretty tragic character."

(Originally was in YMMV.The Walking Dead, but I moved it because WDoW is no longer YMMV.)

I don't read the comic nor have I read TWD:RotG, but isn't woobie status a CM disqualifier?

Well, it implies they were driven to it through events they couldn't control, so I think those tropes are incompatible, or at least that it's a significant mitigating factor. I suppose he could still qualify if he stands out enough despite that.

I nominate the Mainstream version of Luthor in Injustice. In the main timeline he was the one who gave the Joker the Nuke with the intention of obliterating Metropolis to rebuild in his own image... All just to spite Superman.

If it is canon, it could disqualify him, IF it makes his actions possibly justified.

Should we be concerned that a lot of people hate TV Tropes?

Because we pulled their pet examples? No. And Complete Monster isn't really a factor in the TV Tropes hatedom anyhow.

A character has to fulfill all of the criteria, not just one.

And I was never saying that alone was meant to qualify him.

That can happen, but You Monster! itself is irrelevant. IF they are invoking fear, revulsion and hatred that fact by itself is self-evident, you don't need the characters yelling "You're a monster!" in order for the audience to get that, it's already self-apparant.

But if they are invoking fear, revulsion, and hatred in the characters, You Monster! is likely to occur. The characters won't always just express it by looking afraid, revulsed, and hateful. If it's on their lips, they'll make it known and invoke that trope. You Monster! on it's own isn't enough to qualify someone, but it being used on a villain who also fulfilled the other criteria helps fill that last criteria.

Broly's basically mentally handicapped. Remember, this is the guy who can't differentiate between Goku and Gohan.

Not differating between Goku, Gohan, or Goten was in his second movie, where he'd underwent massive Flanderization. In the first movie, he did and said more than just "ROOAR KAKAROOOOOTT!" and he knew the difference between Goku and his son. He threatened to kill the latter just to make the former suffer.

If a schizophrenic, or somebody with a severe handicap (and Broly, at times, comes off as though he has both) told you he was "pure evil" would you take him at face value?

Depends on how convincing he was at backing that up.

And also, Broly calling himself the devil (the milder "a true freak" in the dub) came in a moment that occured some time after he deliberately destroyed the worker aliens' planets For the Evulz and mocked them about it, prompting the reaction of "he's pure evil!" from the other characters (which wasn't even saying it directly to him.)

I've argued with Ambar before, over stuff we disagreed with, both in this thread and by PM. It never soured to the point it has with you. Just sayin'. You're also dangerously close to ad hominem, which I won't tolerate from you either.

Sorry, I wasn't meaning for ad hominem. Just noticing a trend of hostility from Ambar. It seemed like when I was trying to debate maturely, every statement that disagrees with him was twisted around to make it look like I was being an idiot who doesn't "get" the trope.

Should we be concerned that a lot of people hate TV Tropes?

Unless that's evidence to nominate TV Tropes for Complete Monster, than no.

edited 21st Apr '13 9:11:01 AM by AnewMan

ACW, as I said I haven't read The Walking Dead: Rise of the Governor so I don't know what happened, and the works page only mentions abusive parents, without details. Have a query to a follower of the comic, but probably won't hear back from them for a bit.