Discussion YMMV / JonTron

It doesn't really impact me if we include it or leave it out. But, there's two frequent things we need to look out for:

1. Statements which imply that the people making complaints or outraged are the ones being irrational or sensitive.
2. Equivocating language which implies that this is a simple difference of opinion and people on "both sides" are taking it too far or whatever.

The guy unironically said that countries that didn't have Jim Crow are having more problems than the USA, which did have it. I'm of the mind that the people who are going "what the hell" about that are the normal ones.

From this post:

• RL persons should not be a subject of any trope example on the wiki, except:
  • When the work in question specifically mentions the RL individual.
  • When the entirety of the example has to do with the portrayal of that individual in the work.
  • When the work is fictional.
• All three of these must apply.

The example is not from a fictional work. You don't have to agree or disagree with it to keep it off the page.

But that doesn't rule out Audience Reaction or certain YMMV tropes, especially not Internet Backdraft.

An example stating that his show lost a large chunk of subscribers due to the host's political views isn't troping the person directly.

Let me ask a question: if he is that upset over having an African American president as some of his comments suggest (I don't recall rage at Bill Clinton and the Liberals winning for a full two terms) is that really something we want to advertise and promote?

^^

1. You just admitted to your idea exploiting a potential loophole.
2. From this post: Audience Reactions cannot meet the second criterion because "all of them are intrinsically about what an audience member thought about the portrayal, not the portrayal itself. It doesn't matter whether they are presented in a balanced way or not. . They are contrary to the policy on troping Real People."

^ That is irrelevant given the fact that the example breaks policy.

Hold up there. I didn't say it was my idea. As I said before, I do not care whether or not we post anything to the page.

Also, your second point did not address what I said. I said that stating the work itself lost viewers because of the host's political beliefs is not troping the person, technically.

We were asked to come here to discuss the matter, not have one person mini-mod it.

You didn't say it wasn't your idea. I don't know why anyone would think you weren't making the suggestion. The second point addresses what you said concerning Audience Reaction tropes. The mod's post clearly ruled out Audience Reaction and certain YMMV tropes, and your comment suggested that you hadn't read that part of the linked comment.

Quoting a mod is not the same as mini-modding. I wasn't interpreting the policy; I was quoting a mod's understanding of the policy (technically, that was at least two mods' understandings of the policy).

Moreover, we were not asked to discuss the policy, but the example that was removed. Your suggestion about the example was just exploiting a loophole.

I'm not here trying to offend you; it's just why beat around the bush. The example broke ROCEJ and people keep wanting to put it back after it's been removed.

I'll put this another way: for those who do want to list Jon Tron's actions, may I ask why? If it is because they are offensive and he should be held to account then would that qualify as No Such Thing as Bad Publicity? Even if it is negative would calling attention to his racially charged comments be glorifying them?

If it does end up added in just try to make sure that it's written in a manner that's civil, and doesn't come off as a thinly veiled attempt at character bashing.

I think we should just keep it off the page entirely, given that no one (TV Tropes included) can discuss it without devolving into political slapfighting.

"You didn't say it wasn't your idea. I don't know why anyone would think you weren't making the suggestion."

Well, they could start with the fact that I stated flat out that I have no interest in whether an example is added or not. If you're not taking something I said in good faith, then any discussion was doomed from the start.

"Moreover, we were not asked to discuss the policy, but the example that was removed. Your suggestion about the example was just exploiting a loophole."

Again, you're saying stuff I didn't say. If we're talking about an example that was removed and whether it should be rewritten or not, then it's inevitable that discussion of policy, and what it means, is going to come up.

"I'm not here trying to offend you; it's just why beat around the bush. The example broke ROCEJ and people keep wanting to put it back after it's been removed."

My argument, at the time, was that I couldn't see how what you posted proved that conclusion. I voiced my confusion and objection about why.

But, it's moot now, and as I said, I really don't care about the outcome. At this point, what I'm more upset about is how you handled it...but I'll walk that off.

In fairness, other popular entertainers - e.g. Hulk Hogan - have made racially-charged comments in their personal lives, and the fan (and employer) reactions were posted to the site. However, Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment does apply here, and should be stated as such on the YMMV page.

I think something along the lines of "Jontron wound up losing X subscribers as a result of a political debate with a fellow Youtuber in March of 2017 where he voiced some... decidedly controversial opinions. That's all that will be said on the matter here." would suffice, as it brings the topic up for people to look into if they so choose, while also warning other Tropers that "Yeah, this is as much as we're permitting here, so take the inevitable Flame War somewhere else." Plus, it leaves open some of the other Internet Backdraft options I saw in the History (voicing negative opinions on particular games, namely).

I kind of can't see Internet Backdraft not getting mentioned... there is serious backdraft to his works due to something that happened as part of his work. This isn't him getting backdraft for something he did on his personal time, a personal twitter, a real-life conversation, this was a debate that he participated in in the context of his work, linked from his work page. And for the record, the wording of the pulled example is exceedingly mild.

The entry:

• Jon got in a ton of hot water over his debate with the popular streamer Destiny due to making many comments that come off as racist. Even many long time fans of his turned against him after this.

@ironballs16: That's a fair point, but other tropers — much later — like to slide in a sentence that breaks policy. The more juicy/recent/dramatic, the more likely tropers are to try to sneak something in after the first person adds the example. That's what I've been noticing with the Donald Trump clean-up effort anyway.

@Larkman: I don't see how a third party, nonfiction debate is a part of his work. Other "works," such as Sargon Of Akkad's channel, aren't considered tropeable works, and I think the debate itself wouldn't be considered tropeable either.

@King Zeal: It isn't that I wasn't taking what you said in good faith. You potholed "Loophole Abuse," thus admitting that it was a loophole. You're trying to turn this back around toward me. It isn't working.

You say I'm putting words into your mouth when I said "we're not discussing the policy, but the example." This statement was made in response to your accusation of mini-modding. It's necessarily the case — from where I'm standing — that "mini-modding" entails "interpretting policy." Thus, when you accused me of mini-modding, you accused me of interpretting policy. Hence, why I said that we were not discussing the policy.

Another nail in the coffin, as far as your crocodile tears are concerned, is when you said "At this point, what I'm more upset about is how you handled it...but I'll walk that off." That's plainly dramatic and playing the victim. But — if you do reply to this — you will most likely insist that my direct quotation is just putting words into your mouth.

Do we want to glorify Jon Tron's actions if you want them up so bad? Do we want to cover them up if you are desperate not to list them?

@tsstevens: Elaborate a bit more.

Jon Tron made a bunch of racially charged comments. There's no getting around that, he thinks Liberals, Obama supporters, he doesn't think much of them at all. He's that mad at a black President, that mad at the black man.

Okay. Maybe some of us want to list this as a trope. Okay, why? Is it because we are justifiably mad at what he said? Is that the only reason? Or do we think it is a trope we can use? For comparison suppose you really liked Dana in the Angel episode Damaged. You naturally want to call attention to her, glorify who she is and what she does. That's a fair comment to make. You really like a character you want to write about them. Do you like Jon Tron, what he did, do you want to call attention to and glorify what he did?

On the other hand some really do not want to state his actions. Okay why not? Is it because they are something that is not a trope? Or do these people want to protect Jon Tron? Suppose they were racist comments made by The Hashtag That Shall Not Be Named, that Frequency channel, Annie whats her name (trying not to list a trigger desperate searching troll #triggerdesperatesearchingtroll,) you get what I'm saying. Would there be more of a push to say, "hey, the people involved in that huge scandal made racist comments, they need to be put up" or less of a push to protect them and hide what they said?

^ I think people are misconstruing what he said. He did not say that he's "mad at a black President" or "at the black man." He did make a response video to the backlash on his Twitter to try to clarify a few things.

Concerning this specific example with Internet Backdraft:

1. It's not from his work. Moreover, it is from a non-fictional work of somebody else's.
2. The example — as it was — used particular rhetoric to focus only on the bad (e.g. "that come off as racist" racist as matter of fact or racist as random people's opinions). That doesn't a neutral example make. To be fair, I think the response video only came after the page was already locked, but the example didn't need the response video in order to be neutral. Basically, it's Begging the Question — assuming that what was said was in fact racist — and Poisoning the Well (preemptively attacking the quotation/event in order to discredit not only the quotation but also Jon's response/defense).

^^ Ah, right. I know what he did, I just wasn't sure what you were getting at with your previous post. I understand now.

^ That is fair, I suppose. The page is JonTron after all, not Jon Jafari. Though, some have argued that since his personality is such a huge part of the character, it's hard to just separate the two.

EDIT: God dang with this link formatting.

^That's also a good point and I see where it is coming from. But he did make a response video trying to clarify what he meant, meaning that there is something with which to separate the two.

I just mean that, though it can be difficult to do so, there is a way.

His statements were not made on his show, but they caused the Internet Backdraft which affected his show.

Stating that Jon Tron's statements "came off as racist to many of his viewers, which prompted many to unsubscribe to his channel" is a neutral description of the Internet Backdraft. It's not begging any kind of question.

^We have yet to know if it effected his show since he hasn't made a new episode yet. This is about an audience reaction to the person, not the show itself.

Now, if he releases the next episode and it contains some thinly-veiled attempt at a gotcha to his critics, or displays any of the politics he espoused during his debate and those livestreams, then your claim will hold more water. As it is, we don't know yet.

We know that immediately after his comments were made, his channel took a hit in subscribers. That information has been demonstrated in before-after screenshots.

And no, this is NOT about an a reaction to the person—if that's what anyone is suggesting, then no example belongs on the page at all. It's either about the work (meaning his show/channel) or it's not tropable.

How is it a reaction to the show?

Internet Backdraft is not specifically about events that happened on the show. It's basically about a controversial event, connected to a show or not, that causes a massive negative reaction across the fanbase.

Or, to quote part of the description:

"It works like this: Controversial Event X occurs, resulting in flame wars, including ones spanning multiple forums."

Begging the Question is a logical fallacy about using the conclusion as part of the premises. In this case, the conclusion is "the statement is racist," and the description of the statement is that it was "very racist and offensive" or that it "came off as racist." With the latest draft of the example, it certainly is Poisoning the Well.

I know what Begging the Question is, and this isn't it.

We aren't addressing whether or not it WAS racist as a fact, but whether or not a sIzable portion of Jon Tron's fans had the OPINION that it was racist, and that part is a fact. Whether it was racist or not, a lot of fans unsubscribed because they felt it was.

^^^Alright, fair enough argument I suppose.

"Racist" is still a heavy word and it shouldn't get thrown around lightly. Not everyone thinks he was being racist. "Divisive," or "controversial" may be better options.

But that's why this is YMMV. The people who are against what he said are against it because he repeated several classic white nationalist points verbatim.

Again, we don't have to agree with them or even come to the same conclusion. But we shouldn't misrepresent the issue, either.

Well, we now have the first real-world impact regarding his comments - the developers of Yooka-Laylee have officially dropped him from their voice-acting team.

Yeah, considering that the developers of Yooka-Laylee are officially cutting their ties with him because of the controversy he started, it would really be stupid for said controversy to not be mentioned in any way on the YMMV article anymore...

I think at least the term "controversial opinions" or "bigoted opinions" could work if either side's willing to compromise here.

My understanding of the ROCEJ is that recent controversial events are even more likely to be problematic and so shouldn't be added. Essentially, I think the Yooka-Laylee thing shows that the controversy should not be mentioned. It objectively shows that this is a hot-button issue.

Well, they're mentioning it in the YMMV article for Yooka-Laylee. Should we remove it from there too then?

Water Blap, the mods have already okayed us to add an example as long as it's neutrally-worded on the Ask The Tropers page.

They said:

"As for the original question - a very carefully worded Internet Backdraft example would be the most lenient resolution to take. But if no such wording can be crafted, the page will survive without its inclusion."

So policy is NOT an issue. The only issue is wording.

King Zeal, I am aware of the ATT thread you started. That said, there is also this ATT thread concerning the Yooka-Laylee page and JonTron where a mod said "Generally we want to avoid 'hot off the press' controversies while troping." The Yooka-Laylee event, imo, shows that this is "hot off the press," and the mod in the Yooka-Laylee ATT thread even said "to nuke it [the Yooka-Laylee example] under ROCEJ."

Yes, I've been following that and figured it would be brought up here.

At this point, I'm waiting to see where this leads (if anywhere) because there's conflicting mod statements.

I think SOMETHING needs to be said, somehow. I mean, it's the elephant in the room.

Linking the most recent ATT thread here so discussion participants can find it (and so future tropers can find out more easily). JonTron Part 4.5

It looks like Fighteer told King Zeal that — in the words of King Zeal — "the Jon Tron controversy is off the table."

Yep. So we're basically done here.