Ask The Tropers

I have no idea what Metaverse means by "the issue in question never existed". I will admit that I've never played this game, but from what I can tell by reading this entry and the characters page, Erica's transition was undone by time travel creating an alternate timeline. I suppose that from an in-universe perspective, it never happened, but we, the audience, are fully aware of what happens in both timelines.

The example looks valid to me, but if you're not really sure, there's a forum thread where you can bring it up. And the Overshadowed by Controversy example should be discussed in the thread for that trope.

Yeah, that is a clear example of Unfortunate Implications, along with several credible sources that remark on said implications.

Disagreeing with an Audience Reaction is not enough to remove one with that much credibility.

Honestly, my only issue is that the sources are tacked on at the end, it'd be better written if they were in the example proper.

@Serac: Will post there too then, thank you.

@WarJay77: It was the requested citation format laid out on the Unfortunate Implications page:

"Citations are done as follows:

• Blah Story Blah Blah Circumstance Blah Blah Implication Blah. Example Website"

though I suppose that could be changed if you feel the alternative would be better.

I mean, even there the source isn't randomly tacked on in paranthesis...

As a person who is not familiar with the game and the characters, I find the example lacking.

First of all, "potentially inadvertently removing Erica's identity and agency" sounds like guessing and should be removed.

Second, what is the issue, exactly? Based on the linked sources the main issue seems to be the lack of explanations about a side character's fate in one particular ending, with some people assuming the worst. An ending that is basically a new timeline with apparently very little detail given about it. For all we know it might be a timeline where Erica and Toby met sooner, before Erica transitioned, with the ending simply taking place before Erica's transition in the original timeline (and yes, I realize this is a best-case scenario). Or maybe Erica simply transitioned later in this timeline for some (good or bad) reason.

Remember, Weblinks Are Not Examples. In the case of UU examples the issue(s) should be clear even if all of the provided sources happen to be unavailable at the time of reading. As written the example does not mention that – apparently, since I have not played the game – this is a timeline where the lives of everyone were improved as a result of Catherine going back in time, and thus some fans assume that Erica's lack of transitioning is how her life was "improved". But the only reason I know that is because I checked the linked sources.

Also, it seems some people found the lack of explanation about Erica's (lack of) transitioning infuriating, but again, I know that only because I checked the sources, and NOT because of the example text.

The example mentions "problematic Unsettling Gender-Reveal jokes" without giving any details. Maybe explain what the jokes are.

And yeah, the sources could be integrated better instead of being tacked on at the end.

I'm having trouble understanding your suggestions since the context is the first sentence of the entry, and for me at least your point one and three seem to be contradicting each other.

If I wrote it like in one of the articles, something like:

"The new ending for Catherine erases the transition of Erica, its first trans character, with no explanation, which some players found infuriating. At best it's showing Erica pre-transition or with a delayed transition for the sake of another Unsettling Gender-Reveal joke that Toby is unaware that Erica is a transwoman and attracted to him. In the worst case scenario, it’s outright implying that Erica’s best life involves her never transitioning, as if a trans woman’s dysphoria can simply go away without transitioning."

Would that make it clearer?

^^ That's not really the point of an Unfortunate Implications entry. Unfortunate Implications isn't about eliminating all possible reasonable arguments why something isn't as bad as it seems. The fact that it looks bad in the first place is exactly what the problem is. One of the reasons it requires citations is to prove that the person writing the example isn't the only person who noticed the problem.

Take the page image of Unfortunate Implications itself, for example. It doesn't matter whether or not the person who took the photo and made up the cover was aware of what they were doing, nor does it matter if the actual intent was to demonstrate the power and authority of the basketball player. What matters is that an old WWII propaganda cover featuring a gorilla (intended to make the enemy look like monsters) was recreated using a Black man, with a white woman captive in his arms. It doesn't matter if said woman is happily smiling. It doesn't matter that the cover isn't telling us to "Destroy this mad brute!". It doesn't matter if there are several reasonable explanations which prove the problem isn't as bad as it seems—the fact that several people (proven with well-reasoned articles and citations) noticed the implications is what makes it an Audience Reaction.

Right, the example counts. It just need to be better written. I think ^^ is pretty good, personally; my biggest issue with the first one was that the sources weren't naturally integrated, and that example at least gets that part better.

But yeah, it doesn't really matter if:

• You personally agree with the implications, or you think there's an explanation that invalidates the arguments (for example, it's possible for the page image's example to have only been a coincidence, despite the obvious issue. However, arguing that it's just a coincidence doesn't change the implications either way)
• You don't actually see the implication at all, or think the controversy is overblown.

It matters if people think the implications exist and have made an effort to discuss these implications in a serious and professional manner. Regardless of how valid or not these implications may be, they still clearly exist, at least to the people writing these articles; it's important to remember that YMMV in general is about documenting existing opinions about a work, not making sure those opinions are "correct". There's plenty of stuff that's gone up on YMMV pages, be it political/social-related issues or not, that I disagree with; but if it's a reaction enough fans of the work have, the example is valid (as long as it's not getting other things fundamentally wrong, of course. YMMV is only as valid as the facts are)

Yes, ashlay's rewrite is much better - both clearer and more concise. And it works even if the sources happen to be temporarily unavailable. That's all I was asking for, so thanks.

Also, it should be pointed out: Weblinks Are Not Examples means "don't only include a weblink as an explanation", not "weblinks aren't proof of anything".

Okay, so generally it should be fine if I add this to YMMV with a note to come here or to the Unfortunate Implications thread to discuss if another editor would like to change it?

• Unfortunate Implications: In one of the new endings for Full Body, Catherine goes back in time to make a golden timeline where Vincent and her were the ones dating since high school. An unclear number of years later, at Vincent and Catherine's wedding, the game then erases the transition of Erica, its first trans character, with no explanation, which some players found infuriating. At best it's showing Erica pre-transition or with a delayed transition (as Toby had previously only known her post-transition) for the sake of another Unsettling Gender-Reveal joke that Toby is unaware that Erica is a transwoman and attracted to him. In the worst case scenario, it’s outright implying that Erica’s best life involves her never transitioning, as if a trans woman’s dysphoria can simply go away without transitioning.

(removed the ")

Yes, that seems fine. Thumbs up from me.

Seconded, though you need to remove that stray " at the end.