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.
Ask The Tropers isn't the best place to ask this kind of question.
The best place to ask whether some element of a show is an example of a trope or not is on Is this an example?
.
The best place to ask about general comparisons between different tropes is on the Trope Talk forum
.

YMMV.Reign Storm
They're saying the same thing, so which one is the better fit? It was asked what was the diffence between Informed Wrongness and Strawman Has a Point but if fizzled out without results.
If Strawaman is a sub-trope of Informed Wrongness, what makes is different/more specific?
I lean to cutting Strawaman as Danny is a normal character holding the Jerkass Ball as opposed to a strawman, who is created/exists entirely to be wrong. That a good distinction?
Or is Designated Evil a better fit as such retaliation is morally wrong but it fails to present a viable morally better alternative.
How is this for a distinction between the three?
- Informed Wrongness: A hero does somthing that's treaded as morally undesirable (like giving away free food) without showing how it is.
- Designated Evil: A hero does somthing that's morally undesirable (like Killing in Self-Defense) without showing viable alternatives.
- Strawman Has a Point: A character created to be morally wrong does somthing that's morally undesirable but has untintentionally valid reasons/argments for such.
Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught