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
Pinhead and Coyle
I mean it's not like there were dozens of live action adaptations of Hunchback before and the Disney one is supposedly a remake of a live action adaptation from the 30's. Y'know kinda like Beauty and the Beast.
But so long as they keep sentient instruments or a twist of Quasimodo being handsome at bay, then it probably won't be half bad. Yes. Such an adaptation exists.
Edited by Beast on Jan 17th 2019 at 2:43:30 PM
"It's like...a cliff, and if I do it, I'm just gonna...fall." "I think we're already falling."Sentient instruments doesn't seem too bad considering the Disney animated film has those sentient gargoyles (I know there's a theory that they're just figments of Quasimodo's imagination, but they outright moved on their own and interacted with birds so I doubt that's the case)
Edited by Awesomekid42 on Jan 17th 2019 at 4:26:45 AM
Coyote.
@Awesome Kid: You know not of which speak
.
Alright, so it's about time I start the discussion for the 2019 Doctor Who New Year's Day Special.
The main antagonist in the New Year's special is a Dalek. What does the Dalek do? I'll summarize: It takes control of a woman named Lin and forces her to murder several innocent people before using her to build a new metal casing for itself. Afterwards, the Dalek lets go of Lin and kills an entire army. Towards the end of the special, the Dalek possesses Aaron (the father of Ryan, one of the Doctor's companions) and attempts to get him killed. Overall, the Dalek's plan was to take over the entire world.
But of course, the Dalek doesn't qualify, and here's why: most of the Dalek's actions are pretty generic for a Doctor Who villain, and to back that up, most Daleks are expected to do the kind of stuff the Dalek from this special does. Aside from being able to possess people, there's nothing about this creature that really stands out. Oh, and did I mention that the creature most likely has moral agency issues considering its species? So in the end, no one qualifies in this special. Tzim-Sha from season 11 was bad enough.
Hmmm somone launched Would Harm a Senior. That ome could be useful.
Edited by miraculous on Jan 17th 2019 at 2:02:28 AM
"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."If documentaries count, I'm checking out the PBS program The Dictator's Playbook to see which of the six dictators who are featured in the series (Kim Il-Sung, Saddam Hussein, Benito Mussolini, Manuel Noriega, Francisco Franco, and Idi Amin) would be worthy of the title Complete Monster based on their portrayals in the miniseries, with the caveat that they would be Live-Action TV examples if any of them count.
@Lightysnake
- A time limit, similar to Never Live It Down's real-life examples, to ensure the magnitude of the subject's atrocities stand the test of time.
- If they're not dead yet, then it'd be in poor taste.
- We don't need anything that'd come across as sensationalist, even if true. All we want are the facts, ma'am. PBS has been very good about avoiding sensationalism, so historical documentaries from them are fine by me. Current events programs such as PBS NewsHour, on the other hand, should be strictly off limits, as they're current and not historical. Frontline documentary discussion would also be considered similarly questionable.
Edited by ryanasaurus0077 on Jan 17th 2019 at 5:47:17 AM
Or we could just not do documentaries. Let's go with that option.
Never mind my own reservations about bringing up fictionalized examples of historical people, but documentaries alone breaks the No Real Life Examples rule in my book.
Even Docudrama's are pushing it. (I assume that refers to those kind of real life crime shows you see on Investigation Discovery).
"It's like...a cliff, and if I do it, I'm just gonna...fall." "I think we're already falling."Yeah let's not do documentaries. That's just asking for trouble.
Fan-Preferred Couple cleanup thread
