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.
You're misusing the trope. Selective Condemnation is when the game itself treats your crimes inconsistently.
Trouble Cube continues to be a general-purpose forum for those who desire such a thing.
Ah it's in game examples. Okay...so I guess the next question is could this be worked into a trope? Should it? Calling attention to people who make rape games or the Alt. Right getting triggered over the way a game is made...sure I can accept not giving them air time. 2K and their practices, even if you don't agree what they've done counts as child exploitation 2K begging children to gamble on loot boxes in games that require loot boxes and microtransactions, begging children to pressure the government to allow underage gambling, I think that can be troped or can be a Trivia post or something. Happy to hear feedback on where or even if this could be discussed.
Currently reading up My Rule Fu Is Stronger Than Yours
The idea you've presented — "people aren't mad enough at 2K for having lootboxes" — is absolutely not a viable trope, trivia, or YMMV item.
Lootboxes in and of themselves are a trope — perhaps you could run your idea by the trope description improvement thread
, and see if it can be worked in somewhere.
More a case of I think most people would see child exploitation as the lowest of the low and I think what 2K has done qualifies as child exploitation...even if it doesn't then 2K begging children to gamble, begging to pressure the government to allow underage gambling, can that fit in somewhere? I'll chase it up and see if it might be some type of trope or trivia or something...just the fact this is what 2K did without going into whether or not it is a crime or whether or not it should be something to be outraged over.
Currently reading up My Rule Fu Is Stronger Than Yours
This all sounds like an inevitable violation of the Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment - in short, "most people don't want a fight" (so anything that even hints of provoking one is going to be jumped on and deleted quickly).
You seem to be deliberately trying to get 2K in trouble. Maybe they deserve to be, I don't know. But TV Tropes is not the place to do it, and the moderators aren't going to be happy if you try.
Well let's see how saying 2K telling children to lobby the government flies. That's not angling for a fight or trying to get them into trouble or anything. That's saying birds fly, fish swim, 2K told children to lobby the government. If anyone is upset by that...okay, it can be dropped. But if it is a factual statement then I don't see it as any worse than...say, Justin Beiber has a hatedom.
Currently reading up My Rule Fu Is Stronger Than Yours
What I'm getting from this more seems to be the fact that you're scouring the tropes just to find a way to mention this on the wiki, which would be shoehorning (in the case of most tropes) and a complaint nonetheless because you're clearly against this.
Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
Hmmm...just saying 2K had done this, stating facts, that's the wrong thing to do? If I could get some clarification on no I'm not to say 2K begged children to gamble and tell the government to okay underage gambling then sure I'll drop it.
Currently reading up My Rule Fu Is Stronger Than Yours
It's not necessarily that you're just stating an objective fact, but the clear motivation behind it. Most facts aren't worth trying to shoehorn into the wiki.
Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
Motivation of saying 2K begged children to gamble? If the motivation of saying 2K begged children to gamble is wrong then I won't discuss it, I won't trope it, I won't mention it, nothing. If the motivation of saying 2K begged children to gamble is wrong then I won't say 2K begged children to gamble.
Currently reading up My Rule Fu Is Stronger Than Yours
Recently I put an edit on Selective Condemnation in regards to an article on a game that had, of all things, rape as a game mechanic. This drew the ire of one critic who essentially said violence, criminal glorification are in the media spotlight but this deserves to be gutted with a rusty fishing hook.
Well that example was taken down with a big flat "No" and I thought, "...yeah okay fair enough" so I wanted to run a different example through here to make sure it applied.
Happy to cite sources and include links, but would this be valid to include?