Ask The Tropers

In what context are you trying to list "A Broken Marriage/10"? "Funny Aneurysm" Moment? Memetic Mutation? In either case, it's related to content from the work, just influenced by his real-life antics, so it should be okay. The point of that message should be not to trope reactions to him as a person unless they're related to his work, i.e. overshadowing it for a time.

EDIT: Apparently the Jared stuff was a big old stinky conflict that occurred before I was active on the fora. Hence why all that stuff was removed. I think the "broken marriage out of 10" thing was a very a common meme and still resonates as harsh regardless of whether you side with Jared or not, so it'd be silly to just ban it from the page. We can describe it all neutrally. In fact, some people already agreed with that point at the time.

Those two examples both impacted the works, they aren't just unrelated scandals.

Creator Page Guidelines has this in the "What should not go on creator pages" section:

I have to ask, are you by any chance the same person as the subject of this thread?

EDIT: Also, are you the same person currently appealing a suspension?

On a related note, Trivia.Pro Jared completely skirts over the scandal despite it being the cause of a Series Hiatus example. It should probably be mentioned in some form and not just pothole to Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment.

^^ Yeah, uh, regardless of any good point being made...this is fishy.

Edit: Their account started editing yesterday.

Geolocation is negative.

This is inconsistent, many other shows' pages have entries about their creators' personal lives, specially if personal issues affected their work. Jared's page is one of the few shows' pages that refuse to even adknowledge a controversy its creator was the center of (I know the controversy is mentioned in both Role-Ending Misdemeanor and Overshadowed by Controversy).

Years have passed now and we can say that: He got a messy divorce that led to accusations of inapropiate behavior towards some fans (among some other unfavorable personal revelations) which caused the show to enter a hiatus until he made a video months later explaining his side of the story and resumed doing videos.

The story has not gotten further revelations or updates since Jared resumed doing videos so it's hard for people to go around writing slander for either side. I know that people back in the day were quick to codemn and defame him but time has passed and clearer minds should write unbiased entries now.

Again, we do have a rule saying that Creator YMMV pages should not trope the real-life person. If there are entries about the creators' personal lives, then those entries should be deleted.

Except items like Overshadowed by Controversy, Role-Ending Misdemeanor, and Harsher in Hindsight do involve real-life circumstances affecting the work. So the work is still being troped in that regard. The rule is not to add reactions that apply exclusively to the person without noting how their content was affected, but memes and controversies that get a person kicked out of their media company are worth mentioning under the correct items. And I agree with GG 14 that enough time has passed that we should be able to mention that without vilifying or defending him. (Hell, "broken marriage out of ten" as a joke is still affected by the fact he had a messy broken marriage in general, regardless of who's in the right.) Ignoring the controversy altogether is frankly silly and comes across as overdefensive, given how many people (myself included) still view him through the lens of this controversy, whether they agree with him or not.

Regarding the 2019 edit, I swear it wasn't me. While its true this isnt my first account (that was Skibot 99) I was locked out of it sometime in 2018 due to inactivity. I only recenly got back into this site

@mightymewtwo I was thinking Funny Anyrsum Moment

^^^ It should be noted that Jared actually admitted guilt to some of the allegations, too. Is it really passing judgment at that point if some of the stuff is known to be true?

Whether the creator is guilty of things they were accused of or not is irrelevant. This is TV Tropes, not "TV Scandals" or "TV Gossip". Creators' personal lives are only relevant if they affect the content of their work and/or their rate of output, and then only in passing.

The acid test is "passing mention". If people want to find out about PewDiePie's latest scandal, they can go to other sites whose purpose it is to discuss such things. Yes, Bill Cosby did horrible things but we do not load his article down with discussions of them. Drop a sentence in the description and move on.

Any articles violating these principles should be trimmed.

Yes. The issue isn't "are the allegations true?" so much as "are the allegations relevant?"

Based on Good Gamer's summation it sounds like "not really." It sounds like it happened, it's passed, and his work has resumed. If it's materially affected the work and/or is directly tied to it then something may be brought up, but an Audience Reaction to a real-life event is a no-no.

Again, it did affect his work. He went on a Series Hiatus and lost his job at Normal Boots.

My point is more we can probably mention it without coming off as passing judgment when he admitted guilt.

"Passing mention". Discuss to the minimum possible extent to show its effect on his work. Do not offer opinions. Do not editorialize. Do not add Audience Reactions ever under any circumstances.

I think it's a valid "Funny Aneurysm" Moment. He made a joke about a broken marriage, and then underwent a very public broken marriage that resulted in a terminated position at his company and a Series Hiatus, and a lot of people connected the joke to the scandal.

Divorce can happen to anyone. It's too common for "Funny Aneurysm" Moment to apply.

The point of Audience Reactions is to document, well, common audience reactions. This is a connection that many people made, and his marriage was particularly notable in the public eye. Would you argue that the page image of "Funny Aneurysm" Moment is inaccurate because any building could hypothetically be hit with a plane?

Divorce is a common event happening to people every day. Planes flying into buildings is not.

I have to agree with Fighteer here. It's like if he were to make a joke about having a turkey sandwich and then later eating one.

I'm still of the opinion that our personal opinion doesn't outweigh a more widespread fandom joke, in the same vein that you shouldn't delete YMMV just for disagreeing with it, but maybe we can take this to Hindsight thread.

Here's the thing though: Fandom considering something funny doesn't mean it's Hilarious in Hindsight by the definition of TV Tropes. These are two different things.

... But if fandom doesn't point out something that's made funnier (or harsher, in this case, because we're talking about FAM) in hindsight, then who does? People who are unfamiliar with the work? Because even non-fans made those jokes.

I just find cutting a fandom-recognized Hindsight example (as in, not a single troper's shoehorn) because you personally don't agree with it as inappropriate as cutting a Memetic Mutation example you don't find funny or cutting an entry about a ship you don't like.

I think I was unclear. What I mean to say is, fandom considering something funny isn't enough on its own to make something Hilarious in Hindsight. It's a start, but not enough on its own.

So is it okay to add the Funny Annyrsum Moment or not?

We could ask the Hindsight cleanup about it. Most of them are harsh on examples but I'll continue to vouch for this one.

At the very least, the Series Hiatus example on Trivia.Pro Jared potholing to Rule of Cautious Editing Judgement instead of actually explaining why Jared went on hiatus needs to be changed. We could also add a Role-Ending Misdemeanor example about him being fired from Normal Boots.

so do I have the go ahead

Like I said, you could go to the hindsight cleanup for more feedback.