Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
Well, the question here is: does Brother–Sister Incest occur in the story? If so, it's a factual trope and should be added to the article. It's not a value judgement.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
According to the edit reasons given, it occurs in the work. The page is cited, the characters remark on it ... not sure what the issue is here.
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
The issue is that, frankly, I don't see that this is said. What I was given as the smoking gun was Richard's line, "being a sub and having a dom twin sister," which I was told indicates a dom-sub relationship between the two, but I don't see it. What Ramona at least is talking about is clearly not a relationship with her brother, but her parents' attitude toward her lifestyle in general, since it's in the context of bringing Roomie home.
My posts make considerably more sense read in the voice of John Ratzenberger.
Perhaps you could provide a link to the part the trope supposedly occurs?
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer
The characters don't actually remark on incest. It's about their relationship with their parents. Here's the strip in question.
Incest is never mentioned.
Looks ambiguous. I say take out the incest bit for now.
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer
All right - should I go through with it, then?
Edited by TwinBird My posts make considerably more sense read in the voice of John Ratzenberger.
Is the line "being a sub and having a dom twin sister..." the best or only evidence? If so that is pretty flimsy. Siblings might know each others' sexual habits without having had sex with each other...
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.
Okay. So I found that based on the 8/30 update of Go Get a Roomie!, someone had added Brother–Sister Incest as a trope. I found this to be unwarranted, so I removed it (with perhaps too curt an edit summary), and it was added again soon after. When I saw this, I went to the discussion page to see if there was a note, then to the main page to see if the PM notification was up (I had thought it showed on the main page), and seeing neither, deleted it again, with the intent to start a discussion thread. I found then that the other editor had indeed written a PM, and (after it was added again) we talked over PM for a while, which ended with a declaration of the other's intent to ignore me. I don't think this is the place to get into whether it's accurate or not, but I think it's an ugly trope to be up if it even may not be accurate (in a narrative sense, not ambiguous In-Universe), I don't want to delete it a third time, and the messages I've left in the discussion section haven't yet gotten any responses. As such, I went to Administrivia/TV Tropes Customs, and found the line "Try working things out on the discussion page, via PM, or, failing that, bring the issue to Ask The Tropers." So here I am. Now what?