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.
The reason it's In-Universe Examples Only is because it's...a trope, not an audience reaction. We need in-universe acknowledgement to be sure that the character was intended to be a hypocrite and that it's not just the fans own interpretation.
It probably should be on the index, but I see no reason why it's status would be "debatable". We're not here to make judgement calls about what the characters do, we're here to describe what they do and how the narrative portrays them. It's the same reason we had to put Annoying Laugh on the index; people were misusing it as laughs they dislike, even if they weren't meant to be annoying or acknowledged as being annoying in-universe, but the trope was never about audience perception to begin with.
Edited by WarJay77 Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallI don't see it as debatable either, but I've been stuck in discussions for a while with tropers who think it is. It's one of the reasons I went to the Is This An Example? thread in the first place because I was starting to doubt myself and think I was just being too harsh.
However, I noticed today that it's not on that list and the other tropes that are on the list just have the very simple 'In-Universe Examples Only' warning, combined with a link to the Administrivia page. I was wondering if hypocrite should do the same.
Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.Wait if it's in-universe, does that mean the characters acknowledge it? Or can their actions show them as a hypocrite without saying anything too?
Thomas fans needed! Come join me in the the show's cleanup thread!^ Usually it does mean in-universe acknowledgement but if the narrative makes it otherwise clear that the character is indeed intended to be seen as a hypocrite, it'd count.
We just aren't looking for fan interpretation and unintentional hypocrisy.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall^^ Yes, it can as clear as a character openly mentioning it, but if the character experiences unambiguous consequences or a narrative hammer gets dropped, that could be relevant, too.
Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.So something like this isn’t In-Universe?
My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic S2 E8 "The Mysterious Mare Do Well"
- Hypocrite: Despite the rest of the Mane 6 reprimanding Rainbow Dash for her ego problem while she is attending a meeting held by her own fan club, they see absolutely no problem showing up to a parade held in Mare Do-Well's honor later in the episode.
If I’m not mistaken, then I’m pretty sure they weren’t written to be hypocrites. The narrative doesn’t say anything about this. It just seems like an interpretation of the characters’ actions in the episode (Which the writer probably left everything in the episode too open to interpretation).
Edited by PlasmaPower Thomas fans needed! Come join me in the the show's cleanup thread!That looks like the very 'audience reaction' misuse that the bold text warning (Not YMMV. In-universe only.) was designed to stop. I don't know MLP, however, so I don't know if it's just a badly written example. Perhaps double-check on the Is This An Example? thread just to confirm.
I'm not sure how amending Administrivia pages works. Can I just add Hypocrite to the IUEO list and then add the link to the Hypocrite page? Or do I need to ask somewhere for that to be done?
Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.Knowing the episode, the Mane 6 were definitely not framed as hypocrites. The episode cast Rainbow in the wrong and fan interpretation is that her friends were hypocrites.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallThat's my concern about just adding Hypocrite to the IUEO list. Would there be misuse that needs cleaning up in response to that?
Should I do a wick check and have a look, and then open a short-term project thread if the wick check indicates a clean-up associated with IUEO is needed?
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.I must explain myself here - I added this warning back when I was reading the Edit Banned/Suspended thread and saw some guy get suspended for adding Hypocrite to YMMV, plus there have been some other cases from what I heard. I thought that by adding it, people may know (some may see warning to editors as bad for readers, but they can be necessary).
That said, the in-universe part is something I feel like I went too far with, and I didn't know people would take it as an endorsement for IUEO. I don't think it should be there, seeing as that would delete too many examples that are not brought up in universe that are real (for example, Monosuke from Danganronpa V3: Killing Harmony saying "Bad guys never wear glasses", despite being a villain with glasses. It's not brought up in-universe, but it's obvious hypocrisy, and that MLP example seems okay-ish in showing hypocrisy to an extent at least). Plus this could affect a bunch of other pages, like Hypocritical Humor and Hypocritical Heartwarming and lead to that misuse cleanup or wick check which I find unnecessary as the trope seems fine as is, it's others fault for misusing it and it can't be that bad.
To sum up, I'd just like to remove the "A character is a hypocrite in-universe or isn't one at all" bit, because that was a stupid mistake I made years ago which has confused people here or could be considered an undiscussed then trope definition change. I still stand by the "Not YMMV" warning as it seems like a clear issue, but not the IUEO part as it feels too strict and not necessary.
Edited by Piterpicher Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods Of Incremental)IUEO just means it's true in the work's universe, and most tropes are IUEO already without having to specify because they occur only in the work's universe. So you weren't wrong when you said it was IUEO, because it is- because it only occurs in the work's universe and narrative intentionally. Usually IEUO carries the connotation of "the characters need to react to it", but that's not necessarily true; it just can't be the audience's reaction to the events and has to be based around the narrative itself. At least, that's how I interpret it.
Edited by WarJay77 Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallThe Mane 6 example sounds like Moral Dissonance, which is unintentional hypocrisy that undercuts good guys intended sympathy.
I've asked elsewhere how Hypocrite is different enough from Moral Dissonance and Moral Myopia to justify using it over them. There was no clear consensus before if fizzed out.
My belief is that Hypocrite should only be used when it's an international unsympathetic trait (unlike Dissonance) but they're being outright villains (unlike Myopia).
Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught^ Hypocrite just means a character says one thing and does another, with the caveat that the work makes it clear the character is intended to be seen as a hypocrite.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallI mean, I don't remember the work pointing out that Monosuke was a hypocrite when he said that, but if it fits IUEO not always requiring an in-universe reaction, that seems good by me (as I think examples like these would work for Hypocrite).
Edited by Piterpicher Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods Of Incremental)...Admittedly, some of these require knowing the creator's intent.
But I'm pretty certain that the Mane 6 weren't meant to be seen as hypocritical, or they'd have given Rainbow an opportunity to defend herself or something. If your character is intentionally meant to be a hypocrite, you don't gloss over their actions; you don't pretend they're in the right or that what they're doing is good. Dunno Danganronoa so I can't speak on that one.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall^^^ But then again, you can’t really tell what the intentions of the rest of the Mane 6 were when they went to the parade in Mare-Do-Well’s honor. Moral Dissonance would rely on the interpretation that they’re all egotistical hypocrites.
Thomas fans needed! Come join me in the the show's cleanup thread!^ Mare-Do-Well seems like they were going for a Deliberately Bad Example, their hypocritical actions meant to show Rainbow how unpleasant hers were. The episode didn't do a good job establishing that as the case.
I agree Hypocrite should only be used for intentional cases, but things like Mare-Do-Well show poor writing or moral grayness can make intention hard or impossible to ascertain. So how do we decided what is or isn't intentional? If only when pointed out by others it's redundant with What the Hell, Hero?.
Edited by Ferot_DreadnaughtThis has strayed into debate territory, so here's a thread
for us to use instead.

Recently, I asked on the Is this an Example? thread
whether a hypocrite entry applied due to the 'in-universe only' aspect of the trope.
The responses I had back on that thread is that, yes, hypocrite is definitely an in-universe trope.
However, looking at the In-Universe Examples Only list, hypocrite is not on the list.
Should it be?
I'm asking because discussions with other tropers seem to indicate that the current bold text warning isn't effectively conveying the in-universe nature of the trope. That, combined with the fact it's not on the Administrivia page, makes the in-universe aspect debatable.
Edited by Wyldchyld