I eat garbage!
Under Ron the Death Eater mention is made of an "infamous comic" without saying the name of the comic or providing a link. Should this be fixed or am I just out of the loop to the point that everyone else knows what this refers to?
The Clover Demon
Do you guys think we need a meme page? The meme list seems to have become hi enough to deserve its own page.
Rock on, Gold Dust Woman
Why is Mabel listed as having crossed the Moral Event Horizon? Look, the trope is for when a character crosses a line into irredeemable villainy, which Mabel has not done, regardless of her giving up the Rift.
Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?
Someone went through and deleted some shipping entries on the page. Not that I have that big a problem with it, since I don't really ship in this fandom, but... can someone give me a reason? I thought we weren't supposed to do stuff like that without one, and there's none listed.
Edited by Tuol Hide / Show Replies
I don't know. Might want to readd them and PM the editor.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds was removed from the YMMV page with an edit note saying that this trope wasn't YMMV. Forgive me if I'm incorrect, but I thought all Woobie tropes were Your Mileage May Very?
Hide / Show Replies
It used to be YMMV, but not anymore (don't know when it stopped being YMMV, though). According to the page, "This trope is no longer considered YMMV, because not all examples here need to be sympathetic to the audience."
- Parvum Opus: While not bad per say, "Dungeons, Dungeons, and More Dungeons," "The Last Mabelcorn," and "Roadside Attraction" are commonly criticized as being of noticeably lower writing quality than the average episode, especially "Roadside Attraction."
First Parvum Opus is THE lowest point. Putting several episodes defeats the purpose.
Secondly, on IMBD ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1865718/eprate?ref_=ttep_ql_3
) all those episodes are fairly high rated ("The last Mabelcorn" is even #4!) The lowest rated episodes are "Boyz Crazy" and "The Deep End" that still have 8/10.
In addition to what you said, from what I've seen on places like message boards, the only one of those three that truly had a mixed reaction from fans (at least, mixed by the standards of the show) was "Roadside Attraction". Episodes that definitely received a more mixed reaction than DD&MD and TLM were "Little Dipper", "Bottomless Pit", "Little Gift Shop of Horrors", "The Love God", and the two episodes that you mentioned.
Dipper playing the sousaphone doesn't seem like a BLAM to me. A BLAM has to have literally no foreshadowing. But it does have foreshadowing: Dipper says, "I found [the tooth], while I was... practicing.", and then it cuts to him playing it. It makes sense in context, so I don't think it's a BLAM.
Hide / Show Replies
Yeah, it's not really a BLAM, IMO.
You watch me, just watch me. I'm calling- I'm calling. And one day all will know...
This was deleted from the page:
- Strawman Fallacy: "The Last Mabelcorn" was obviously an attempt at Take That, Critics!, but came off as this to many instead. True, some of Mabel's critics can get extreme at time, but rather than addressing the more legitimate criticisms about Mabel's character and the writing given to it, the episode just has Mabel cry over the harsh criticism until reassured that the critics are liars and jerks who are all worse people than her and actually have no moral compass with which to rightfully judge anyone.
Can I ask why? A Strawman Fallacy is when the argument or critique being refuted is, instead of directly addressed, misrepresented. Instead of refuting the logic of someone's comments, the commenter instead overexaggerates them or undermines the commenter themself. For instance, instead of addressing the inequalities between women and men in society brought up by feminists, a person invoking strawman fallacy would attempt to refute this by arguing that feminists are simply women who hate men, thus making it easier to brush aside their comments. This definitely fits with "The Last Mabelcorn," as instead of attempting to address the flaws of Mabel's character and why Mabel is a good person despite those flaws, the episode just has the critics who point out those flaws secretly being liars and frauds incapable of judging correctly, which is indeed a Strawman tactic.
Edited by Tuol Hide / Show Replies
Oops...I didn't mean to remove the entry. I had intended to change some of the wording around since the way it was presented was a little one sided (some people didn't think it was "obviously" a take that towards critics). I guess I accidentally highlighted the entire thing and removed it by mistake.
Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?
Strawman Fallacy is not YMMV, Examples Are Not Arguable- and the example uses "came off as this to many".
So if it isn't YMMV, does that mean it should be removed? I'm not used to editing these things.
Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?
I removed the ambiguous parts and rewrote the entry:
- Strawman Fallacy: In "The Last Mabelcorn," rather than addressing the legitimate parts of Celestabellebethebelle's criticisms or proving why Mabel is a good person despite her flaws, the episode concludes with the Celestabellebethebelle being revealed as a fraud and the rest of the unicorns as "jerks" who are all actually terrible people with no ability to rightfully judge Mabel at all.
Should it therefore be moved to the main page? I had always thought Strawman tropes were YMMV. Thank you for mentioning this.
Edited by Tuol
They are not dependent of the position in question be " right" or "wrong". This "occurs when a debater constructs a more easily defeated version of his opponent's position to attack, rather than addressing his real arguments. The fallacy takes its name from straw dummies used in old-fashioned combat training; these dummies were made to look like a potential opponent, but provide no actual resistance. The fallacy itself is comparable to defeating such a dummy, then proclaiming you have defeated an actual opponent." In other words, it is not needed the opinion and values of the audience to something be a strawman. (Give a look in Straw Misogynist) And, if this not needs the values/opinions of the audience, this is not ymmv. And, yes, if this is a legitimate example, this must be in the main page.
Edited by MagBas
That's still not a Strawman Fallacy, that's possibly a Debate and Switch.
For it to be a Strawman, they have to have one character on one side with intentionally weak arguments. In this case, it seems that the issue with the fact the episode wasn't talking about the arguments at all, but instead brushed past it.
Edited by Larkmarn Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
It was moved to the main page under Debate and Switch. Thanks for the info!
Should the Strawman Has a Point entry be removed? It seems to have turned into a debate and the last bulletin gives good points as to why the trope doesn't apply.
Hide / Show Replies
The first entry sounds like Both Sides Have a Point which is in-universe and not ymmv if both brothers have good reasons to be upset at each others.
Under the entry for Mabel on Base Breaker:
- There was an attempt to change this in Sock Opera, but since the lessons in that episode don't seem to have stuck, there's still plenty of division over her. These discussions that branched off the same original post are a pretty good look into the different reasons some see her as such a Base Breaker. Warning: the first post, which both discussions share, is image-heavy.
- There was an attempt to change this in Sock Opera, but since the lessons in that episode don't seem to have stuck, there's still plenty of division over her. These
This feels too much like a one-sided argument, since Base Breaker is supposed to talk about why some people like a character and others don't, while this only focuses on the crowd who thinks Mabel's a Creator's Pet.
Edited by toonyloon Hide / Show Replies
Well, it's an addendum to the actual entry, right? The entry it belongs to presents both sides, while this provides additional information, as it is supposed to.
The link didn't seem too biased; it is a debate between people who interpret Mabel's characterization differently (although the first link is dead and needs to be removed). That is exactly what a Base Breaker is; and thus an example helps demonstrate why people interpret differently based on the same canon actions and words. While the person who started the debate (the anonymous questioner) is clearly put off by Mabel's character and one-sided in their opinion (essentially equating her with a Mary Sue by saying she has no flaws), the responder defends her character as complex while addressing her flaws, and each subsequent person adds their opinion, both positive and negative. Yes, I think they are rather brutally honest in addressing the character's flaws, but considering what the responder is trying to refute (the idea that Mabel is a Mary Sue/Purity Sue with no flaws), that make sense. It's a good example of what the fandom debate about Mabel, pro and con, really focuses on—although admittedly a tad bit more honest and levelheaded than most of the "debates" (i.e. fights) I've seen on this subject (I've seen Mabel fans more hardcore than me break out into tears rather than have a mature discussion about her flaws, and Mabel anti-fans shout "Mary-Sue" without listening to a word anyone says. Both sides are usually far more... intense than this).
Even ignoring the link, the addendum doesn't seem biased, at least to me. The lesson in Sock Opera admittedly didn't stick; that's why there's "Aesop Amnesia" listed under Mabel's character tropes. She didn't stop putting boys before people she cared about, because she has problems with this again in Northwest Mansion Mystery.
Edited by Tuol
Fair enough. I also can't argue with the Aesop Amnesia, though to be fair, the instance in "Northwest Mansion Mystery/Noir" was the only instance that I remember it happening (feel free to tell me any more examples that you found, though).
Nope, that's about all I can think of. I just think that the writers dropped the ball in that episode. Eh, it happens to all of us *shrugs* Personally I'm half and half. I like Mabel as a character—she's just so charismatic, creative, and charming—but I'm not blind to the fact that there are some flaws occasionally with the way she's written, and some of her critics do occasionally have a point because of this (crazy though they can get).
- The main unicorn from "The Last Mabelcorn" is truly an awful person for scamming and deliberately sabotaging the emotions of a child, but despite actually being unable to scan a person's heart, she occasionally slips into Jerkass Hasa Point when she brings up how Mabel truly isn't pure of heart, just selfish and desiring for others to see her that way. In addition, she also points out doing good deeds not for their own sake, but simply to appear good, really isn't all that noble.
=>
Strawman Has a Point and Jerkass Has a Point are mutually exclusive as the former is when the unpleasant person is not intended to be in the right while the second is when the narrative treats the unpleasant person in the right. Can someone evaluate which one is more accurate in this case?
Hide / Show Replies
I think it's the Strawman trope that's more accurate? Because I think the audience was supposed to dislike Celestabellebethebelle even from the beginning and side with Wendy's "hoofbag" comment.
Edited by Tuol
- "The Last Mabelcorn" is a good episode that moves both plot and character development along nicely, but some critics saw the Unicorn's Pure of Heart requirement being a scam as the writers deliberately dodging a good opportunity for Mabel to have some character development via self-awareness, essentially calling the twist a cop out. Some Mabel critics even saw it as a Take That! towards them, since the episode isn't exactly subtle in what the audience is supposed to think about critics who judge Mabel and the twist hinges on said critic's judgments actually being baseless.
While I do agree. It's still a one sided argument and not a true Broken Base. Can someone express the other side of the debate?
Heartwarming in Hindsight has this entree: Remember when Stan said to Dipper and Mabel that it was almost unnatural for them to get along so well? It's revealed that he actually had a great relationship with his own brother, but they spent so long estranged from each other that Stan seems to have forgotten what a healthy sibling relationship is like. Then when he tried to get on friendly terms with his brother, he accidentally started a fight that ended up in him losing his brother for a long time.
I know this is YMMV, but that doesn't sound heartwarming at all to me. Should it be moved to Harsher in Hindsight?
Edited by Tuol
I believe Strawman Has a Point only applies when its obvious that the episode sides against the strawman morally. I, for one, do not believe this episode sided with either of the brothers and let the audience interpret it as they see fit.
I removed an entry of Moral Event Horizon: "Mabel crossed the line when she took Dipper's journal without asking for her scheme to get her latest crush, which almost allowed Bill to take it." All Mabel did was borrow something with the intention of giving it back after she was done and had no idea Bill might take it. It felt like someone who was trying to make a Ron the Death Eater out of Mabel.
Hide / Show Replies
Yeah, I agree. That's definitely not Moral Event Horizon worthy.
Trust you? The only person I can trust is myself.
He also add " Dipper in "Not What He Seems" when he destroys Agent Trigger's ear-microphone after Mabel traps him in a crashed Humvee, basically leaving the guy to die in the woods with no chance of rescue."
I also don't think that counts either since while in real life that would kill a guy, this is a cartoon, he survives and never indicates he's in mortal danger.
Someone put Mabel back under MEH for not deactivating the portal. Should it be removed?
Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?
Oh, and Stan is back in there too for the same thing.
Edited by AdricDePsycho Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?
The Dude, Not Funny! trope was removed from the page because the editor who removed it said there were only supposed to be in-universe examples. But every YMMV page I see uses this trope to apply to fandom reactions that counter the joking tone in-universe. Should I put this trope back?
Hide / Show Replies
Keep it out, actually. That trope is In-Universe Examples Only.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Someone added it again. I'm so confused.
On one side, I understand that the trope is label "In-Universe examples only."
But at the same time, I kind of agree with username2527. As the page reads, "How do you know if something deserves linking to this page? Well, it might be overused, funny, or nothing to most people. If just a few people cringe at something, well... if more people are amused than disgusted, then it's not justified to put a stop to it. But if a large number of people are offended or outright traumatized, well, to them, it is not funny." Which means it inherently can't exclude out of universe examples, even if the trope page requests that only in-universe be listed on it, because this trope comes into play when viewer reactions counter how the show treats the subject (in this case, with humor).
Is this a problem with me not understanding, or a problem with the trope page itself? It seems to contradict itself.
Well, readding an example because you think a description is wrong is not the proper way to handle disagreements about the description. So I've re-removed the example.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I didn't add it. I'd rather stay away from an edit war. :/
Edited by Tuol
Hello fellow troopers. I added Grunkle Stan in the Moral Event Horizon section. Do you guys think I was being too hard on him? I know he wanted to bring his brother back, but still stealing, running from the police, and willing to risk the destruction of the universe for one man seems kind of harsh.
What do you all think?
Edited by username2527 Hide / Show Replies
I think it might be a good idea to wait awhile. There's still a lot we don't know about Stan's motivations and what the machine can do that could make Stan's actions seem more justified. But that's just my opinion.
Why was the entry for Stan as an Unpopular Popular Character removed? Seems like a good example to me.
Hide / Show Replies
A Mineburst removed it. Might want to message them.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Wendy is put under Ensemble Darkhorse and the Scrappy. Would it make more sense to cut out both examples and put her under Base Breaker instead?
Hide / Show Replies
In my opinion (I would advise getting more feedback before you take my advice, FYI), yes. She's not really a Scrappy (Fans of many works tend to think that their opinions about a particular character are shared by almost everyone), and she's not an Ensemble Darkhorse (she does a lot, so she's not a minor character).
Edited by 108.234.130.143
I really hope Bill won't be removed from being a Complete Monster.