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
From the time I've spent R Ping, I've learnt that an easy way to look for something on a thread is to google its ID (In this thread's case it would be https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion= 6vic3f9h1cy5qivsenw8llok&page=481) and have keywords next to it.
edited 21st Apr '13 5:01:12 PM by rmctagg09
Hugging a Vanillite will give you frostbite.This will probably be a long post, as the forum has moved a decent clip in the last couple of days. Anyway...
RE: General questions about standards
No, a CM cannot have any real moral standards. I think that lightysnake and others have covered it pretty well, but I will just reiterate here: if a character has genuine moral qualms about anything they do not belong here.
RE: People hating us
Who gives a damn? It's the Internet. Bruised egos and hurt feelings abound. Again, I think that Septimus and others covered that, but it is worth repeating. Our main concern has to be the clean up, not what people think of us.
Not to mention that frankly, a lot of the hate for the site that I've encountered is coming from people who think that there is some sort of in-joke that they're missing out on.
RE: Broly
Trying to kill Gohan to get at Goku is standard enough behaviour. In the first film, Broly doesn't cross any lines that hadn't long since been crossed by the likes of Frieza, and in the second, he is way, way too insane to qualify. Broly is frightening, not because of how evil he is, but because in a show filled with planet-destroying superbeings, he still manages to be The Juggernaut.
And the characters saying he's pure evil doesn't establish much.
RE: "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."
You know, when somebody has called you on your behaviour, just cutting it out would be fine. Saying "sorry, I didn't mean to be rude, but that guy is so mean" is not an apology. I don't want an apology, by the way. I just want—as does everybody else—an end to the forum derailment that began some pages back. If you are prepared to stop being part of the problem, and start being part of the solution—and I would note that this comment aside, your last few posts would seem to indicate that you are—then you and I will no longer have an issue. Welcome to the forum Anew Man. Glad to have more help.
RE: Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds
An actual Woobie Destroyer of Worlds isn't going to qualify for this trope. A WDOW is motivated by intense personal pain, which isn't going to be a part of a CM's characterisation. If you see the two tropes used together, one of them is being misused. I'll also note that even if the Governor was a sympathetic character—and he's not—he'd be Jerkass Woobie not Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds.
RE: Villain with Good Publicity
As Paireon and others have noted, it's what the people who know the real you think that matters. To use an example you and I are both familiar with lighty, Azrael has great publicity in the EA. Everybody who sees the real man in action, conversely, knows he's Pure Evil; his entire crew bails on him once they see what he's really like.
RE: Lee Jordan from Carmen Sandiago
Cut. And
to Hamburger Time for the joke.
RE: Kim Possible
Use the search function. Also, I'll tell you right here, that show is way too comedic to have it's own page. That's why it was cut. Hell, I'm not sure it has any examples left. It certainly shouldn't.
RE: Sidou
Agree with Paireon that we should combine the example. Who's up for a rewrite?
RE: The Condemned
What idiot directed this? Given that the merc's standards moment is moronic (and also, going off your description, less revulsion and more along the lines of "what kind of idiot watches this shit?") I wouldn't use that to cut him. Keep the producer.
RE: Syndrome
Closed. On the Never Again list for that matter.
RE: Another Duck
When people tell you you're misbehaving, writing a lengthy block of text about how they are wrong is not the best way of dealing with the problem. Especially given that Paireon and Sophia (esp. Sophia) were much nicer about it then I would have been. I'm not going to dignify most of this "Ambar lied" stuff with a real response. I'll just say this: I told you what my impression was, from the way you were behaving. I then offered you the chance to prove me wrong by posting your reasoning. That's not the same as slandering your good name. You know, I know it, the forum knows it. Now that you have posted your reasoning, it is clear to me that you aren't trying to sabotage the thread intentionally. You just really don't get it. That's fixable.
To address each point:
How is Suguo more heinous? He tried to kill one person. They tried to kill far more. That's not a case of comparing success rate. It's a case of comparing actual attempted bodycount. Suguo is on the list for rape, torture, and mass kidnapping. XaXa and Johnny, if added, will go up for serial murder. Enormous difference in crime, modus operandi, and characterisation aside, there's also the issue of ability which has been explained multiple times. With the limited resources they have XaXa and Johnny tried to kill more people then Suguo. Only Kayaba killed more, and he wasn't necessarily trying to.
Your concern that XaXa seems worse then Johnny is well taken. Personally, I think that they're about even. XaXa does more torture in GGO, but in SAO it's Johnny, not XaXa, who wants to make the Golden Apple Guild fight one another to the death. Their bodycounts are also within one or two corpses of each other So, same amount of torture, similar amount of murder, I'd say they both qualify.
I don't count Kuradeel for a host of reasons. Leaving the books out of it, he isn't the worst person in the anime. He tries to kill two people. So do Rosalia and her Guild, the Titans' Hand, who tried to off a little girl, and then tried to kill Kirito when he protected her. XaXa, Johnny Black, and PoH also show up in the anime, in Episode 6. XaXa doesn't talk, but Johnny gives his speech from the book, word for word, about how he plans to make the Golden Apple Guild members fight to the death. That's three attempted murders, and a hell of a lot of sadistic intent. That's without taking into account Grimlock, who killed his wife and then hired PoH and company to get rid of the survivors. And it's not taking into account Suguo or Kayaba, whom you yourself tried to claim overshadow Johnny and XaXa. If they overshadow Johnny and XaXa, they sure as hell overshadow Kuradeel. You can't have it both ways.
RE: Paireon
Will try to find a way to work those things into the write ups.
edited 21st Apr '13 6:40:03 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Re: Syndrome: Syndrome: Disqualified for having a sympathetic backstory, failing the heinous standard, and only managing to kill himself. I'd get rid of the last one. As the FAQ says:
RE the Governor, from what I glean from the page (Spoilers!), the idea is that there's these two brothers, one of whom is knight templarish and the other is a nice, mild-mannered guy. The reader, knowing the way the Governor is in the main story, assumes the knight templar brother will become the Governor, but it turns out to be the milquetoast one.
It is sort of the opposite of the Zakalawe example from Use of Weapons. In that case, you have a protagonist who was monstrously evil in the past, but is a good guy in the present.
In this case, you have a prequel novel showing a character as being a good guy in the past, but is now monstrously evil in the present.
Because of the twists in the works, it is almost as if the character is a different person in past versus present.
I agree. That line always struck me as kind of strange (also, didn't he set up several heroes to be killed off-screen with that robot of his?).
edited 21st Apr '13 5:20:22 PM by Hodor
Edit, edit, edit, edit the wiki![]()
![]()
To respond to what deserves a response, I still think the description needs to clarify what parts are in-game, and what are out of the game. Specifically, the last sentence for XaXa, about crippling and later sword fighting. Highlighting his behaviour in the "real" world does more to paint him as heinous sadist than if he does it in a game, where it's, well, just a game (unlike SAO).
When we say that we're not going to talk about him again, we really do mean it. If you type in his name plus "Complete Monster" you'll find the myriad discussions of the character. I don't think there was much that wasn't taken into account. We also have better things to do then go over a much discussed example again.
![]()
They weren't discussing if he qualifies or not: he doesn't. They were talking about a line in his "never again" mention that implies that not succeeding in killing people is a disqualifier, even though that completely contradicts something the FAQ said. It really should be removed.
edited 21st Apr '13 7:24:52 PM by AnewMan
&![]()
That line should absolutely go. Please cut it. I was responding to this:
"Yeah, but apparently we have to ignore that detail despite the onscreen depiction of Gazorbeam's corpse, the onscreen documented evidence from Syndrome's computer and a confession from the man himself. "
This isn't talking about the line that needs to go. This is complaining about us classing his killing of Gazorbeam as Offscreen Villainy. And unless things have changed enormously, without me being told, that's not open for discussion.
edited 21st Apr '13 7:48:55 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
@Another Duck: You say you don't see the point in continuing to argue... in a post where you continue arguing? Do you even read what you type? This makes absolutely no sense. Likewise, being offended at being called "gung-ho" and "sour grapes" when you yourself admit to being easily riled is also ridiculous, as the context of their use fits perfectly with your reaction by your own admission. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and moves like a duck, then it probably is a duck (this was just too appropriate for me not to use it).
As for your disillusioned comment, you imply malicious intent when it's entirely possible that it was taken out of context accidentally either due to misinterpretation by Ambar, or due to lack of clarity on your part; or, it could simply be that you're displacing a flexible interpretation just to make yourself look better. Or not, but now I'm past the point of giving you benefit of the doubt. And accusing the other party of lying is an attempt to take the moral high-ground, whether justified or not.
You also seem to have a problem with the fact people react differently than you do. All of this just stems from the fact that someone disagrees with you. Newsflash: you've used those arguments you're using in half a dozen different permutations, several times per permutation, and several people still disagree with you. This does not mean you are right or wrong, nor does it mean we do not understand your arguments. It means we do not agree with your position and were not swayed by your arguments. Bashing us with them over and over will not change that, it just annoys us to the nth degree. Especially since everytime we're told that "we don't understand", as it has the corollaries that 1- if we "really" understood your arguments, we'd automatically agree with them (hint: opinions do not work that way; I understand why the 9/11 terrorists did what they did but I sure as Hell don't agree with them), and 2- it implies (voluntarily or not) that we're idiots who do not "get" what your Superior Intellect(tm) so easily comprehends. You say you didn't find XaXa and Johnny to be more heinous than Kuradeel? Fine, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. The opinion of others in this thread, who so far outnumber you, disagrees by a significant margin, and you have not managed to produce an argument capable of swaying them. Etiquette in this case is to concede that the other side has more backing at the time and will therefore be the one put to page on the Wiki. Simple majority rule. It doesn't mean you're wrong, it just means we disagree with you. Everyone else who's on the thread abides by these rules; it's called being a Graceful Loser. I did it sometimes, Ambar did it sometimes, pretty much everybody here did it at least half a dozen times. It's how we get work done and not fixate on Single Issue Wonks that derail the thread. You are currently derailing the thread.
As for others wanting to hear out an explanation, have many others manifested the desire for it? No. This means they probably don't care much. Notice how other tropers have for the most part steered clear of this discussion, or have only made short comments. You say you originally wanted to send this by PM because it was best but then "wanted to explain it to everyone"? That just sounds like you want an audience for your shenanigans.
Also, Protip: Attempting to stop a discussion usually means not writing small essays contributing to its perpetuation.
Also also, your response to Sophia basically amounts to saying, "I'm not unfounded, you're unfounded!", which is bad grade-school schoolyard logic.
Concerning Nanoha examples: we'll have to agree to disagree, then. I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me.
And you may not have intended it to sound like Ambar'd agree with you if he understood -then again, as mentionned before, I'm past the point of giving you benefit of the doubt- but sound that way it did anyway. The thing to do in that case is to say "Oh, sorry, there was a misunderstanding, that's not what I meant". You were more "What!? I didn't say that!! How dare you say I said that!? Take it back!! I know what I meant, therefore you are entirely at fault for the misunderstanding!!". You constantly harping on others being offensive is rather in poor taste considering how self-righteous and thin-skinned you act. There is more to not being offensive than simple politeness, just like "logic is only the beginning of wisdom". And there is more to being polite than not being vulgar.
Also, your claim of not wanting to "win" the argument is less than convincing in light of your constant escalation of it. You've mentionned a few times you wanted it to stop, and here you are still continuing it. This just smacks of bad faith.
In any case, I am tired of this derailing. I'm PM'ing a mod. Que sera sera, alea jacta est, and all that.
edited 21st Apr '13 8:02:39 PM by Paireon
I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me.@ Another Duck : "To respond to what deserves a response" is still being snide. If you can't say something nice it is probably best not to mention it. It doesn't add to, or strengthen your argument. I would also like to point out that saying that something sounds like X is offering an interpretation and is not a personal attack. Text is not the perfect medium to transmit intention and misunderstandings happen.
Re: Broly from DBZ
From what I know of the character I don't think that any of his actions are particularly out of the ordinary for DBZ. From the recent discussion I don't think that he is capable of understanding the implications of at least some of his actions.
edited 21st Apr '13 8:06:59 PM by SophiaLonesoul
Let's all jut calm down...the Sword Art Online argument is done. We have the definitive keeps and cuts through voting. The issue is dead now unless new info comes out.
Another Duck, all of us welcome new contributors, and all of u have disagreed at some point. For now. Just please let this argument die and continue contributing to the thread otherwise.
![]()
Broly is fully aware, and calls himself pure evil at one point saying "what else do yoy expect from a true freak?" however, he does have a Freudian Excuse, and, in this one dragonball videogame, he ends up making a Heel–Face Turn. Though non canon, I do take this as evidence that he Could have been redeemed in the series itself under similar circumstances.
By the way, Emperor Carter is listed on the ymmv Family guy laugh it up fuzzball trilogy page. I understand that the real emperor Palpatine counts, but I kind of doubt a parody of him can. Then again, Jeff Fecalman from the same show made the cut, what do you think?
jjjI don't think that he is capable of understanding the implications of at least some of his actions.
Again, he was fully capable of understanding most of his actions in his first movie.
in this one dragonball videogame, he ends up making a Heel Face Turn.
That's one of the reasons I said he'd fallen completely away from this trope in all his subsequent appearances, video games included. That's why it's ultimately
for him on this trope.
![]()
![]()
Cut that parody.
![]()
Sounds like a plan. I'll do a little touch up to the SAO entries, and have them put up, as I seem to have the permission of a majority of the forum (I found some more crimes to add to Suguo—threatening to alter Asuna's memory, and performing memory experiments on the players he kidnapped, most of whom never even to to log out in the first place; he grabbed them as they were trying to). Are you going to do some write-ups for True Blood and Being Human? Or do we even have enough votes to consider that yet?
Also just a general offer—if anybody ever thinks a character needs a rewrite but is for any reason lacking in confidence in their writing abilities, just PM me the information. I'm happy to turn other people's ideas into write ups; as a wannabe author I can use the practise anyway.
Just as a heads up, we generally don't count alternate mediums (such as the video game) when discussing the original medium. That being said, the canon for DBZ is shaky at best, and the fact that Broly turning around is even believeable in the first place says a lot about his evil (or lack thereof). If it was Frieza who pulled a Heel–Face Turn, you'd probably throw the game out the window.
There's a reason that Sophia said she thought he couldn't understand some of his actions, as opposed to all of them. Not to harp on the point, since I think we agree he doesn't qualify (albeit for different reasons), but his actions in the first movie alone probably wouldn't qualify him, given that Cooler is about as bad and Frieza/Cell/Buu so much worse, and his actions in the later ones are probably out.
Does this mean we have a consensus to axe Broly by the way? Also, I think that the DBZ page in general is going to need a major rewrite. Even the keeps are, generally speaking, not that well written.
Anyway, I thought I'd build on Lightysnake's write-up for Ka Anor.
- Ka Anor is the one being that Everworld's myriad Jerkass Gods fear. The god of the insectoid alien Hetwan, Ka Anor invaded Everworld with his army of mind slaved soldiers, intent on conquering the pocket universe and devouring all of its gods. During the siege of Olympus he offers Zeus the chance to escape with five chosen gods, if he will sacrifice the rest of his pantheon to Ka Anor's appetite; it is later revealed that Ka Anor had no intention of holding up his end of the bargain. His Hetwan legions violate every conceivable rule of warfare, even by ancient terms, using acid and fire as their main weapons. Ka Anor's single most horrific act, however, has to be his cannibalisation of Olympian cupbearer Ganymede. Having captured the young god, Ka Anor takes the form of a swarm of insects, and strips him down to the bone, keeping him alive to the very last second, as the heroes watch in horror.
Granted it's been a while since I've read the books. To anyone who has, this feel accurate enough.
edited 21st Apr '13 10:59:16 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Since nobody touched on him since he was brought up two pages ago, I vote no on Mainstream Luthor in Injustice Gods Among Us. He does give Joker a nuke to blow up Metropolis, but this is a game where the [[spoilers: Regieme Superman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern and Aquaman plan to personally wipe out the entire population of Gotham and Metropolis all because people in the latter city were scared when Superman killed that universe's heroic Lex Luthor (yes really, he was a full hero in that universe).]] The destruction of a single city is not the most henious thing that could be done, and mainstream Luthor doesn't get enough characterisation in the game since he shows up for all of five minutes before being defeated.
Missed out for a few days, sorry. Anyway, Injustice Lex Luthor,
Fails heinous standard. Now what of the Joker?
Alt!Joker: Blows up Metropolis with a bomb, drugged Superman into fighting Louis Lane who was pregnant with Clark's child. (how much was onscreen?)
Regular!Joker: Tries to Nuke Metropolis, taken to the regular universe, tries killing several heroes, and abuses Harley.
Memories kinda foggy though.
edited 22nd Apr '13 1:41:08 AM by DrPsyche

edited 21st Apr '13 4:43:37 PM by ACW