Follow TV Tropes
I would like to know how to add an entry. Do I use the edit button or something else entirely? Are they any other rules that I need to know about other than the ones on the main page? Thank you
I think we should allow boldface and italics because they're great ways to add emphasis without sounding angry. Also, we should explicitly forbid using the word "unforgivable" for relatively harmless missteps. It basically implies that something like a research error is as bad as genocide.
No, we don't need emphasis here at all.
Why don't we need emphasis? What's the big deal?
Because it's tantamount to screaming "THIS FUCKING SUCKS AND I FUCKING HATE IT!!!! :-@ :-@ :-@" No thanks.
I'm making a forum thread about this trope.
Is it me or do all the dinosaur-related DMO Ses go something like this: "OMG the [insert obscure genera]] has one too many fingers and it has the wrong kind of scales on it tail with a mouth that is 4 inches longer than the scientists dictate. This documentary sux!" Honestly paleo-nerds make me want to bang my skull against a museum wall sometimes because as a palaeo-nerd myself, I don't cry like a baby when they make a dinosaur's fingernail too sharp for a scavenger. It's just saddening to see people act that way.
Where was it decided that all entries which listed entire episodes be deleted? I really wonder considering not only were they most of the examples before, but the page even outright says that "it could just be an episode..."
It was because of the following discussion in April in Ask The Tropers:
harryhenry:"Ok, in the Web Original section of Dethroning Moment of Suck, a lot of the entries are entire episodes of a web show, rather than moments within those episodes. Are there different rules in the Web Original section for what counts as a "Moment"?"
Fighteer: "I would think that the same rules would apply. Tighten it up to the specific thing that was disliked. "
harryhenry: "So should I delete the entries that are about entire episodes like usual? "
harryhenry: "According to "Ecclytennysmithylove", The rules don't say anything about "no episodes". So should I put them back? "
Septimus Heap: "No, because the rules do say "specific moments only" - no way an episode is a "moment". "
Mag Bas: "A lot of entries in other pages are about entire episodes, not only one moment. Clean-up time? "
Mag Bas: "Okay, thanks."
jinxmenow: "Did a quick slim-down of the main Web Original page. Going back to edit more soon. "
jinxmenow: "It turns out there are a number of subpages which had several examples that were just "this entire episode", and when they were removed, the page itself only had one or two examples. The remaining examples were moved, but there will need to be cuts made to these pages:
The Amazing Atheist
The Spoony Experiment
Yu Gi Oh! The Abridged Series "
crazysamaritan: "That belongs in the Cut List. :) Thanks for keeping the wiki Cool. "
jinxmenow: "The Zero Punctuation page needs editing, but has been locked. "
crazysamaritan: "Then you go to the forums. In the Frequently Asked Questions forum, there's a pinned post for Editing Locked Pages. Read the instructions on the first page for how to post new edits for those pages. "
The start of that discussion makes it sound like there were already rules about this though. Where were they created?
The reasoning there seems very flimsy anyway-a moment doesn't only mean "a short period of time", it also means "a particular stage in something's development or a course of events". An episode is a stage in the development of a show. And if it's to the specific thing that was disliked, what if the basic plot of the episode is what's disliked? Would listing the plot of an episode be acceptable, or would it just be the same as listing an entire episode? And again, did nobody even bring up that the page specifically says it can be an entire episode? (I can't find the discussion you're talking about, so I'm asking these questions here.)
The rules have been there for long. Using them against "whole episode" examples is relatively more recent though.
^But in the initial post I was asking about using them against whole episode examples. I know the page has always said "specific moments only" (or at least it has since I first saw it), but I find the claim that episodes aren't moments to be questionable.
A tv series is, typically, a series of short duration movies. And in more than a case, they were released in theaters originally. (The original Tom & Jerry shorts, by example.)And this if you are speaking only about series with episodes with less than half hour of duration - many long duration movies are part of a series(Alien, A Nightmare In Elm Street, Lord of The Rings, Star Wars...). In other words, the overlap between "the entire episode" and "the entire movie" is really big.
^But the DMO Ss are for shows, not episodes, right? If the DMO Ss were only for individual episodes rather than entire shows, then there wouldn't be any reason to not allow more than one example per work. And as I said above, an episode is a moment within the larger show.
Distinguishing between "episode" and "moment" seems especially bizarre when talking about web original works, for which "the entire episode" can be two minutes or less.
Am I the only one that finds it weird that you're only allowed to put one Dethroning Moment Of Suck example on the main examples pages, but you're THEN allowed to put another if certain shows have their own Dethroning Moment pages?
Something just seems off here.
If a work has its own subpage, there should not be examples on the medium pages.
What I mean is, you could put a Dethroning Moment example on the primary anime section, but if an anime show has its own Dethroning separate page, you can then put up another example.
Suddenly, the one example limit for the main anime Dethroning page no longer really applies if you just keep adding Dethroning pages for certain shows.
Yes, I got you. The idea I've offered is the fix.
The rule is one moment per work, not per page.
I think "Advertising" should have it's own page.
Edit: Okay, so Bengson26 went ahead and took care of that.
I wish to edit the ALLCAPS, bold, and italics thing to allow exceptions with quotes that use these formats and official spelling. Any objections?
should we put in different sections under the Western Animation sections(Warner Bros, Disney, Cartoon Network, etc? Since scrolling down in that section is getting long now.
I know it's policy to remove the latest entry if someone does multiple entries, but can we change that to lowest on the page, so it's less difficult to sort through?
Can we add a music page?
I think we should. If not, just put in the 'Others' page
Are we allowed to edit entries for having spelling and punctuation errors? The US Acres entry at the end of the Newspaper Comics section bugs me all to heck!
I'm going to add editing another person's entry is frowned upon, but allowed for the purposes of correcting grammar, punctuation, red links, and Square Peg, Round Trope.
I'm very sorry for the misspelling. :( I remembered going back and trying to correct it a few times. I also had to quickly re-edit an entry example I just put in(Regular Show) and had to fix my mistakes several times. ^_^*... Whenever I realized my spelling mistake, I go back and try to fix.
We've got a bit of a contradiction. The main page states:
"What makes it the worst? That depends on individual tastes. It could be a Wall Banger (but not necessarily), or it could be just an episode or arc that is extremely boring or pointless. Whatever the reason, that is the Dethroning Moment of Suck."
Moments only, no "just everything he said, " "The entire show, " or "This entire season" entries.
What's the difference between stating the episode, or an arc, and stuff like "just everything he said, " "The entire show, " or "This entire season"?
Maybe the ending of an arc is lackluster?
An arc or an episode is part of the work and not the entire work. In my opinion, mentioning an arc or an episode should be allowed as long as you explain why you think it's bad. It makes the page more versatile. DMoS is what you call lowest point of a work, and the lowest point can be longer than a single moment of a few seconds/minutes.
"No contesting entries. This is subjective, the entry is their opinion."
This is a poor justification for not allowing contesting entries, as the subjectivity of an opinion does not automatically absolve it from being called out as stupid. For example, it is an opinion that gay people should be put to death because they are biological defects. My father holds that opinion very strongly, but I can't argue against it?
I'm not saying we should allow contesting entries, mind you, I'm just saying we should be more honest about why they're not allowed: Because nobody wants pages upon pages of two idiots arguing about whether or not Seth Green is the Anti Christ because he showed a beloved 90s cartoon character getting cancer.
Permission to change it to: "No contesting entries. Nobody wants to see you get into a long and pointless debate. Take that crap somewhere else."
Is it really fair to remove examples from this trope ? I mean it's fine if you don't agree with the troper's opinion, but do they really have to be removed ?!!
If an "example" is factually incorrect or ridiculous by any standard, it should be removed. Examples should not be removed based on minor disagreement, since yes, this is opinion-based. Can you specify where this happened?
Why is there a page for Johnny Test if there's Only one example? Shouldn't it just be relegated back to normal western animation?
I don't know why, but I do have a suggestion: Add a lot more examples or someone get rid of it. Who that someone is will depend on time.
About the rule on no emphasis: Can we extend it to "no *asterixes* and no multiple exclamation points!!!"? Both of those seem to be ways of getting around the existing rules, and I remove them when I see them, under the bit about not shouting entries out loud. It'd be nice if they were specifically covered so people didn't add them in the first place.
"sardns: The second-to-final episode of Rurouni Kenshin. The last arc of the anime (which was filler) involved the Kenshin Gumi teaming up with a Feng Shui master to stop a rival Feng Shui clan from destroying Tokyo. After the battle, Kenshin says goodbye to the Feng Shui master. And that's the end of the episode. This doesn't sound too bad until you learn that, at the time, the last episode wasn't broadcasted on TV, so the only way to see it was to buy the DVD."
I thought we weren't supposed to put examples from Real Life in here! And it seemed (to me) like it veered enough into that territory that it was necessary to remove it, due to mentioning that it was a dethroning moment because you had to buy the DVDs instead of watching it on TV, and mentioning the moment itself wasn't too bad.
No one responded to the last time I asked, so I'm gonna ask again: Should Yu Gi Oh get its own subpage in the Anime & Manga section? I think there is more than enough for the whole franchise, so if it's okay, I would like to move the examples to their new home.
EDIT: Oh, I see someone did respond. Sorry!
And now I have created it! However, I don't know if I was supposed to ask form permission, so if I was, feel free to ban me, but I felt it would be useful for sorting things out for that franchise.
I've long thought that this trope should just be deleted, largely just because there's no good options with it. The most prominent option is to set up a standard for what qualifies as a DMOS. However, if you do this and start erasing examples, you'll start playing with Opinion Myopia and effectively telling those people that their opinions aren't worth as much as other people's. Besides, doing that means that you have pages filled with nothing but horrible moments, something that doesn't really serve any purpose. Admittedly, the entire Darth Wiki pretty much fits into not serving a purpose, but at least most of the other tropes on it are somewhat entertaining. Basically, DMOS is just a page full of bile.
The only other option would be to do nothing, which is not good either. The pages basically can't stay the way they are. We effectively have the new Troper Tales, as it falls into that same syndrome that pretty much every other trope actively tries to avoid. Effectively, something that's both this opinionated and this negative can't serve the site well.
If we have a Crowning Moments of Awesome Awesomeness page on TV Tropes, then I think it's fair to also have a Dethroning Moments of Bad Horribleness page, to keep the Idealism-to-Cynicism balance in equilibrium.
So if we have Gushing About Characters You Like, should we balance it with "Complain About Characters You Don't Like"? I don't think so. And DMOS pretty much amounts to a similar amount of complaining.
That really makes no sense. There's no reason why TV Tropes needs to have this balance that probably nobody pays attention to, especially if it means keeping around what is basically a hate-centered version of Troper Tales.
Even assuming this probably nonexistent balancing act is important enough to maintain, a solid number of entries do not necessarily imply the poster stopped watching whatever it was after seeing it. I specifically bring up the Advertising page, since you really can't quit an advertisement. The closest approximation would be boycotting the product the commercial is for, which would both be more of a (not-allowed) Real Life example (as in more for the product and its company than the commercial advertising it), and an implication that the person posting it has some serious issues that have nothing to do with the actual advertisement anyway, unless the the ad is outright and blatantly racist or some such, which would probably cut that section down to maybe two or three examples.
Besides, a lot of people tend to use this as an excuse to complain about creators they don't like. Very blatantly is the Family Guy page, where many of the examples are just passively stating that they didn't find a joke or episode particularly funny, then just a giant middle finger because they personally hate Seth Mac Farlane.
In other words, why does TV Tropes really need this thing for anything? Like it's been said a dozen or so times on this page, it serves no purpose that Wall Banger, Headscratchers, Just Bugs Me, and probably a dozen or so other tropes don't already serve and it's mostly just an excuse to point and laugh at how ridiculous people's opinions are. If they really hate the kid from the Cheerio's commercial that much, let them create a Tumblr blog or something, the internet provides hundreds of ways to get their opinion out there, hell let them post it in one of the other similar tropes.
This is that one thing that could easily be deleted and nothing would really be effected at all.
Agreed. While there are a few legitimate dethroning moments I can respect (like one concise and non-whiny criticism about the Madoka movie's soundtrack), most of it is just an excuse to complain. It's not necessary, and it needs to be nuked.
To me this trope always just seemed like Wall Banger with added undertones of Ruined FOREVER.
Okay. So, I've just read this new rule that says no allcaps, no bold and no italics, except for the titles of a given work. Question: How is anyone supposed to place emphasis on any part of an entry (other than through hyperlinking)?
I think that's the point. People emphasized so much that the mods just banned it entirely. Inconvenient, of course, but that's why they did it (I'm assuming).
So, I'm guessing they just want all of us to seem robotic in what we write. Is that it?
Kinda defeats the purpose of this site in the first place, because plain-speak is what Wikipedia is for already. Part of the purpose of this site was to speak freely.
Yeah, the page is now incredibly generic and boring to read. It's now monotone and emotionless, which completely goes against the general nature of the way you'd think to speak these like.
Well were you guys expecting anything different? This isn't TV Tropes anymore! It's Wikipedia Tropes!
And discussion thread deletion in 3...2...1...
You guys realize that the purpose of the wiki isn't to catalog a bunch of screamed complaining, right?
Seriously, not looking like a bunch of raving, whining fanboys is a good thing. You're basically saying that it's bad that the admins have put a rule up to keep people from throwing a full-on temper tantrum.
Going by what you just said, that makes me question why this page exists to begin with.
A lot of people ask that question. The admins in particular. Whether or not to just chop the whole thing off has been debated quite a bit. I believe it exists because some complaining is going to be inevitable, and this gives the complainers a place to do it without mucking up the regular pages.
Right now, I'm thinking of running my own forum at some point, which will be titled The Crowning Moment, exactly for the same purpose that this trope and its family serve, but to allow more stuff as well (e.g. use of screenshots or other images, free emphasis, free from other people's edits, real-life examples allowed, full-out reviews, etc.). Especially since Crowning Moment of Awesome (haven't checked C Mo Funny or C Mo Heartwarming) aren't bound by the same rules as this page. (Last I checked, I saw several double- and real-life-examples there.)
At the moment, though, not really an option for me, since I don't have a job, and thus have no stable income to support such a site, and I'm more focused on other stuff in life anyway.
In any case, I suppose I could agree with a rule against entire sentences or clauses being emphasized, but with certain individual words or phrases, I think I might ask that at least emphasis be allowed for that.
I think you have a good idea, but I don't think that Real Life examples would be a good idea, considering it could be used to complain about...other things. Please don't make me elaborate, for the text might wind up NSFW (to put it lightly).
Seriously. Putting emphasis on a certain word isn't "screaming". AFAIK, that's not really how language processing works.
Upon reading some of the guidelines, these entries are starting to sound like they should be in Troper Tales, given the personal nature they have and the fact that you aren't allowed to contest them.
I have a moment that doesn't go with the other categories so I made an "Other" page. Is that a problem? Am I in trouble for doing that?
(Just to clarify, it's a Radio example.)
Is it wrong that I'm incredibly amused by this page and turn to it whenever I'm feeling down?
The complaining, it's just so....delightful. I just read it, and I imagine babies crying and pooping their diapers because their bwankies were taken away to be washed, and the hilarity increases when I realize that most of these people are my age.
It gets even better knowing that these are likely the same people who complain about Jack Thompson expressing the idea that fiction can influence people negatively, and yet they're throwing tantrums and questioning the morality of anybody who isn't as devastated by that fictional moment as they are.
I just look at the page, and this spiteful little devil rises up in me and cackles over their whining. I sometimes get the urge to troll them, but I can usually suppress that easily by reminding myself that I want to stick around and actually bring good things to this site despite my mean-spirited amusement at the outlandish reactions of my fellow tropers.
Am I a bad person for finding this all so amusing?
No, I don't think so.
You do realize these complaints aren't without warrant right? They wouldn't be here otherwise.
Complaining about a particular dead baby joke on a show that practically runs on Dead Baby Comedy doesn't seem warranted to me.
One particular incident that comes to mind, which I couldn't help but comment on(with just a minor and emotionally-neutral factual correction, but still), were the complaints about the "Toy Story 4" sketch on the Robot Chicken section. They basically amounted to: "I know that this show is supposed to be offensive and childhood-raping, but still..." They were establishing a Moral Event Horizon for a show that never claimed to draw that line in the first place and then bitched about that arbitrary line being crossed.
Seems to be a running theme of sorts for this part of the wiki, and it amuses me. That's all.
Ometta6, you win Tv Tropes.
I read it for exactly the same reason, and have the same reaction. That's pretty much its only use, other than giving fanboys a place to whine about how their favorite show is Ruined FOREVER so they don't muck up the rest of the wiki.
Oh yes, how dare people complain about something they don't like? That automatically makes them "babies".
I feel that the main issue with Dethroning Moment of Suck pages in general is that people assume that any listed entries are unanimous among the fandom, when it's pretty clear that they are anything but unanimous. I'd suggest a system where people vote on adding the moment like whenever a new trope is added. Otherwise we end up getting a very biased entry, a massive Flame War, and the page getting locked.
Adding to that, the fact that people have to sign the entries seems identical to how Troper Tales would require people to do the same, emphasizing how personal most of these moments are. At this rate, I think the Dethroning Moment of Suck page will just end up as another entry for Troper Tales.
That sounds like a good strategy. I've seen waaay too many examples that are just, "This particular moment offended me, so now the entire work is Ruined Forever". It would certainly cut out the worst of the fanboy bitching, and probably shorten the page a lot. The only problem would be when someone posts a moment for a very obscure work that no-one knew about.
Okay, this may have been brought up before, but I would like to just flat out ask why this even needs to be a trope. I don't really see what a long list of parts of a show that people find sucky has to do with the wiki's mission, and anyways doesn't it completely disregard the many anti-natter messages we spread? It isn't really that hard to make a blog if you disliked part of a show.
That's what the Darth Wiki is for. For satisfying people's desire for these kinds of things without ruining the objectivity of the wiki itself.
Am I the only one who's really bothered by some of these subpages, i.e. Family Guy, specifically, how some of them seem to pass some moral/ethical judgment on whoever found joke so-and-so funny? Stating your reasonable and well-thought out opinion of a show's, err, spottier moments is all fine and dandy, but this is actually pretty demeaning. YMMV but dude, that's going a bit too far...
Okay, dal0525 seems to be deleting any links to the iCarly page (Despite other shows having their own pages). Either he's a an iCarly fanboy who can't stand the idea that there are dethroning moments or is there something I'm missing?
I do not know, but there seem to be enough that it should have its own list, noneoftheless. Either this guy needs to get over his (possibly unhealthy) obsession with the show and accept that there are bad moments, or there is something we're both missing.
Should the Yu-Gi-Oh franchise as a whole get its own page on the Anime DMOS page? There are enough examples, after all.
Well, if Naruto can get a page based on moments from it's Shippuden episodes (at least, I'm assuming that many of it's moments came from Shippuden), then I think Yu-Gi-Oh! could have a page on it's own merits as well. However, I do think it should list what series these moments came from (i.e., whether it came from the normal Yu-Gi-Oh!, GX, 5D's, or Zexal) just to make things easier.
I doubt half of these entries are real DMOS's and are nothing more than just moments in the recently aired episode that didn't satisfy them. For example, the Family Guy page. I see a lot of "DMOS's" from recent episodes than ones that aired longer than two years ago, to the point where there are more "sucky" moments in the supposed Growing the Beard season (9) than there are in the Seasonal Rot season. (7)
Not to mention half the Family Guy page is just deconstructions of tasteless jokes to begin with; should those really count?
So, the Moment Of Awesome pages, generally speaking, are about when a character or group of characters get a moment of awesome, with the examples of a show getting a moment usually being explicitly labeled as meta. The Dethroning Moment of Suck pages are about the show on the whole getting a moment of suck, with few exceptions.
Was that intentional, or was the DMOS page just taken as an excuse to complain by the members rather than MOA's evil twin and no one bothered to rerail it?
I think it was originally intended to be the Darth Wiki counterpart of CMOA, but then people started using it as a place to whine. At this point that's more or less all it is, so rerailing it would be extremely difficult if not impossible.
This whole page is absolutely depressing. Is there any good series that hasn't had a Dethroning Moment of Suck?
Possibly. However, when you have a really popular series, especially one that's been around for a while, odds are that someone, somewhere is going to find a moment that they cannot forgive. And remember, it's subjective. Even if you find a particular moment that you agree is terrible, you might not agree with someone who says it's a DMOS.
Any work with a sufficiently large fanbase is probably going to have a moment or two listed, regardless of how good it is. Many posters, unfortunately, take this page as an excuse to complain about every minute detail of a work that they felt was subpar, and some seem to entirely miss the point of what they're complaining about. There are legitimate examples, but definitely don't let this page affect your opinion of work.
You know, since Family Guy's dethroning moment of suck page has their moments listed out by seasons, shouldn't most of the other Western Animation pages have this as well. I mean, I know something like Total Drama has only three seasons and there really is no justification for listing it by season, especially when you consider the fact that they name the Total Drama series by different names per season, but for the long runners — shows that have been around for about 10 years or so — I think they should have some justification for listing the moments by season. That way, people who may want to find the episode where the sucky moment came from can easily do so.
Okay, I know that entries such as "Everything [the character] said" and "The whole show" is forbidden for entries, but what about plot twists/pairings? Is that allowed or would it fall within the same category as the above?
Plot twist is definitely allowed, depending on how you write the pairing than that should be fine as well.
How do we get rid of that Myth Buster's page? There's only one example on it.
Use the Cut List.
Okay, I tried to add the Mythbusters page, keeping in mind I was only allowed to add one entry, and it gets deleted a day later. I try adding it instead to the Mythbusters YMMV page and it gets deleted an hour later with the excuse that the page already existed (when it doesn't). Are we not allowed to add to this trope any more or am I just doing it wrong?
Okay, you don't need to make a new page for one show. I moved it to the Live Action TV page.
Thank you. I'm still learning how stuff works.
Too much of this page seems like whining about things that are too minor to really matter. That's what we have the Complaining About Shows You Dont Like and Ruined FOREVER pages for, right? I realize DMOS is for venting and it's Flame Bait to begin with, but I feel some changes are in order.
Why not make this consensus-based? Rather than having people say that some really, really minor scene or joke (like the Haruhi episode 2 example or half the Family Guy page) completely damns the whole series in their eyes, we could just have the moments which fans generally agree were awful. Everything else we can just move to a thread in the forums.
Or we could just rename it "Moment Of Suck".
I don't see any point to changing it. Lots of examples I see are entire episodes anyway.
Now we don't have a Complaining about Shows you don't Like page.
I think I would appreciate this trope being called just Moment of Suck, just like how CMOA is now just MOA.
Is it allowed to have this trope linked in YMMV pages? The header seems to imply it isn't. But I've seen some of these in some YMMV pages and want to know if they should be deleted.
Nope, it's not allowed on YMMV pages.
See What Goes Where on the Wiki
Should the Pro Wrestling section of dethroning moment of suck be re-added? Because I thought there was a reason why it was eliminated.
Somewhere on this page or the archived discussion, Z said that it was veering too close to real life. Considering how many people help remove bad examples now, I think that it might work.
Why exactly aren't real life examples allowed here? What kind of "trouble" might it start and why?
Any religion or political party would be listed ("X is the worst thing the Mormons/Democrats/etc. did"), and the natter would flow.
OK... sounds fair. Is there a place other than TV Tropes where Dethroning Moments of Suck CAN be posted despite the trolling that would follow?
I dunno. A political forum or something? The internet's a big place.
I have an idea! We would rather we didn't have anything particularly frightening or disgusting put on here. Would you really want to know that the moment involved in the worst um...experience they had in their life?
I've read Wall Banger and I've read this trope, and I'm not entirely certain I understand how they're different enough to warrant being separate pages. Can someone explain why we still have both?
Then the descriptions need work. But the examples for this do not have to be a wall banger.
No it does not. The Noun needs to read it better.
Ah, wait, now I get it. Nevermind.
Is this an exclusively meta trope or is it also an in-universe trope? I've seen it listed a couple of times referring to character's actions that, while not crossing the Moral Event Horizon, have a similar effect in making the audience permanently despise that character, but not necessarily in a way that badly impacts the work (much as Moral Event Horizon is not necessarily Bad Writing).
I've also seen it listed for characters who may not be favorites of the authors or popular amongst the fans, or even relatively minor ones, which would seem to contradict the laconic definition.
Since show is often better than tell.. say the people of Aliceland are being genocided by Boblandians, and Charlieland does absolutely nothing about it, despite being a close ally of Aliceland and having ample opportunity to intervene. This is not detrimental to the story about it, and it's not a Moral Event Horizon (which is almost always a sin of commission and not omission) but permanently damages the audience's view of Charlieland, though Charlieland may have only been a minor character beforehand.
Compare to say, Maude Flanders death, which is not a character based action nor a Moral Event Horizon but is immensely detrimental to the show's quality and firmly indicative of a nadir in writing quality, which is what I would use as a textbook meta example for this trope.
Should this be renamed Moment Of Suck?
No, because this is still the nadir, and unlike those other pages, has been kept that way. Plus to broaden it would invite outright Complaining About Shows You Dont Like.
It didn't broaden or loosen C Mo A, though. Just kinda passive-aggressively took a shot at the contributors because everyone was too lazy to just go in and fix the dang thing.
Actually, I take that back. It would invite people to just flame away.
Uh, what happened to the D Mo S section for Professional Wrestling?
There hasn't been a DMOS section for Wrestling since DMOS was still a single page. It was cut because the entries were borderlining too close to real life.
why are the rules to post so much more strict on here then on crowning moment of awesome? should'nt your username be needed be needed for CMOA as well?
If you like, take that up on the forums, and see if it gets support.
BTW, the main reason the rules are not enforced here is that it was used as a way of Complaining About Shows You Dont Like, when this is supposed to be the worst moment of a show, even if you do like it.
Guys, now that entries are meant to be signed, the Literature page is going to go blank. And so will Newspaper Comics.
Scratch that, Theatre (which hasn't been used in months) is going to go blank. With Literature I was able to trawl through the history for names. With the former I can't do that (the history consists of me adding an extra warning and a faux-example being added and removed)
I'm thinking of adding an extra bit to the Your Milage May Vary saying it goes both ways since people are actually questioning how others could like this moment in their entries. What do you guys think?
Questioning how others could like it should be cut out from those examples.
Can we just delete this trope? Because frankly, Wall Banger and Just Bugs Me fufill the same role.
It's for venting. Also, some fan communities have established things like the worst moments. Take "Spock's Brain" from Star Trek.
But we have forum topics for that. And like I said, Wall Banger and Just Bugs Me fulfills the same role.
I'm saying this because a lot of it comes from the Web Original. That and some are just plain stupid. We're best off using those other pages for venting.
"And like I said, Wall Banger and Just Bugs Me fulfills the same role."
No. Just because there is plenty of overlap does not mean it's the same thing.
"That and some are just plain stupid."
No. Just because you disagree with some is not reason to cut this.
This is not disagreeing. Take a look. For instance, a Simpson's dethroning moment of suck is a cut away gag of Homer going "Mmmm, porkpies." Really?! And there's more like that.
If someone thinks that is the worst moment, no matter how silly it is to you, that is an example.
But it's so retarded! No one thinks that is a good reason. And besides, the Simpsons used cutaway gags. I might as well say that the Nostalgia Chick sucks because she used cutaway gags in My Little Pony. Not the best example, but it just shows you how dumb this all is.
"But it's so retarded!"
If you call something you don't like name such as that, your credibility is shot. It looks like you are Complaining about Complaining.
"No one thinks that is a good reason."
Just because you don't think that is a good reason doesn't mean no one does. That's Opinion Myopia.
"I might as well say that the Nostalgia Chick sucks because she used cutaway gags in My Little Pony."
That is not what this covers. This is the worst moment of a work, even if you like the work. What you wrote is not an example.
Yeah. I shouldn't have used that.
But the whole "Mmmmm Porkpies" is so petty and so ridiculous. I mean really? You're claiming that's worse than Homer getting raped by a panda for example? Really? I'll find some more to talk about, but this is pretty common on these pages.
And I doubt anyone thinks the Mmmm...porkpies thing isn't a stupid DMOS, but then again, it's hard to ask for the opinion of people.
Well it seems silly to me, but if someone elaborated on why, it should stay. On the other hand, if the example is really short, you might have grounds for disputing it as a possibly joke entry. See if you can take that up here.
Can someone explain to me why we even need this trope? Yes just because there is some overlap with Headscratchers and wallbanger, but there is also a lot more overlap with So Bad Its Horrible too. So if it doesn't fit in any three of those catagories...what exactly is left? Complaining About Shows You Dont Like the page?
Why not keep delete the page and keep it to the forums?
Headscratchers and Complaining About Shows You Dont Like are not the same thing. Headscratchers is meant for people to address plotholes and the like and get in-universe explanations that fill those holes. It's about gaining more perspective on something and finding out things you yourself wouldn't have thought of.
Complaining About Shows is meant to keep people from complaining on a Work or Trope page to keep the main wiki objective.
DMoS is about venting about things you used to like, but now you don't because the creaters jumped the shark, went too far with a joke or message, or changed the tone of the show to something you no longer enjoy. It's about something that irrevocably ruined the work for you. At the same time, they've made it clear that if you want to add something, it has be accurate, and you have to justify it. It is subjective, but people aren't meant to just list jokes they didn't like, it has to be something more significant than that. If people are putting petty, small things on there, they can be challenged and/or deleted.
Jesus christ, I swear people are offended too easily by things nowadays.
Or it's that people have such varying tastes that different things set them off.
No, definitely the former. Irritates me we can't use Troper Tales for this entry, really. :(
You can't just apply motives like that just because you don't agree. It smacks of Complaining about Complaining.
I really think "217" is right. A DMOS is a bad moment in a series. NOT A SLIGHTLY OFFENSIVE GAG. People are taking the jokes way too seriously. It may just be my opinion, but sheesh. These people are WAY too easily offended, and considering the fact that Just Bugs Me is essentially the same thing, it goes without saying that this trope sucks.
I wholeheartedly agree. I can't see how an otherwise damn-near-flawless work can be utterly invalidated by a slightly offensive throwaway gag. It also helps to view things in a different context (i.e. in Mortal Kombat 9, Raiden's offer to Quan Chi illustrates how desperate he is to save the future; not to mention that the offer is basically forgotten once Raiden realizes what "he must wins" really means).
The entire page reeks of BAAAAAAAAAAW. It's mostly about people whining about little things that irritate them. Hell, it's mostly just a bunch of Fan Dumb moaning and bitching.
The dethroning moment page, ironically, is a dethroning moment of suck.
Not to mention a lot of the complaints seem like they come from the types of people who wouldn't like the show even in its best moments. To be honest, I wouldn't be too surprised if a lot of the people on the Family Guy section are from the Parents Television Council.
Or could it be that people just have different values than you do? If many, many people agree on a single moment (which certainly seems to be the case with shows like Family Guy), than it's not just one person with no sense of humour, it's now in the realm of general consensus. Besides, it's stated very clearly that DMoS is subjective. Do yourself a favor and take a look at the mission statement of Darth Wiki.
Sicky, I'm not saying it shouldn't be here. If you'll recall, I was the one above expressing joy at how easily nerds are offended and how their unwarranted rage makes me laugh. I don't want this section deleted. I like coming here every now and then and seeing how seriously people can take a cartoon with a talking dog that suffers from alcoholism and a giant chicken that gets into epic fights with a mentally retarded Irish drunk.
Given the highly subjective nature of this trope, do you think it'd work better with the Perverse Sexual Lust format? No examples in the main page, but the Troper Tales divided into subsections?
Just a suggestion.
We already split off into namespaces, and moving to troper tales is for main/ wiki pages.
Fair enough. It's just that 'your personal worst bit of a series' seemse very Troper Tales-y to me, is all.
Darth Wiki and Sugar Wiki have some leeway, as long as the page is appropriate.
Would anyone object if I went through these pages with a chainsaw and destroyed any instance of "this troper?"
Object? I'll be your cheerleader if you do. *bounces and shakes pom-poms*
Should I kill the entire entry or just reword it so it lacks "this troper?"
Reword. Otherwise it looks as though you deleting otherwise legit entries.
Personally, I wouldn't do it. DMOS is supposed to be personal instances of a severe Wall Banger, so obviously there will be instances of "this troper", "I", etc etc.
Agree with the above. This Troper is justifiable in subjective discussion.
Oh, I was under the impression that "this troper" was 100% unacceptable everywhere outside of troper tales and needed to be removed. Since it's a subjective page, there's no helping that.
Okay, comments that are irrelevant to the moment. "I vowed never to watch that show again" is not relevant.
Sorry about the over-the-top edit a couple of days back (and missing the bullet point about not using the index to complain about the index).
Even so, I think a slightly more moderate version could be worthwhile. Would it be acceptable to break the four "please bear in mind" bullet points out into their own heading and possibly reword them a little?
Since at least one person missed them, it might be worthwhile.
The events of the past couple of days have led me to ask this question.
What is the difference between a Justifying Edit, and a proper excuse as to why a reason should not be here?
A proper excuse is when something is factually inaccurate and can be easily proven as such. If it begins "To be fair..." chances are it's a Justifying Edit.
And when the former happens, generally you should Repair, Don't Respond.
Virus on a website.
Some ASS put a trojan on the Freelance Astronauts stream page and by the time it was removed something came in that FUCKED UP my computer! Is that a dethroning moment of suck?
No, just misfortune for you. Now if they did something careless that allowed the trojan, and it's something anyone familiar with computer viruses would know not to do, that would be a dethroning moment.
It was the day of the stream who KNOWS how many were infected!!!!
Community Showcase More