This seems to have been ignored last time so I'm bumping it.
Just asking, why exactly was it not getting responses last time? Did it have anything to do with the length of the initial post, is it that people don't really want to bother to search the lists for examples they are familiar with, or is it something else?
More than likely, this hasn't been done yet due to the same reasons why you haven't done it yourself.
If I find some spare time I might give it a look over, but it's hard to get most people to really care about an issue as minor as this.
edited 22nd Mar '11 12:07:44 PM by Razor
Tempus Omnia Iudicat
Keep in mind that the point a character crosses the Moral Event Horizon will be subjective. It's a YMMV trope for that reason. If an example says "X crosses the Moral Event Horizon many times" then it's obviously a flawed example, however, don't simply take out any examples with multiple points. Also refrain from removing any examples you may think aren't bad enough. Again, it depends on the audience as well as the in-universe context and mood of the video game.
"Thorough preparation must lead to success. Neglect nothing."
... oops, practically forgot about this thread when posting the other one.
Oh well, that one links to the Moral Event Horizon main page (as opposed to a subpage) and is better worded (well, in my opinion) so I would prefer to see this one locked so we can focus on the other one.
edited 22nd Mar '11 2:32:27 PM by neoYTPism
I created a topic a while ago about rewording the description to emphasize the point that a character can only cross this once. Now I'm thinking that a look through the examples, and a cleanup up the ones that obviously missed that point (whether they are from before the description change or after) of what the trope is about, should go with it.
In theory, replacing "the character crossed it at X, again at Y" with "the character crossed it either at X or Y" would fit the description; in practice, this kind of mistake is not just a flaw in wording, but implies that a major misinterpretation of the trope was at play when the examples were added.
So it is a matter of looking through them example-by-example, and trying to decide, whether by the implied misunderstanding or otherwise, if they fit or if they not. Obviously this won't be simple, and frankly, I have more important priorities IRL (like exams in a few weeks) than to scan some lists on TV Tropes.
But it's not like it's something one person could do anyway, because I think familiarity with the works in question would be implied to be connected to your assessment of whether or not something is a MEH. The description alone is not enough, since something can in its original context be more or less heinous than the description makes it seem.
And how the wording reflects on it is not a sufficient gauge of it either; sure enough, it is possible for someone to be Completely Missing The Point of the MEH and still name valid candidates for it, just as I guess it is possible to get the point and name something that probably DOESN'T.
So I guess it is a matter of, per example, someone familiar enough with both the work in question and the concept of a MEH checking to see if said example qualifies. Question is, how do we apply this?
*
edited 21st Nov '10 8:57:45 PM by neoYTPism