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 is for:
- General questions about the wiki, how it works, and how to do things.
- Reports of problems with wiki articles, or requests for help with wiki articles.
- Reports of misbehavior or abuse by other tropers.
Ask the Tropers is not for:
- Help identifying a trope. See TropeFinder.
- Help identifying a work. See MediaFinder.
- Asking if a trope example is valid. See the Trope Talk forum.
- Proposing new tropes. See TropeLaunchPad.
- Making bug reports. See QueryBugs.
- Asking for new wiki features. See QueryWishlist.
- Chatting with other tropers. See our forums.
- Reporting problems with advertisements. See this forum topic.
- Reporting issues on the forums. Send a Holler instead.
Ask the Tropers:
openIs this an okay BrokenBase entry?
I was looking at the YMMV page for Monty Python's Life of Brian here
and after reading the Broken Base entry, I can't help but feel that there's something just a little off about it.
- Broken Base: This is a film that still remains controversial. Some people assume it's a parody of Jesus, who is actually just a very minor character in the film (and himself played completely straight). Others claim the film mocks Christianity, while it can also be interpreted as mocking religion or blindly fanatical followers in general, for that matter. In a sense it also spoofs the typically heavy handed and deadly serious Bible epics. Some very devout religious people condemn the film for being blasphemous without having seen it. Some religious people who did watch it act as if this movie doesn't mock Jesus, Christianity or religion at all, which is again not totally true either. There are several very outrageous heretical scenes that could easily offend people who take their faith too seriously, but religious people with a sense of humour can enjoy the film just fine. The movie is also more than just a shocking comedy. It raises excellent points about blindly following leaders, misinterpreting so-called signs and messages and not thinking for yourself.
I don't know, but it seems like the entry is going off-topic a little bit in trying to talk about every stance on the film, and the last two sentences don't seem relevant. Also, this:
- easily offend people who take their faith too seriously, but religious people with a sense of humour can enjoy the film just fine.
Seems needlessly insulting, bordering on breaking the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment.
open Issues re: Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) Film
1. Dolph Z has a severe hang-up about the MonsterVerse version of King Ghidorah. They keep trying to insist that he's not pure evil, despite evidence suggesting he is in both the film and its novelization. I called them out on it over PMs and their latest justification is that Ghidorah isn't listed under Complete Monster yet. (Who wants to tell them how the appeals process for Complete Monster entries works?) Given that this is not only causing a prolonged Edit War but also shows signs of Single-Issue Wonk, I'm curious to know how best to address the problem.
2. Daethalion has added two main page entries to the film's YMMV page. I've moved them both, and plan to address the user myself, but I want to leave this here just in case things aren't cleared up quickly.
Edited by MinisterOfSinisteropen Roleplay character sheet
DR Falling Future is a new stub article, already reported in the long-term project thread (the crash rescue thread). Characters.DR Falling Future is its character sheet and it also has issues.
It has the standard ZCE problem, and its editors are actually edit-warring over my clean-up. Though to the editors' credit, there have been some attempts to provide more context, but often with half-context or word cruft like 'self-explanatory'; or they seem to think that pictures are substitutes for written context.
They removed my standard ZCE notice and I received no less than three messages over the page. I feel they have a sense of ownership over the page ('our project you're not even a part of' + ' as long as you don't touch our characters and the page itself') or they think they can break this wiki's ZCE rules because other pages break them as well ('Do it for everybody else's pages, or don't work on them at all without our permission.'). They cited other Roleplay character sheets as precedence... which opens another can of worms.
I tried to reply as best as I could but it was very time-consuming and exhausting and I'm not sure my message was received. (I hope I remained civil and helpful in my replies.)
I also thought I would mention it here because I suppose the editors will come here to argue their point of view, or at least to confirm that I am not making things up with Administrivia.Zero Context Example and other editing rules.
Also, prushka (one of the editors) mentioned in their message that the Roleplay is not made public yet (QUOTE It's not even public yet UNQUOTE)... which makes me think it's an unpublished work and as such, it needs to be moved to Darth Wiki — both the stub and its character sheet.
I'm posting it here because I think they all need to be reminded of this wiki's rules and its purpose (troping fiction and stories for general readership; it's not a platform to host fanfic roleplay for the players to get the feel of their characters). They probably need to hear it from the mods, not a regular fellow troper.
(I also admit I'm vexed because my clean-up efforts of their ZCE basically went down the drain.)
ETA: Sorry it's such a Wall of Text.
Edited by XFllo
Migrated to Chloe Jessica!
openis this a violation of ROCEJ? Webcomic
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.OvershadowedByControversy
Scifimaster 92 deleted the following entry from Overshadowed by Controversy:
- Sinfest, a webcomic initially known for its raunchy, dark comedy and its lighthearted parodies of religious tropes, garnered a much more negative reputation after the onset of the Sisterhood arc in 2011, which radically shifted the comic's focus into a story-driven one with heavy, radical feminist overtones. What made this so controversial was a combination of its misandrist attitudes towards men, the author's constant deflection of criticism as "dudebro misogyny," attempts at using female characters to speak for women despite being a middle-aged man (as well as insulting women who disagree with his views), and more recently the use of the Sisterhood as a mouthpiece for transphobia, depicting gender non-conforming individuals as liars and literal zombies. Consequently, the comic's fanbase has been hemorrhaging out over the years, the author's Patreon is seeing a steady decline in support, and Sinfest is now more well-known for its trans-exclusionary radical feminist overtones than for anything else about it.
now, some of this probably does need to be cut, the bits about misandry and the like are likely to attract MRAs. however, TV Tropes explicitly takes a pro-trans, anti-transphobia stance. i dont think it runs afoul of ROCEJ to condemn TERFs.
im trans myself, so i may be too close to this issue to view it objectively. id like some input on whether it's kosher to include or not.
Edited by razorrozar7openSpeculative Troping on Peter Rabbit?
Dreamkwami19
added a lot of commented out examples on the character subpages for the Peter Rabbit movie. What's bizarre is that they seem to troping characters from the upcoming 2020 sequel and listing stuff that has not been confirmed yet.
And these aren't little things. These are entries that are either entirely made-up, or had to have come from a leaked source. Here's some examples from Peter Rabbit Film Villains regarding Barnabas, a character who hasn't even had a voice actor confirmed yet:
- Abusive Parents: He is Myles’ father and, considering he used Myles as leverage against Cottontail, it is unlikely he would be earning any father of the year awards any time soon or ever.
- Asshole Victim: He is killed off and no one mourns it.
- Big Bad: He is the true main antagonist of the sequel and one of the, if not THE, most evil and depraved villains in Sony Pictures Animation.
- Complete Monster: If the fact that he is trying to stain the Rabbits’ name is anything to fit the trope to a T then the fact that he had a hand in Peter Rabbit’s father’s death tops the cake.
- Disney Villain Death: He is thrown off the train by Cottontail to his death to which everyone takes in a satisfied manner given his crimes.
- False Friend: He is only using Peter Rabbit to get closer to Cottontail and his own son.
- Knight of Cerebus: He is the most manipulative and evil villain yet and is willing to use his own son as leverage against the Rabbits.
- Manipulative Bastard: He is willing to use the Rabbits and his son for his own selfish benefits.
- The Quisling: Betrayed Peter Rabbit’s father and had him killed by Old Man Mc Gregor.
- Would Hurt a Child: Sends Snarl in his Gregory Rouge disguise to a store loaded with children.
I think their examples should be deleted on principle, but I wanted second thoughts before I do so.
openPro Jared RoleEndingMisdemeanor addition Web Original
On Nov 22nd, Ozwald Edswald added the following entry:
"Heidi herself would not escape this trope either. During the controversy many were suspicious of her accusations towards Jerad, feeling that some were baseless or contradicted already existing information. Later on these suspicions proved true and many of Heidi's tweets were revealed to be exaggerations and even outright lies. Then when it was revealed that Heidi had been abusing her husband, her reputation sank even farther than Jared's."
I removed this on the 25th, citing a lack of evidence. I then received a PM from Ozwald with a link to a reddit thread
discussing it, but I do not feel this is enough to warrant the entry since it is very circumstantial points and is saying Heidi's reputation is tanked even though there is no evidence to that. Ozwald readded the entry earlier today.
Just wanted to bring it up here for review since I don't agree it counts.
Edit: I responded to him with a link to this ATT.
Edited by keyblade333openCouldn't we have talked about this some first?
I have issues with the fact that Brainulator9 and Piterpicher have been mass-deleting potholes from "The Reason You Suck" Speech without discussing it first. No visit to the dedicated quotes thread, no use of the page's discussion page, no visit to ATT, not even personal messages to anyone who's been editing that page on and off such as myself asking us to dial back on the potholes, just a purge of the square brackets. I've had these issues for a while, but I've waited this long because I didn't want to talk about it in a knee-jerk, angry shouting match way. I've let the initial reactions fade out and am prepared to talk about them politely and courteously now.
I'm not saying they're wrong, but sweeping, zero-tolerance edits like this have massive impacts on how a page appears and this isn't the right way to compress an overly-long page. I already suggested breaking the page down into smaller, dedicated quotes pages on the thread and didn't get a lot of objections. Wouldn't that be better?
In any case, I'm paging both to come here at their nearest convenience. Let's all keep this civil.
openNever Life it Down misuse?
- Among critics of the trilogy, that Disney didn't have a set plan for how the trilogy would go and that the directors basically had a blank slate to do whatever they wanted lead to a lot of the major problems beginning in Force Awakens that would go on to haunt the series going onward for years.
- The movie as a whole will likely never live down it's "subverting viewer expectations" approach. While subverting expectations isn't bad in itself, the fact that a number of things fans speculated about were given wildly unexpected results contributed to making TLJ a very divisive Star Wars movie. Whats more, the subverted plotlines would go on to create issues that would affect the franchise in the years following the movies' release, issues mostly fixed through supplementary material.
- This film is also notorious for many fans as the entry which confirmed and reinforced what TFA strongly implied: nothing the Original Trilogy heroes did mattered in the long run since their accomplishments were nipped in the bud or undone, and Luke dies anticlimactically this time. Even Mark Hamill voiced his misgivings until he issued a retraction, the sincerity of which some of these fans doubt.
- Fans will never live down The Reveal that Luke Skywalker almost went through with killing his nephew just because he had bad dreams about him turning evil, when he was willing to save his already evil father despite him killing or trying to kill Luke's loved ones and chopping his arm off. Following on that, said fans especially won't let live down that when Kylo did go evil partially as a result, Luke decided to go into exile as a grumpy hermit drinking milk out of animals instead of confronting the First Order.
- Fans will never live down that Rose stopped Finn from doing a Heroic Sacrifice which he thought would've saved the Resistance. Rose's kiss with Finn at the end did not help at all.
The first two I think cross into RL example which need 25 years, the claim "will likely never live" sounds like major Weasel Words and a red flag for cutting. The rest I find suspect per prior ATT
which state NLIP requires explaining how fans are exaggerating that aspect, otherwise it's just complaining about something that objectively happened as opposed to how it's this trope. I don't desire the latter one are valid, just not as written. Thoughts?
openCharacter Criticism / Negativity on a Trope Page
The Deconstructed Character Archetype page has an entry for Doki Doki Literature Club!. I haven't read it and so don't have any personal opinions on either it or any of its characters. There's a troper who clearly does, though, and added "The Protagonist can't be blamed fornit because he didn't know. She's a dumb bitch for hiding it." to the end of a subentry. (The subentry only mentions the protagonist in passing. I think the troper was concerned that the subentry mentioning that the protagonist "berates" the character being discussed might make the protagonist look bad.)
I removed the addition with an explanation that Conversation in the Main Page is discouraged and that complaints/reviews should be avoided in examples. The troper didn't re-add it, but they did change the phrase "spacey demeanor" to "idiocy," which sounds like they really want to show their dislike for the character. It's not as much Flame Bait as the previous edit, but given that the subentry discusses how that character appears to be suffering from depression and that fandoms are often sensitive about that in my experience, I'm worried that could still be inflammatory. But I'm also worried about engaging in an Edit War myself by changing it back with Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment.
openTrying to Avoid an Edit War Videogame
Recently, I modified a couple of entries on Dragon Age – Anders, removing the The Extremist Was Right entry and reformatting the information and moving it to Well-Intentioned Extremist. Before I did this, I took it to the Is This An Example
thread, where I was mostly ignored despite posting several times. Now, I previously did the same thing for the same entry on the main page for TEWR after I got agreement from the same thread that it wasn't an example, so despite lack of replies, I thought I was okay.
Shortly after I did this, Asherinka reverted the entry back and edited it to have more neutral wording (or tried to at least). The topic for the Dragon Age fandom is major Flame Bait and Anders himself has a Broken Base, so I'm trying not to let this devolve into an argument over whether or not he was right.
My big hang up on TEWR vs WIE is that I believe they are mutually exclusive tropes. And, for Anders, I do not believe he meets the requirements for TEWR.
- The Extremist Was Right:
- Terrible as Anders' actions were, a lot of supplementary material suggests that escalating the mage/Templar conflict to open war was the right thing to do, since the status quo only weakened the mages' position. The events of Inquisition can further cement this idea; if Leliana is named Divine, one of her reforms to the Chantry is the dissolving of the Circle system, granting the mages their freedom and creating widespread mage acceptance, giving Anders (and the rebel mages who agreed with his points, if not his actions) everything he wanted. Even the endings that see the Circles rebuilt come with some major reformations.
- The flavor text of the Magehunter shield in Inquisition tells of a previous misuse of the Right of Annulment. In 3:09 Towers, twenty-five years after the Right was first granted, the Circle of Magi in Antiva City was annulled to cover up the fact that its Knight-Captain was a serial killer who murdered over a hundred mages out of pure bigotry. While the Seekers eventually hunted him down and punished him, they assisted the Templars in covering up the incident, leaving the rest of the Circles completely ignorant of the truth, and there is no mention of them punishing the Knight-Commander for Annulling a Circle under false pretenses. Given that background chatter in the second game reveals that Meredith had gone over Elthina's head and petitioned the Divine for the Right, it paints a very clear picture of what might have happened to the Gallows if Anders had not provoked Meredith into jumping the gun instead of waiting for the Divine's permission.
Hello83433: I'm a bit concerned about [this particular TEWR example] in general, because it relies a lot on player perception and it seems to be used as an Audience Reaction, because there's hardly anything in-universe that is justifying the actions taken. The trope itself says the people whom everyone thought were completely right and in-universe it's noted that many, including mages, denounce Anders' actions. The supporting material (i.e. comics and supplementary novels) also have that the character is dead, because some events that occur do not occur in a universe where he lives.
Overall, this seems more like someone trying to convince others that the actions were right, when they moreso fall under Your Terrorists Are Our Freedom Fighters (and he's already listed under). Thoughts?
Reply from Afterward: Sorry I haven't said this before, but I think there's enough negative reactions to Anders' actions in-universe that he doesn't qualify (and while the Mage situation in Dragon Age was already pretty bad before Anders blew up the Chantry, there's no real evidence that it got better, just that the conflict became open), although I'm not super familiar with the inner workings of the trope.
Hello83433: Reposting because I think it got lost in the page transition. After cutting Anders' example from The Extremist Was Right, it was added to his character page. The first bullet point text is exactly the same as TEWR, and the second point is diving deep into begging the question and slippery slope territory, but I wanted to bring the full example here again just in case.
[Example In Question]
Reply from nrjxll: Honestly, I think there's a seed of a valid example buried in there, in that Inquisition does pretty clearly show that Anders's broader goal of dragging these festering problems out in the open led to necessary reforms that probably weren't going to happen otherwise. What it doesn't validate is the method he did that by. (Just speaking personally, one of the few points I found myself majorly agreeing with Vivienne - who I rather disliked on the whole - on was that tying the cause of mage independence to a terrorist attack that killed hundreds of people was a huge PR self-own.)
BTW, the definition of The Extremist Was Right is distinctly not helpful here. I don't see anything about other characters in a story needing to say as much to qualify an example the way you originally cited, but the description's not all that long in general.
Hello83433: I was going off of Laconic and the first sentence of the description, although I agree it could be written clearer. The heavy disagreement on his methods is what puts him out of TEWR territory for me. Although, now that I'm looking at it, would it be a better fit for Well-Intentioned Extremist? Anders seems to fit under the first and/or third types (the problem is the means and/or consequences) just based on in-universe reactions to his "solution".
I don't want this OP to be too long, so just to sum up I don't believe the example fits The Extremist Was Right primarily due to in-universe backlash against Anders and his actions. I suppose moving it to YMMV might be an option, but to avoid an edit war I'm asking here to get a consensus one way or the other.
Edited by Hello83433open NSFW Webcomics
There's a NSFW Webcomics index, which is pretty much self-explanatory. I proposed on the Launch pad to have by extension an index of all the other kinds of work that are NSFW
. The draft got merely 6 bombs and general disinterest and skepticism. Many argued that it could potentially violate 5P rules, I personally can't see why (since it's intended to be a list of pages already existing on Tv Tropes and not some generic list of nasty works), but that's besides the point. My concern is: if an index about all NSFW works present is deemed inappropriate by tropers, shouldn't we by extension reevaluate the presence of NSFW Webcomics as well?
open Ryulong
Ryulong added examples with bad indenration to Lethal Joke Character, here
.
Their name is somewhat faniliar to me (I accidently deleted all PM last year). Regardless, I sent them indentation notifier (I were sleepy, else I would fix it myself then).
They replied, claimed that they did nothing wrong. So they 1. is totally clueless about Example Indentation in Trope Lists, and 2. doesn't bother to check the link in notifier.
As noted, their name is vaguely familiar to me and it's possible that their prpblem is long term (their recent edit seems fine, however). So I would like to post it here, and will fix the entry after this message.
Edited by KuruniopenMudvayne and Numetal Music
For the last five years or so, on and off there has been an ongoing issue with NuMetal being part of the Mudvayne page. It has been removed a couple of times usually by the same troper BornnofSelf ban evading. They have used various handles to do this, and when they have been found out usually tropers simply revert the changes, generally it has been accepted that Mudvayne are Numetal. Established via various sources including
https://www.revolvermag.com/music/11-most-iconic-looks-nu-metal-stars
The general consensus has been that the band is Numetal.
'
Once again Numetal has been removed from the band page this time by relatively new troper https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Tropers/dognation83
. On both the Mudvayne page and the Numetal page with the reasoning Mudvayne is clearly prog-metal with no links to estabilsh this. I am seeking consensus to revert as this has been an ongoing argument I thought resolved with them being established as Numetal.
openVandal/troll
This troper
has created at least two
pages
with just one nonsense word each, seemingly for the sole purpose of trolling. They also created this
Haiku that's not a proper Hiaku (because the middle line only has 6 syllables instead of 7), and is Shaped Like Itself at best. These are their only edits on this wiki.
openSchoolhouse Rockz -- Troper restoring deleted page, restoring ZCEs without expanding
TL:DR: Troper recreating plagiarized page without consulting other users, now replacing plagiarized synopsis by filling it with bad grammar.
Long version:
Series.Schoolhouse Rockz — this page was previously cutlisted due to plagiarizing content from a review site
, and now it was reconstructed with the sole editor being... this guy
. (EDIT: EDIT history
)
Who is the same guy who made the page first, several months ago, with the plagiarized content. After the page got the snips due to stealing its synopsis and barely having enough tropes with decent context, LWH somehow sees fit to recreate the page, ZCE and all. With a two-sentence synopsis.
I've never seen the show in question, but here's some colorful grammar on the page itself:
- "It focuses on an everyday life of a 13-year-old snobbish schoolgirl..."
- "This series consists only 6 episodes..."
- "Her hairstyle switches in different episodes. Averted, she is the girliest in Eastwood Secondary..."
Oh, and ZCE issues, lack of full-stops, and "X is this trope" in both the main page and the characters subpage. A bunch which I've commented out months ago
with the dual-percentages, only for the troper in question to put them back without properly expanding the context
.
Also, a "Beware the Nice Ones" shoehorn that doesn't explain why audiences are supposed to be wary of a "nice" character (In episode 5, Dawn confronts Ros and Amni for getting Inka into serious trouble after finding out Inka is wrongly accused of shoplifting. — How is that an explanation of why we're supposed to "beware" of her?)
Help?
Edited by RobertTYL
Berserk Button: misusing Nightmare Fuel
openRemoval of Ambiguously Gay/Bi on JoJo pages
tiger20 made some edits to some Character pages for JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, mostly Characters.Jo Jos Bizarre Adventure Phantom Blood and Characters.Jo Jos Bizarre Adventure Battle Tendency. These edits had a lot of issues, mainly from a large quantity of misspellings (to the point where I'm not sure if they're typos or genuine mistakes), but I fixed those and sent a PM.
Something I'm not sure needs undoing is the removal of Ambiguously Gay and Ambiguously Bi on those pages, with no edit reason given:
- Ambiguously Gay: Completely devotes his life to supporting Jonathan after gaining his friendship, extending said devotion to his descendants after Jonathan's untimely passing, all while never marrying himself (note that "he never married" in an obituary was a British euphemism for homosexuality). Meanwhile he's never shown as attracted to women aside from Joseph teasing him and Erina about having Unresolved Sexual Tension, though their reactions indicate that this is not the case.
- Ambiguously Bi: Caesar's Establishing Character Moment shows him to be quite the lothario around women, but at one point Messina teases him about having a crush on Joseph, and he doesn't exactly deny the allegation. That the first thing he does upon reuniting with Joseph is a stock Tsundere reaction doesn't help his case.
I feel like there is a good amount of evidence for Speedwagon being Ambiguously Gay, though Caesar being bi is a bit weaker IMO. Still, removing LGBT tropes without any discussion or explanation feels suspicious. Do these examples look okay, and should they be re-added?
Edited by ZuxtronopenTroper with persist indentation problem
On 26th Jul, I sent them an indentation notifier for this edit
. They did reply and acknowledge it, too bad since it appears that they do not actually learn. I sent them two more indentation notifiers on 1st Sep (regarding this
) and 26th Sep (regarding this
.
Yesterday, they did it again
. I sent them another notifier and wait a day to see if they'll fix it. They don't, despite making two more edits on another articles. So I fix it myself and made this report.
openSerious Problem involving the "How To Fix Kingdom Hearts" page
I wanted to report an issue I found on the How To Fix Kingdom Hearts page. Most specifically what's on the page. For context the page is supposed to be about the actual video series made by a content creator on You Tube. But a Troper by the name of "The Merger Magikoopa" inserted tropes about their fanfics on the actual page itself, when the two are completely different works not made by the same person thus having no right to be there, something that I'm pretty sure violates at least some of the basic rules of the site. I'm pretty sure there are rules against the inappropriate advertising of your own works here and this seems to violate these rules.
openMisaimed Fandom for American Psycho
A couple days ago, dartheal removed the following Misaimed Fandom entry from YMMV.American Psycho:

Okay, this is the first time I've done this and I wasn't sure at first and though just speaking with the troper who kept doing it. However, doing some research I found this troper has a history of changing or altering things based more on their perception rather than what actually happens and wanted other to know of this.
It regards the characters section of Power Rangers Wild Force. There are spoilers for this season so if you hadn't watched it, be warned.
The Big Bad of the series is not the original Master Org by Dr. Victor Adler. He was friends with the Red Rangers parents and fell for his mother, but she was unaware of his feelings and she married who became Cole's father. Resentment turned to hatred, when they discovered seeds that were the remains of the original Master Org, and this is important to note, he swallowed them.
Now, the troper in question, TV Lubber, insists Adler was possessed by Master Org from the start and made him do terrible things. However, as someone who watches Wild Force once in a while, I can tell you this is not true in the slightest.
Adler has full agency over his actions, it's one of the reasons why in the YMMV section he, not Master Org, is given the Complete Monster entry. Until the episode The Master's Last Stand, it's repeatedly stated by himself that he's not the original or at least the original isn't in the driver's seat.
For example, one episode has him send his henchmen steal his tombstone built for his supposedly lost body. Upon reading it, how he supposedly died, he laughs about "So that's where they think I am..." Note that the wording clearly shows this is Adler, not the original, who is in full control of his actions.
This is why the original Master Org was given his own, albeit short, character entry to show he's the Greater-Scope Villain and could be influencing Adler, or influencing him.
Even to give TV Lubber the benefit of the doubt and assume Master Org has been in control of Adler the whole time, he still has full agency over all of his actions, including murdering Cole's parents, outright rejects his one chance at redemption towards the end of the series and clearly enjoys committing his evil deeds.
Anyway, I just wanted to ask what should I do about this? I don't want this to be an edit war, especially when the show itself makes it clear Adler isn't a good man under evil's control but genuinely evil himself.