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. "![[tup]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/thumbs_up_emote.png "[thumb up]"){kind=small}
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
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
One thing to remember is that 'I'd do this horrible thing, but (insert bullshit excuse here)' is a textbook abuse tactic. It's meant to instil a sense of gratitude for your merciful forbearance even when all you did is threaten someone. The film also immediately underlines that his promise to his mother isn't as binding as he suggests when his brother then tries to use it as a defence and gets punched in the face.
I suspect that is why the line got included - Disney can get quite sophisticated in their depictions of abuse (see also Lotso, as well as Mother Gothel from the non-Pixar movie Tangled).
What's precedent ever done for us?
- Ultimately though, Palpatine himself counts in spite of Rule Of Cool. Even with his being a Magnificent Bastard, it was made clear in the holocron repositories in the official atlas that he enjoys cultivating lifeforms because he will eventually terminate them. Ian Mc Diarmid, Palpatine's actor, even stated that he was pure evil, even going as far as to state that he was born that way. Oh, and if there was any doubt that he was a Complete Monster long before ascending to power, it's all but confirmed in Star Wars: Darth Plagueis when he ended up crashing his racer and killing two people without any remorse on his part, and, in fact, was extremely glad that he got away with breaking the law and insensitively decided to reveal that instant that he wants to become a racer. In addition, when Darth Tenebrous, a Sith Lord, foresaw Palpatine's murder of Plagueis upon his death and possession of Plagueis after the latter betrayed him, he was noticably horrified at not only Plagueis' murder at the hands of Palpatine, but at how evil Palpatine is, implying that Palpatine was so evil, that even the Sith, who are infamous for committing various crimes with the Dark Side, were repulsed by him.
@ Hidden Faced Matt, this thread has never operated on a crowner basis, so there's no reason to start now. If there's a five-to-four consesus on cutting Hopper, Hopper gets cut. Whenever we hit an ambigious example we've always erred on the side of caution and cut it.
A discussion at this point is just going to be pointless; unless Laculus wants to come out in support of keeping Hopper and making this a 50/50 split we're just going to be re-presenting our previous arguments and wasting time.
And on the subject of crowners for this trope, no. Dear god no. The worst part about crowners in my opinion is that they allow people to vote for an option without any justification, and in the case of this trope we've had plenty of horrible examples added. One well-reasoned argument for or against a character is worth a hundred anonymous votes.
Laculus nailed my reason for keeping Hopper in the CM category.
For the Merlock example, does he do anything onscreen that's evil?
Think of the mooks!
Doing a daily digest and massive post is actually really helping me with this thread - I end up posting less, which results in me crowding things out less, plus it helps me get a good overall feel for how the thread is going.
@1564 - To be perfectly frank, I think it's unfair for you to go "what about my examples" when you frequently won't comment on other examples. For example, you never commented about my comments on Epic Mickey, you didn't discuss the various literature Complete Monster suggested removals earlier, and you frequently try to shout down others when they bring up examples.
If you want folks to respect your posts and opinions, and you want to get more earnest responses, you should respond to others with respect and consider their examples as well.
Now, to get to the examples you brought up in @1558...
Benedict - I'm still not clicking on links to be an argument. Weblinks Are Not Examples. The only way I'm going to take in something to judge whether or not a candidate is worthy is if the media in question was already on my list of things to try (again, like Epic Mickey). Besides, even if the consequences of eternal winter are shown, there are still arguments which could apply as to why the character could or could not be a Complete Monster. More would be needed (for example, does said character even understand the possible ramifications?).
W.I.T.C.H. examples - There's almost no context there. We could be talking Generic Doomsday Villain candidates instead. Unless someone wants to argue for them, I'm inclined to cut.
Buzz Lightyear examples - No to all of them as written. I could see Well-Intentioned Extremist arguments for NOS4-A2, actually, and Evil Buzz is just a Jerkass. Again, if someone wants to argue for them, I'll reconsider.
The important thing with both of the above examples is that context matters. There are plenty of issues that can be argued both ways, and needs context. After all, heroes can want to kill evil siblings. You could want to turn everyone into robots because you hate that people die and Living Forever Is Awesome. Context is necessary.
Merlock - We have my standard issue with Offscreen Villainy. I vote for a cut.
Palpatine - Well, he qualifies due to his actions in the prequels. He's very much an example of Orcus on His Throne in Episodes 4 through 6. I think it's fair to list him both under Film and Star Wars Expanded Universe, because the actions that he does in the former to qualify end up being distinct from the ones in the latter. The thing is that the former should only reference the films, and the latter should just refer to the former as background info.
On the abuse comment in @1577 - it's a good point, but the thing as presented is, Hopper didn't need his brother for anything. As others pointed out, he really could have benefitted from just doing the standard Bad Boss move on him. That implies a couple possiblities, but all of them strike me as disqualifying.
Finally, regarding close votes...
First, we aren't a special snowflake on the wiki. Other places use the rule of thumb of a 2:1 ratio here; we should respect that. Mind you, though, it is more of a rule of thumb than an actual site rule, so we aren't bound to do it all the time. But we should generally keep that in mind for special issues and not just because we feel like it. I personally don't feel Hopper is that special issue.
Beyond that, on a crowner... I think the Real Life maintenance Special Efforts thread does show how well such a crowner can work. That said, it needs regular maintenance, and it does cause things to move slower. I'm neutral on it myself; if folks want to work with them, I'll use them. If we prefer the looser and faster pace we've been working with thus far, I'll keep that up. I'm less concerned with the technique used for cleanup. I'm just interested in results.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.
@1577
He promised he wouldn't kill him, not that he wouldn't punch him in the face. We've seen him kill people before. The fact that the worst Molt (an incompetent moron) gets is a punch in the face is actually rather telling.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
That is similar to my argument as well. Hopper has no practical reason to keep Molt around, and considering he's willing to kill three of his own men to prove a point it stands out even more.
The keep crowd seem to be writing off that line, whereas the cut crowd is focusing on it as proof that he's not 100% evil, which is the requirement of this trope.
From where I'm sitting the only argument from hte keep crowd that holds weight is the one that Laculus put forward; that the line was referencing the fact that Hopper keeps Molt around just to abuse him. And personally I don't buy it; someone who kills three of his own men just to prove a point on the spur of the moment keeping someone who was incredibly incompetent around doesn't really mesh together.
So my verdict stays the same; that line proves Hopper is not 100% Monster, thus we can cut him. For comparison's sake Lotso didn't have any such moment.
That's what I suggested. The Expanded Universe entry should start with "In addition to what he does in the films".
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
The difference perhaps is that those are cases where the topic in question hasn't been abused as much. If we post a crowner saying something to the effect of "Is Hopper from A Bugs Life a CM?" we're going to get a lot of people going "OMG he scared me as a kid," and voting yes, without posting any reasoning.
Agreed. Once a character has an onscreen Pet the Dog/redeeming quality/whatever they should be cut. I can be lenient about stuff in, I don't know, sidematerials or deleted scenes, but a scene that makes it into the final product? At that point I think we have to deal with it as presented.
edited 10th Jul '12 11:18:50 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Avatar by Leafsnake
Most Disney/Pixar guys scared me as a kid, now I appreciate them for their intimidation. I don't consider all of the CM's, but I do see your point, some people will just CM him for the nostalgic Nightmare fuel.
Lost in Space
And the above is part of why I'm loath to vote for CM's in media intended for kids.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
Fan Myopia can also influence one's assessment of how good an image is in Image Pickin' crowners. It can also influence shoehorned trope namers or memes in TRS rename threads. So, it seems odd that this thread is singled out as a context for which crowners can't be used because fan myopia may affect them.
I agree that characters with redeeming qualities should be cut if it's clear that they have them; Hopper's line is a brief throwaway line subject to a variety of interpretations. It'd be sort of like saying "well, Captain Vidal didn't kill his son, which might suggest he cares about his son, so he should be off the list."
edited 10th Jul '12 12:06:50 PM by HiddenFacedMatt
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart
Yes, this.
To be honest, I'm extremely worried by the fact this is even being debated. I've got no real personal stake as far as Hopper per se goes, but I'm finding the mentality the keep crowd is showing to be (yet another) sign that people still don't get this trope, even in the cleanup thread. It's not 99.9 Percent Monster.
Once again—saying this other guy has a slightly humanising moment but is on the list, doesn't make the character we are currently discussing belong anymore. As previously stated, Hopper has a humanising moment (however slight) in the film. This isn't something Word of God has said, or something in sidematerials, or a deleted scene. It's in the actual finished film. So far I haven't really heard a convincing argument for why it shouldn't matter, beyond the fact that some people don't want it to.
I know.
Avatar by Leafsnake
We are not trying to argue if a humanizing moment disqualifies Hopper (As a humanizing moment does defy the definition of the complete part of the CM) , we are trying to argue if it counts as a humanizing moment. Largo Quagmire put it well (I won't repeat what she said, because I've been told not to repeat arguments). The debate is on if the moment is sincere, not if a sincere moment negates him.
edited 10th Jul '12 5:18:08 PM by DrPsyche
No one however, has presented a convincing argument for why it is insincere. To demonstrably be insincere he would have to violate it somehow.
Avatar by Leafsnake
I'm just saying that the argument is not whether or not A human quality disqualifies Hopper, it's whether or not this particular line qualifies as one, several people have the wrong idea about what we're arguing over. Largo Quagmire and Hidden Face Matt argue the sincerity of the line, while Quagmire also argued the lines intent (Again, I was told repeating arguments diminishes their impact, so I won't bother)
It's not a big deal, but I *am* female, if it ever comes up again. 
I do tend to believe, however, that if there is debate on a CM, obviously there are multiple interpretations of the character, and that might be a point against keeping Hopper on the CM. I wouldn't agree with his removal, but I would at least understand it, on those grounds.
I, for one, am very uncomfortable with the precedent that counting a character as a CM due to not taking their words at face value would set.
Avatar by Leafsnake
Sorry, didn't know your gender, to me, you're just a textbox on the screen (Just like everyone else here) with a male avatar.
I'm sorry, could you rephrase that. I couldn't fully get it.
EDIT: I'm going to try to refrain from Pro-nouns now.
edited 10th Jul '12 5:26:49 PM by DrPsyche
I meant that it seems like the side in favor of keeping Hopper are primarily basing their argument for doing on the grounds that what he said can't be taken at face value. I think that's a very dangerous precedent to set, particularly for a trope that already has so much controversy.
(It was kind of a convoluted sentence).
Just thought I'd let you guys know that someone posted rebuttals to some removals of the One Piece page in its discussion section.
Shamelessly plugging my comics, Oh yes.
edited 10th Jul '12 5:41:23 AM by Krystoff