Follow TV Tropes
Previous Trope Repair Shop thread: Complaining, started by SquigPie on Apr 24th 2012 at 5:02:49 PM
Previous Trope Repair Shop thread: Complaining, started by GoosefromWikipedia on Jul 17th 2020 at 7:00:29 AM
This should have belonged to the "Darth Wiki", NOT "Darthwiki", thanks to a misspelling.
Te point of ruin with the 3ds is that it's regionlocked. I know most of the louder people overlook that, but yeah. Decades of ninty handhelds being importer friendly, and then, for no real reason, *locked*.
I witnessed this trope in action over the course of a few minutes. In an internet forum thread about Saints Row 3, there was much hype and rejoicing. For once, people seemed to be agreeing about how great the game would be, instead of alternating between praising and demonizing it. As soon as someone posted a link showing that there would be about $20 of day one DLC, there was a sudden and massive shift. The game was now ruined FOREVER! People who previously said they would buy two copies, including one to fornicate with, now decided that pirating the game would be the best option. Preorders were canceled, riots erupted in the streets of London, and the Devil Himself rose to declare his authority over video games. It was quite an ordeal.
TV Tropes no longer has a Troper Tales section?! This site is well and truly ruined FOREVER! (Rat weeps into his beer.)
I was adding an example of the Gawker redesign, and noticed that examples of web redesigns seems to be both under Web Original and Real Life. Would it be appropriate to create a new heading specifically for them? They don't really seem to fit neatly under either heading.
Why is there an emphasis on the word 'ruined' rather than on the word 'forever' in the heading? This article is ruined FOREVER!
How can I tell if an example here is sarcasm? See Poe's Law.
Ok, I have no idea why the hell Spongebob keeps getting deleted, since many fans on this very wiki keep expressing their hatred towards the new Spongebob. Check out the main page, and you'll see that 80% of the editors complained about how Spongebob has been changed for the worse since the first episode after the movie. Spongebob will NEVER be the same as it once was befroe the movie, and cannot be replaced. There has to be one good reason why Spongebob HASN'T been ruined forever.
Why do you think this is to actually call something ruined? Did you even read the OP?
And for reference, here's the important bit:
"Keep in mind that this here is an Audience Reaction Trope, folks, and some of these series may have actually Jumped The Shark. The point of this trope is noting how suddenly and over-dramatically this call will be made and the lack of actual shark-jumping the object of the viewer's complaint actually has. And for that matter DO NOT list examples where you think it has genuinely stopped being good."
Oddly enough, at the moment the page seems to be a strange blend of the old-style "I am actually complaining that you think something has been ruined" and a new-style "those silly idiots are complaining about changes, no matter how valid those complaints are, but somebody complained and that means they're wailing about ruination".
For what it's worth, I'm not a huge follower of Spongebob, but the opinion that the series has been ruined since the movie seems to be pretty widely held from what I've heard. I don't see any reason it shouldn't be included as an example.
Isn't this a little too similar to Unpleasable Fanbase? And since Unpleasable fanbase was locked for having too many examples, mabye this should be locked too.
Just an observation from a newbie.
NOTICE TO ALL:
The Google Incident is not to be mentioned on the page until one week into the New Year (2011-01-07 12:00 UTC+10.5) Okay?
This page is pointless. It's bascically a clone of the Ruined FOREVER page that's wasting bandwith.
Well, here it is. The most smug, strawmanning article on TV Tropes.
That's Because it's a Joke!!!
The Pages lampoon the whining that happens whenever Fast Eddie does something to the wiki...
I don't get why DQZ doesn't want this to be subjective. I'd elaborate a bit more on my reasoning, but for now, I'm just leaving this here in case he wishes to dispute the subjectivity of this trope - I need to know I'm not talking to a brick wall.
In case my poorly-phrased edit reason left my intentions unclear:
1. I think this is a subjective trope.
2. Being one would support DQZ's argument against the example in the above discussion.
3. I am neutral on the above example's inclusion; I'm only applying the same standards to everything.
Anyways, if we can't form a consensus on the page's status, we can always ask the big guy and call it a day.
1. You thinking so just opens up a weird argument "I subjectively think this trope is subjective".
2. No, my reasons were not to insist that only one side was right. This can allow for differing points of view, as long as they are stated fairly, and that was not allowing or being fair.
And on that note, other examples like that should be fixed, as I noted.
3. Another reason for not including it was for the same reason The Last Airbender didn't get listed on many pages that would just bring over controversy and natter.
Placeholder, let me elaborate...
V There's more to it then that, it's not about the one specific example at all.
Well you thinking it's subjective is not a reason. Plus an argument over one example is not a reason.
OK, let me expand on my points. Please keep in mind that most of this has nothing to do with Other M as a game; I'm just using the contested example to demonstrate my points. I'm not responding to the above post, I'm making my case for the page's subjectivity.
1. It's important to note the way you two were discussing the example. You were both using your personal opinions to determine whether or not the complainer jumped the shark. The fact that everyone's standards are different and you can't apply the same objective criteria to everybody is a point for subjective.
Hell, if the page about *works* jumping the shark is a subjective trope, why isn't one about whether complainers are? From what I see, the Jumped the Shark page is about when a work is actually ruined FOREVER, and this page is when it isn't but the audience is reacting as though it is.
How can you tell if the show has actually jumped the shark or not, when the audience is reacting the same way, without using personal opinion?
And look what I just found on the page?
If, instead, this is about observing audience reactions, I can just hunt down evidence that complaints are being made, regardless of their legitimacy, and slap anything on the page.
And for that matter, when was the last time a purely objective trope attracted this much justifying edits and natter?
2. I don't care about this one completely random example; most of the examples on the page assumes you can't actually dislike these changes listed works made. The entire page assumes the listed complaints can't be legitimate. As such, the same over-simplification argument you used could hypothetically be used to zap most of the page. From a neutral on-looker's point of view, the content of the example looks identical to the rest of the page, but it *does* look a bit bitter. I'm confused as to why you singled out this one particular example, as opposed to rephrasing it. How many other examples on the page are going to get zapped because someone feels the complaints are legitimate?
TL;DR: What constitutes as the complainer jumping the shark is subjective, and the fact you are using your personal opinion to justify the complaints while Rebo is using hers to include them proves my point.
Please explain how you can objectively prove the complainers in general have jumped the shark.
Edited to zap stuff I feel was redundant.
First of all, watchlists already cover discussion, so I knew you responded already.
Second, even if you don't care for the example, it's still one argument, more about the controversy over the game, rather than how it relates to the trope.
Also, I was willing to later put up the entry there, in a form that noted the issues without judging them either way, but I actually forgot.
As to point 3, I have over a few times noted that if other examples were like that, they should be fixed. Not necessarily zapped, just taking out any of the bitterness you mentioned.
As to removing that one, the game had just came out, and the controversy was hot. Again, we had a similar moratorium on the movie The Last Airbender when it came out.
Basically leaving it there was just asking for Natter at that point, even with a more neutral tone, although getting caught up in the argument, I should have gotten around to emphasizing that point.
Yeah, I removed #3.
Here's the main point:
Take the subjective trope Jumped the Shark. The audience reacts as if the show has been ruined FOREVER.
Take ruined FOREVER. The audience reacts the exact same way, except the show didn't jump the shark, the complainers did. How can you tell if the show has actually jumped the shark or not, since any judgment involving the former trope is subjective?
I'm just asking you to rebut the TL;DR.
Jumping the shark is about the moment. Since the moment isn't the same, it is subjective.
Ruined Forever is about the reaction. Whether you agree with the reaction or not, the reaction objectively happens. Whether you agree with a common point of claiming ruination, the point is still objectively claimed by fans.
It's the difference between your own opinion of something, and the fact that you have an opinion on that thing. Not sure if that's clear, so I'll put it this way:
Roger Ebert writes a review. The content is his subjective opinion of the film. But that he wrote a review is objective fact.
The way you phrased the second paragraph implies that the legitimacy of the complaints and the accuracy of the examples don't matter and examples should just note the complaints without passing judgment, in which case the previous fight over the Other M example shouldn't have occurred and the example should have been rephrased, which is confusing.
Most of the examples are just as one-sided as the Other M one is, so there's a lot of fixing to do if that's not the case and it's important to not act as though The Complainer Is Always Wrong.
1. Ruined FOREVER is when then complainer jumps the shark.
2. Rebo added an example.
3. DQZ deleted it, stating the the complainer had not, in fact, jumped the shark.
4. A 100% civil discussion then proceeded to take place, the subject of debate being whether or not the complainer jumped the shark.
How is possible to prove either side right, if this isn't a subjective trope? If this is about observing reactions, then you are correct - the example *does* need to be rephrased for neutrality, along with 95% of the page. Since I can objectively prove the complaints she listed are occurring with a link or 20, the only issue with the example is that its phrasing implies that those (like you) with legitimate complaints don't exist. For example, there are people who dislike Samus's overall *portrayal* in the game regardless of any potential sexism, while others hate it solely on the basis that it's supposedly sexist - you can't deny either side exists.
The example should mock those who believe the latter, while noting that people the former exist, without taking sides.
Bottom line -
If your argument against the example's inclusion was that it was too one-sided, we'll need to rewrite it to note the existence of legitimate complaints, and we'll also need to apply the same standards to the rest of the page. Most of the examples are written from a supporter's point of view and assume The Complainer Is Always Wrong.
If your argument was that you believe the complaints may have a basis in truth, then the trope is subjective since personal opinions (on both sides) have come into the equation.
"1. Ruined FOREVER is when then complainer jumps the shark. 2. Rebo added an example. 3. DQZ deleted it, stating the the complainer had not, in fact, jumped the shark. 4. A 100% civil discussion then proceeded to take place, the subject of debate being whether or not the complainer jumped the shark."
1. It's not the complainers themselves, but that they complain about a show jumping the shark.
2. Rebo added an examples that was really dismissive of the complaints, and even misrepresented their arguments at some points. While I don't agree with a lot of arguments, it is best for me to know what objectively those arguments are.
3. Since this trope is not about the complainers, but the examples are, going too far looks more like Complaining About Complaining, which is what that example was.
4. Whether the discussion was civil, I've noticed both here and on forum threads that rebochan seems to refuse to allow that some hate the game for legitimate reasons, while I have made sure not to refuse (at least not on purpose, and I hope not on accident) that others like it for legitimate reasons.
It's that idea that made the example wrong, rather than just listing the complaints. And again, other examples here that do the same should be fixed to be more neutral.
5. You didn't list a five, but I should add it. Again, the controversy of the game is still relatively fresh, so that example also flew in the face of Cautious Editing Judgment, and this page had enough of Natter problems already.
I think it's worth knowing the Dragon Quest Z has continued a few flame wars on the topic of the game I added an example for, so I'm dead certain there is no actual resolution short of one of us dropping the subject of Other M. I have done so because if there's one thing I've learned, fighting with Dragon Quest Z is a useless and draining exercise.
By the way, for a guy that likes to accuse me of twisting words, you're sure quick to do the same to me.
2. I *have* actually seen a sizable amount of people make some of the arguments listed, especially the sexism one.
The problem is the example's phrasing implies that, as you said, those with legitimate gripes don't exist. There are definitely people who believe that Samus's portrayal is sexist, and thus, the first bit is true - it's making an observation.
HOWEVER, there are also those who believe that her character is fundamentally flawed, but not necessarily sexist. The example does not acknowledge the latter party, merely claiming that, if you dislike her portrayal, you think it's sexist, and that's not true.
The same goes for the other bullet points - I have seen people make those arguments, but I've seen others dislike the same details for more understandable reasons.
A hypothetical example should focus on the whiners, while not pretending that the latter party doesn't exist and note that they aren't necessarily wrong.
3. Why are the examples on a different wavelength the the actual page?
5. That's a very good case for patience - the rules say not to post flame bait. If we can't get a neutral, non-opinionated example that doesn't attract natter, let's wait until the controversy dies down and people quit caring.
Anyways, if this gets any longer, we should Take It To The Forums. I'm just glad we kept this to the discussion page and didn't start a full-fledged edit war - that's one of the quickest ways to get banned.
When the controversy does die down (such as not calling mere arguments or posting disagreeing opinions as flame wars), then I will put it up, but still try to posts the points neutrally (for the record, I do not consider the game sexist, just an insult to Samus's character).
Reading this thread indicates that the mods think this page is subjective, since it's an audience reaction and not a storytelling trope. If you think otherwise, you'll need to address your arguments towards them. I'm adding the banner until you do so.
Then Eddie should put it up, not just you interpreting it. Trust me, it's better to ask than to just guess.
Trust me, if he puts it up, I will accept that.
I'll ask him.
BTW, that still doesn't mean that Metroid entry gets in. Actually, I have a minor point in there, but noting that details are best not to list right now.
Well, even if Rebochan's ranting makes it onto the page, it's never going to get on the pages that actually matter.
There is currently a fight over an example regarding Metroid Other M.
In order to prevent people from getting banned due to edit warring, I'm suggesting they move the discussion here, where it belongs.
Here's the example in question.
BTW, I'm not trying to suggest the points are right. I don't like the tone that assumes the are wrong, nor the simplification given to some of the arguments, from both sides.
But trying to list all the details and nuances (again, from both sides) would just turn it into an essay. Plus the topic is controversial right now as it is. I suggest we just list that there are various points of contention that get the game accused of this trope.
Just saying "Metroid Other M is controversial" kind of ruins the point. Listing why people are arguing over it, in an entry that includes a laundry list of other Ruined FOREVER complaints about various parts of the series, is reasonable.
The page as it is lists complaints from the perspective of people who think they are invalid. Pulling this example is silly compared to the rest of the page. Perhaps the trope itself needs reconsideration, but as it stands right now, it's a page to proclaim "People are stupid because they complain that X is ruining the series forever."
Perhaps invalid, but simplifying the points turns that into a strawman. And any other entry that does that should be fixed as well.
Perhaps some say it's just her taking orders, but for the rest of us, it's the arbitrary nature of the orders that makes her look submissive. Orders to get the gun reactor back on line to stop the meteor, which we saw in Prime 3, make sense. Orders not to use weapons until he says so do not make sense. Not unless there are reasons given to just use certain kinds of weapons, and then situations show that more are needed. It seems really silly that the mission means she shouldn't use bombs, missiles, better beams, grappling beam, and others, and then each conveniently turns out to be needed.
But again, that's an essay, and too much to list. And I should mention again that the game and controversy are still fresh, unlike a lot of the other entries.
And people like me (not "the rest of us") are wondering why taking orders from the commanding officer of a mission that Samus is not in charge of makes her submissive instead of blowing up any and all males that stand in her way. Seriously, read the forums, there's plenty of context for why this is something a sane person would do and not just some weak-willed female.
On top of that, they do give reasons for some of the items, such as the power bombs.
Some of us get really offended that phony "sexism" is nitpicked out of situations no sane person would consider sexist, when genuine sexism is ignored every day or practiced by deriding every single strong female character in media just by finding silly reasons why her portrayls are insulting to women.
"And people like me (not "the rest of us") are wondering why taking orders from the commanding officer of a mission that Samus is not in charge of makes her submissive instead of blowing up any and all males that stand in her way. Seriously, read the forums, there's plenty of context for why this is something a sane person would do and not just some weak-willed female."
Well if some are going off of that, not all of us are, so if you are going to note that, please also note that isn't the total argument given (again, if other points on some works have a broader argument, it would also be fair to do the same).
"On top of that, they do give reasons for some of the items, such as the power bombs."
First of all, I won't bring this up on the main RF page, due to the aforementioned essay issue. Anyway, justifying some is not enough. All have to be justified, or it still looks arbitrary.
"Some of us get really offended that phony "sexism" is nitpicked out of situations no sane person would consider sexist, when genuine sexism is ignored every day or practiced by deriding every single strong female character in media just by finding silly reasons why her portrayls are insulting to women."
While I don't agree the portrayal is sexist, I wouldn't call it a "no sane person" situation. That assumes there is no possible context, or room for interpretation, and I have to call that. Again, not claiming it's correct to think so, but there is a logical reasoning to conclude so, even if it's not the right conclusion (as in I'm saying they are wrong, but for the right reasons).
For one thing, there are cultural issues that could help clear things up, but since not everyone is aware of the cultural issues, it's not unreasonable to make erroneous assumptions from the context they have.
Next is the manga, which does explain why Samus was like this the whole time. The problem was that is relying on All There in the Manual too much. Not even Fusion and Zero Mission, both made just as much by Sakamoto, have all the stuff that is in the manga. I've never accepted the excuse of materials outside a work making sense of it, even when I like the work, so I won't accept it now. To paraphrase Sci Fi Debris, you don't get credit for what you don't put in the game, because you didn't put it in the game.
Some are of course calling the franchise ruined forever, but those that have an issue solely with this game do not count, and including them still smacks of finding an excuse to complain about them.
For a page about people being whiny pricks, you're sounding like a bunch of whiny pricks.
Who are you addressing?
This is a Just For Fun page lampooning whining tropers. Please help by organising the page!
Can we add a Just For Fun page making Ruined FOREVER Pages?
i.e For Pokémon: Fans realize something Nintendo and Game Freak does not, that robust 15-year-old billion-dollar franchises, while seemingly healthy, are in actuality as fragile as two bricks tied together with tissue paper. One mistake, one bad mis-step will cause the entire thing to shatter and fall apart; and Pokémon would be ruined forever.
Fortunately, there is hope. The Pokémon fanbase has resolved to remain ever vigilant against something that could Ruin Pokémon Forever, and call out a warning if they see something that could potentially do so.
Some Pokémon conservationists suggest a more extreme approach, that Pokémon should abandon all attempts at re-invention and instead cater exclusively to the old-school gamers. Though attractive, this approach may prove impractical as a long-term solution.
Ruined Forever remains a serious threat to Pokémon now and in the foreseeable future, though it's possible a proposed initiative requiring all Pokemon fans to purchase an annual silicon offset could ensure our fragile brand's existence through the mid-21st century.
Things that have Ruined Pokémon Forever in the past Needing Two games to complete Pokedex The Anime of the Game 4Kids Dub Pokemon Yellow The Movie More Mons Female Trainers No Kanto Access etc...
In other words... pretty much everything.
We could do a Darth Wiki page. So the format would be to list big franchises, and the things that have done this.
That is what i'm talking about... Please can we use the format of the TFwiki Ruined FOREVER page (Example above!)
p.s. Here's one for ourselves! (You may edit to complete)
Tropers realize something Fast Eddie does not, that robust 6-year-old websites, while seemingly healthy, are in actuality as fragile as two bricks tied together with tissue paper. One mistake, one bad mis-step will cause the entire thing to shatter and fall apart; and TV Tropes would be ruined forever.
Fortunately, there is hope. The Members of TV Tropes has resolved to remain ever vigilant against something that could Ruin TV Tropes Forever, and call out a warning if they see something that could potentially do so.
Some TV Tropes conservationists suggest a more extreme approach, that TV Tropes should abandon all attempts at re-invention and instead cater exclusively to the old-school Tropers. Though attractive, this approach may prove impractical as a long-term solution.
Ruined FOREVER remains a serious threat to TV Tropes now and in the foreseeable future, though it's possible a proposed initiative requiring all Tropers to purchase an annual [[en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset bandwidth offset]] could ensure our fragile sites's existence through the mid-21st century.
Things that have Ruined TV Tropes Forever in the past The Great Crash Renaming Rape the Dog Cutting I Am Not Making This Up Cutlery Wars etc...
In other words... pretty much everything.
Well we don't need the introduction for everything, but that would be a good page description. Just for other shows, we merely need the list. Oh, and come up with joke items just to be clear this isn't serious.
Things that have Ruined TV Tropes Forever in the past:
Stuff like that. And take this to ykttw. I'd support it.
How about the ones that some Tropers consider legit examples of this site?
This is supposed to be a joke page, so those would go on the main page.
Having this page would imply that The Complainer Is Always Wrong, even more so than this page already does.
No, it's that the complainer jumped the gun. There is a difference.
page launched on Darth Wiki
Hell, another "just for fun" rule of thumb for this trope could well be "if it exists it is ruined forever."
Many People thought Capcom moving Monster Hunter Tri from the PS 3 to the Nintendo Wii would Ruin the Franchise Forever
Monster Hunter Tri was supposed a PS 3 Exclusive.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?