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
So anymore thoughts on the Trunchbull entries?
![[tup]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Thumbs_up_emoticon_3268.png "[thumb up]"){kind=small}
to Azazel, Martha, Keita, Munkar, Quentin, and Zu
Yes to Josef Mengele, Azazel, Martha Patterson, Keita, Munkar, Quentin, and Rando.
As for cutting the Neverkind entries, I'll abstain, but lean cut, on the Pijavica, and I'll say "keep" Hargrove, since I still think his participation in snuff flims makes him unique enough.
EDIT: I'm fine with the changes to the Trunchbull entries.
Edited by falcontalons on Oct 23rd 2019 at 3:53:50 AM
I say Trunchbull can be changed. There's enough evidence for me to not lose sleep.
Speculative Troping isn't just for unfinished works. It's been cited when dealing with edits on works that have finished.
My concern with the changes is that the changes may violate the bits mentioned in "Intent is Uncertain" section:
But that's ALL it implies. Just because a work used one trope doesn't mean it used similar tropes. Without any other context, tropers can't just leap to other conclusions. This doesn't automatically make them an Official Couple. It doesn't mean one or more of the characters have redeemed past deeds. Heck, it doesn't even mean they ENJOYED it. The only information we can convey from that basic scene is that something naughty may have happened, but it's still only implied.
And conversely, just because a work isn't using a specific trope doesn't mean it's automatically using another one. Just because a villain isn't a No-Nonsense Nemesis doesn't mean they qualify as having Bond Villain Stupidity. The former is the antithesis of the latter, but its absence doesn't guarantee that the villain is that impractical.
Admittedly, I personally am pretty cautious when it comes to these sort of things, so I tend to gravitate towards "If the story doesn't explicitly say it, don't play guessing games with what the writer was thinking of" when editing the wiki.
It's just a concern I thought I should bring up, since speculative troping has caused issues on this site before.
Edited by dragonfire5000 on Oct 23rd 2019 at 4:09:24 AM
Unofficial Wiki Curator for Complete Monster
In that case, what about Joker?
CM Dates; CM Pending; CM Drafts
Barb(Its a thread joke you wouldn't get it)
With joker, yes it wasn't stated. But it's Pretty clear what the implication of what happened to Alicia was.
Edited by Kylotrope on Oct 23rd 2019 at 4:11:03 AM
Things are really about to get Fun around here
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Which Joker entry is it again? I'm not on this thread all that often, so I may have lost track on what Joker entry is the one being discussed.
EDIT: I take it you're talking about Joker? On the one hand, like said, the intent seems to be pretty clear. On the other hand, "It's pretty clear" is the sort of reasoning that causes cleanup threads on speculative entries to pop up.
I've seen some entries, like the Trunchbull entry being discussed, use "heavily implied" to essentially say "This is very likely what the author intended, but they didn't outright say it so there might be room for error here." I personally don't mind seeing "heavily implied" being used, but that's just me.
If the changes won't violate anything mentioned in Speculative Troping, then they should be okay. Otherwise, it might be safer leaving the "heavily implied" bit there, since I don't see such wording causing any harm.
Edited by dragonfire5000 on Oct 23rd 2019 at 4:17:46 AM
Actually, he's talking about the Batman (1989) Joker entry.
Ah, my bad. My mind jumped to that particular comic due to Kylotrope's words since I remembered the Joker heavily implied to have done something particular bad to a woman there. That, and I haven't seen the 89 movie in a while.
Unofficial Wiki Curator for Complete Monster
I've NEVER seen the 1989 film, surprisingly.
CM Dates; CM Pending; CM Drafts
Berserk Button: misusing Berserk Button
Rando and the Trunchbull edit, especially since, according to the post that brought it up, Word of God is that she DID murder Magnus. So, not Speculative Troping, because Word of God has confirmed it.
I thought the post said (emphasis mine):
That bit says to me that there isn't Word of God regarding whether the Trunchbull killed Magnus or not, just that there's a couple things in the story that support the idea that she did. If there was actual Word of God, the rest of that post wouldn't be needed because, again, we would have Word of God that she did the deed.
Edited by dragonfire5000 on Oct 23rd 2019 at 4:33:08 AM
That is incorrect. Felicity Dahl said in an interview with Time Out magazine, that her husband wrote Trunchbull as a murderer, when discussing the musical adaptation.
All the protagonists In-Universe think Trunchbull killed him as well and Trunchbull immediately suspects the ghost is Magnus out for revenge. If she didn't murder him, why would her first thought be his ghost was out to kill her?
Edited by Monsund on Oct 23rd 2019 at 4:34:17 AM
If it's something his daughter mentioned, that would be Word of Saint Paul.
Mistreating his beloved daughter would be a good enough reason, I suppose. Then again, I remember reading in the book that all she does is react in general horror to what is happening, but we don't really get any details on whether she's specifically reacting that way because the implications are true, as opposed to her reacting in horror because a piece of chalk is floating in the air and writing stuff about her.
Edited by dragonfire5000 on Oct 23rd 2019 at 4:38:28 AM
The Chefman
Is it too early to consider Dr. Zara from Abominable?
RE: dragonfire5000
That was his wife who co-wrote the musical and she says her husband wrote the character as a murderer.
My bad on getting her mixed up with their children. Still, any word from her on the book would be Word of Saint Paul.
Edited by dragonfire5000 on Oct 23rd 2019 at 4:41:45 AM
Lizzid people!
She looked more like a generic bad guy.
Edited by AustinDR on Oct 23rd 2019 at 4:42:32 AM
RE: dragonfire5000
The musical has an entry here and Felicity Dahl was co-author of that, if she says Trunchbull murdered Magnus, then that applies.
And the part about her only reacting like that because of the floating chalk is incorrect; she only reacts like that when its says its Magnus. Direct from the novel
- What the blazes is this?" yelled the Trunchbull. It had shaken her to see her own first name being written like that by an invisible hand. She dropped Wilfred on to the floor. Then she yelled at nobody in particular, ''Who's doing this? Who's writing it? The chalk continued to write.
- Everyone in the place heard the gasp that came from the Trunchbull's throat. "No!" she cried, "It can't be! It can't be Magnus!"
- Miss Honey, at the side of the room glanced swiftly at Matilda. The child was sitting very straight at her desk, the head held high, the mouth compressed, the eyes glittering like two stars.
- For some reason everyone now looked at the Trunchbull. The woman's face had turned white as snow and her mouth was opening and shutting like a halibut out of water and giving out a series of strangled gasps.
You can see that Trunchbull is calm about the floating chalk and only gets scared when she thinks its Magnus.
Edited by Monsund on Oct 23rd 2019 at 4:45:46 AM
It would only be Word of God for the musical then. If the musical is more explicit about the Trunchbull killing Magnus, then the edits should be fine.
Anything Felicity says about the book, however, would fall under Word of Saint Paul, unless she co-authored the thing alongside him.
I would not make the edits to the entry on the book version, since what the scene presents is only that she becomes terrified by what she thinks is the ghost of someone she knows. We do not get any glimpses into her head that explains if she's terrified because she murdered him and now thinks his ghost has come back, if she's terrified because she abused his daughter in his absence and she thinks he's come back to punish her for said abuse, or if she's terrified because there's a ghost of someone she knows.
Edited by dragonfire5000 on Oct 23rd 2019 at 4:51:27 AM
Berserk Button: misusing Berserk Button
So, by way of Ambiguous Syntax, we are both wrong.
One of these days, all of you will accept me as your supreme overlord.
RE: dragonfire5000
Why would you distrust Felicity Dahl, especially given that they were married before the book was written. She would know what her husband wrote.
And its not speculation given all the protagonists within the story thinks Trunchbull murdered him including Magnus's own daughter and Trunchbull's actions. including only being frightened by the floating chalk when it claims to be Magnus and becoming even more frightened when it mentions she murdered him, say Trunchbull is guilty.
And again, are you suggesting the Jack Napier entry be changed as well?
Edited by Monsund on Oct 23rd 2019 at 4:53:35 AM
Who said anything about distrust? I'm just pointing out anything she says about the book would count as Word of Saint Paul and not Word of God since she, as far as I can tell, didn't co-author the book with him.
If she co-wrote the musical, anything she says about that can count as Word of God.
Again, I point to this bit in Speculative Troping:
But that's ALL it implies. Just because a work used one trope doesn't mean it used similar tropes. Without any other context, tropers can't just leap to other conclusions. This doesn't automatically make them an Official Couple. It doesn't mean one or more of the characters have redeemed past deeds. Heck, it doesn't even mean they ENJOYED it. The only information we can convey from that basic scene is that something naughty may have happened, but it's still only implied.
As for the Jack Napier entry, I can't really comment since I haven't seen the movie in a long time. But if what he does to the woman is only implied and how the entry is written violates Speculative Troping, then it probably should be changed.
Edited by dragonfire5000 on Oct 23rd 2019 at 4:58:04 AM
Leaning yes on Rando, but I need to hear more on Gore and Burai.
Also, this is the manga, right?
CM Dates; CM Pending; CM Drafts