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.
If it's not intentional, then it's an audience reaction, and not the trope.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallYeah, all of the examples that were cut were written like YMMV, not In-Universe like it's supposed to be.
I do understand that but it's not always the case that tropes need to be intentional Broken Aesop and Moral Dissonance both of which are unintentional tropes yet not YMMV I also don't know of a rule that tropes always need to be intentional in general.
Edited by Ordeaux26For what it's worth, there's a TLP draft
covering a YMMV equivalent to this trope though I'm concerned about complaining potential if it goes through.
Interesting.
Also almost forgot to say that In-Universe Examples Only wouldn't make sense to exist if all tropes had to In-Universe.
All tropes should occur in the work, yes. But IUEO is a specific label used for character reactions or things that are negative/complainy, so they cannot have "real life" or audience reaction examples.
For example, Head-Turning Beauty requires that characters within the story react to someone's hotness (ie. an in-universe reaction). On the other hand, Jumping the Shark is too contentious to exist freely on the site, but it's a legitimate term, so it's restricted to fictional references.
Edited by SynchronicityCorrect me if I'm wrong, but aren't most, if not all, non-YMMV tropes assumed to be In-Universe only? At the very least, my own metric for most tropes is whether or not they are, or can be, called out in-series.
Edited by sgamer82As I said though there is no rule disallowing unintentional examples and some tropes like Broken Aesop, Moral Dissonance, Protagonist-Centered Morality are Non-YMMV and are unintentional tropes. I get now that all tropes need to be In-Universe but they don't need to be intentional as far as I know, a trope can happen without the narrative intending it to.
^ Two out of three of the tropes you mentioned are listed under Tropes Needing TRS because they should likely be made YMMV items. But it's true that not everybody can intend to write a trope in a certain way, and some writing decisions can be subconscious. But Disproportionate Retribution is kind of a complaining risk so I do think it should be limited to deliberate decisions, especially since the exaggerated nature of the trope means it should be obvious when it's intentional.
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.Tropes are IUEO by default. The only time we need to say so is when it's an Audience Reaction or YMMV, or if people keep misusing it.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallUnless you were referring to one of my earlier comments I am not talking about In-Universe anymore I am talking about intentional examples.
Edited by Ordeaux26And if they aren't intentional? Then they're subjective, which is the same as being an audience-reaction, which wraps back around to IUEO. They're intrinsically linked. If a trope isn't In-Universe, then the creator didn't intend it, and tropes are intentional. The ones you pointed out above will probably be moved to YMMV in the future.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallThat isn't really how definitions work something can happen without you intending it to. Like if I misspell a word I still misspelled it even if I didn't intend to. I also still have yet to find a rule on the site that says all tropes need to be intentional and Broken Aesop, Moral Dissonance, Protagonist-Centered Morality show otherwise.
A typo isn't a trope, though.
"Do tropes need to be intentional" is honestly an entire debate that'd best be had on Trope Talk, not here. But by default we do assume that the creator needed to put it there intentionally, if only because trying to trope the unintentional can lead to varying interpretations and fights.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallSure, but it's different with tropes since they're not just things that get put into a story. They have meaning and purpose, and fall into patterns. It's hard to perfectly add a trope without meaning to. That's the issue here. The audience might think a character suffered Disproportionate Retribution, but that doesn't mean the trope is in the work.
Take it from a writer. Tropes don't just accidentally end up in stories. Any time there's a trope that could debatably be there if you squint hard enough or interpret something in a certain way, then the trope isn't objectively in the work. There might be something that hit a specific beat, but the rest of the tune would be missing, making it vague and ambiguous.
Edited by WarJay77 Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallHere are the entries I removed in question (I added back one I removed by accident):
- It's a highly contested point among the fandom, whether the Mane 5's actions in the episode "The Mysterious Mare Do Well" went too far in simply trying to humble Dash a little.
- In "28 Pranks Later", the response of all of Ponyville to Rainbow Dash going on an unrelenting pranking campaign (and in their defense, they do try to beg her to stop and tell her some pranks are too mean to their targets, but Rainbow refuses) is to make Rainbow believe that one of her pranks has Gone Horribly Wrong and she had accidentally unleashed a Zombie Apocalypse. Understandably, some audience members find this as divisive as the "Mare-Do-Well" scheme.
- in the season 8 finale, Cozy Glow, a child, is sentenced to life imprisonment in Tartarus even though many far more powerful adult villains received far lighter punishment and she could have easily been sent to a normal prison with an eventual release date. This is later topped in part 2 of the series finale by turning her to stone for all eternity. Many viewers saw these punishments as very overly harsh.
As Disproportionate Retribution is non-YMMV, saying if it's this trope is down to YMMV seem misuse, plus violating Examples Are Not Arguable. Two seem objective misuse.
"28 Pranks Later" sounds necessary as opposed to excessive as it notes they tried lesser methods first but it proved insufficient.
Cozy Glow in Season 8 committed the same crime that got Tirek uncontroversially sent to Tartarus (stealing Equestria's magic) refusing redemption and showing no remorse for such, and was equally and wholly complicit in and unrepentant for the same acts that got the rest of the villains turned to stone. That sounds proportionate. The unfair part (not checking why the child was so evil for possible mitigating factors) is a separate (YMMV) trope.
"The Mysterious Mare Do Well" would count if DP was YMMV, but there are YMMV tropes to cover the audience reactions to it. Plus it's ZCE as to how it was excessive.
I've seen Disproportionate Retribution used as the basis for YMMV entries, but as a YMMV itself seems misuse when we have proper YMMV trope to cover the issues.
The Cozy Glow example should stay, because the point stands that she could have gotten a lesser punishment given her age, but they decided not to, and Discord's complicity in her later crimes doesn't help. I'd say cut the part about the viewers' reaction, because that makes it sound subjective.
Edited by Javertshark13^ It is subjective. The show intended it to be a valid punishment.
Edited by WarJay77 Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallAnd I've explained why tropes require intent to exist. You didn't respond to my points, so reiterating yourself at this point doesn't feel like good-faith arguing.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallIt's not opinion, it's been proven time and time again, but 'aight.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallThe mental gymnastics here are mind-boggling. Disproportionate Retribution's effects need to be felt and addressed in-universe. As it is not a YMMV trope, it is not up to the audience to judge if the punishment was excessive or not, but the characters involved instead.
"They played us like a DAMN FIDDLE!" — Kazuhira Miller, Metal Gear Solid V The Phantom PainI fail to see how I am using "mental gymnastics" Disproportionate Retribution never says it needs to be intentional and there are a few tropes on this wiki that are about unintentional tropes and the idea of tropes needing to be intentional doesn't really make sense based on definitions. Where does it say the effects need to be addressed In-Universe?
Ordeaux 26, turning this into a debate about whether or not tropes need intent is misusing this forum. Trope Talk or Wiki Talk are more appropriate places to have that conversation. The reason for the deletions has already been discussed, but if you need me to summarize:
Disproportionate Retribution is not In-Universe Examples Only, but the examples as written referred to the fandom. Using normal tropes to talk about audience reaction is completely wrong.
- "It's a highly contested point among the fandom,"
- "some audience members find this as divisive as the "Mare-Do-Well" scheme."
- "Many viewers saw these punishments as very overly harsh."
I don't watch this show; I have no horse in this race so to speak. But the people who do know this show have said that the examples are proportionate punishments within the context of the show, so even if you take out the fandom references it is still misuse.
Edited by SynchronicityDisproportionate Retribution doesn’t need to be regarded by the characters, but it does need to be presented as such by the work. Cozy Glow’s punishment may have seemed too harsh for many people in the audience, but the show itself intends to present it as a fitting punishment, thus making it not an example of Disproportionate Retribution.
Edited by jandn2014Alright I will stop with the debate about tropes needing to be intentional.
But when it comes to jandn2014's comment nothing on Disproportionate Retributions page says it needs to be presented as it but the work.
...Did you miss my sentence about how using normal tropes to talk about audience opinions is wrong? Or any of the other rebuttals?
Tropes being about stuff that is actually in the work is the default. That is a rule. It is only those listed on YMMV and Trivia that are allowed to talk about fandom stuff or behind-the-scenes stuff. From How to Write an Example, "Good Examples are not Arguable":
And "Don't Write Reviews on the Trope Page":
Sorry if I didn't really make this clear I do agree that the examples as they were couldn't have stayed because they are talking about audience reactions. The only point I have been trying to make is that Disproportionate Retribution never states it needs to be intentional, but at this point, I don't think it's worth continuing.
If Disproportionate Retribution has to be intentional and/or not audience reaction sounds like a question for TRS or some other thread.
Right. There can be a debate about whether tropes need to be 100% intentional on the creator's part, but this isn't the place for it.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall

So Ferot_Dreadnaught has been removing a bunch of examples from DisproportionateRetribution.My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic on the grounds that it needs to be In-Universe or intentional. The problem is that the trope itself never states that it needs to be In-Universe or intentional only that some for retribution to be disproportionate to what happens. So I don't think that these removals are valid.
Edited by Ordeaux26