Discussion YMMV / TheFlash

To play Devil's Advocate, It is very likely this run will become a Dork Age; besides the fact it's already being looked at poorly, but the run was ultimately a transitional book. It's very likely that, with DC trying to "refresh" their universe with Generations/Death Metal and the ousting of Dan DiDio, whoever takes over the Flash book after Williamson's run will just run with the restoration of the Flash Family and ignore everything else he's done.

But still, this needs to be kept off the page until we know for sure, which we won't until the run has ended.

The run is over and It's OFFICIALLY NOT A Dork Age! You can address your problems with the run but it's easily the best Flash run of the last decade and the additions done will have staying power.

Please edit accordingly!

Yeah, it seems Speed Metal and Finish Line certainly helped to redeem it in fans' eyes, for the most part. Hell, I'm seeing people actually call for Williamson to get a second run free of editorial mismanagement. His restoration of the Flash Family and re-placing Wally as the lead Flash in Speed Metal seem to especially be things that people are hoping to see carry on after, so it's hopefully going to keep going in this direction.

I genuinely don't think this falls under Dork Age but it could be moved to Broken Base with minor changes instead.

From the trope page: "A Dork Age is a period in a franchise, especially a long-running one, where there was a dramatic change of concept or execution, usually to stay current and it did not work."

Taking this definition into account;

1- Rebirth series mostly suffer from It's the Same, Now It Sucks!, which doesn't meet with the above criteria. We have yet to see a "bold new direction" that met with backlash. All other examples are Dork Ages on their own; from Bart as Flash, twins, Barry's return to Meta-Rogues, Nu-Wally and Nu-Eobard. What Rebirth series has like the examples I listed?

2- Rebirth series is far from being over so we can't determine how much the changes (if there is ever one) will stick. A Dork Age happens when the said direction doesn't stick. For example; if Godspeed dies right after Williamson's departure, he could be added as an example.

From the page again:

• The main clue that a Dork Age has happened is that it's mentioned as little as possible by newer writers. You can bet a series with Adaptation Distillation will never mention it outside of a Discontinuity Nod.

This is basically what happened to Venditti/Jensen series and to a lesser degree to Manapul/Booch (with Turbine's death etc.). Can't say the same for Williamson.

The best trope for your entry seems to be Broken Base as far as I can see. It also needs to be reworded in a way that it acknowledges it's a major improvement and the series has a large following even with the detractors.

Yeah, okay, seems fair to wait for it to end before labeling it a Dork Age. Broken Base probably fits better.

Although the lack of mentioning it isn't really that applicable to modern superhero comics, since lots of writers just write without really mentioning previous runs. Crap, nothing with Dick Grayson in it after the 2011 Nightwing series has made mention of anything from that series, even though, at worst, it's considered So Okay, It's Average. Nothing seems to reference the 2011 Batgirl series at all, really, aside from the new costume. Meanwhile, electric blue Superman was referenced and is widely considered a huge dork age. That part of Dork Age, that it's mentioned as little as possible, just isn't really applicable to superhero comics

Anyway, yeah, currently Broken Base probably fits better. It's jsut weird because it basically comes down to "detractors say these arcs suck. Fans say these OTHER arcs are good". It's more down to inconsistency I guess, but yeah, I'll write something up under Broken Base.

There are massive differences in my opinion: What did Williamson do that falls under a "brand new direction"? Negative Speed Force? That was Johns. Black Hole? I mean, are they even that important? Not even Williamson cares about that organization enough. Meena? Not even that important. Multiple speedsters? Williamson did away with it after one arc already. Rogues as underground rulers? That seem to reach to an end with A Cold Day in Hell. Only Godspeed seem to be falling under it and it's early to say he's going away soon. (he's popular enough though so I think he'll stick).

All other runs listed as examples had massive make-over changes that met with backlash. Barbara Gordon still has Burnside direction and Kyle Higgins' Nightwing run was forgotten because it was followed by huge change in direction with Grayson and that was all thrown to garbage bin with Rebirth. If anything Grayson could be considered as a Dork Age by Nightwing fans (i know some hated that direction).

I don't see the inconsistency here because there isn't a "direction" in the Flash run, at least not yet.

Like I said, I agree that it doesn't fit that it fits Broken Base better until the run ends.

Grayson WAS followed up on with Nightwing though, as much as it could be considering how that series basically tied itself up and concluded. The Burnside thing is an exception, but there are numerous examples of modern superhero comics just ignoring things not written by the same author unless it's a direct continuation. James Robinson's Wonder Woman ignores Rucka's, the Hellblazer writers frequently barely acknowledge previous writers' runs unless something extremely important happened, Jason Aaron's Thor only referenced JMS' and Kieron Gillen's runs to shove them off, Rick Remender's Cap run never really acknowledged Ed Brubaker's, Jason Aaron's Wolverine run isn't referenced by anyone but him, etc, while things that are near-universally considered dork ages like the New 52 Teen Titans runs ARE referenced and not ignored. This doesn't really have anything to do with The Flash, but it's just a point that really doesn't take into account Author Appeal, Adored by the Network, Creator's Pet, and basically anything that consider that creators have their own preferences that conflict with that of their audience.

But yeah, added the example under Broken Base.

It's all cool!

btw; I agree with your assessment of Rebirth series, I hope Flash War improves things for the better.

I'm personally surprised Bart is even there at all. He doesn't suit but I can come up with better choices:

• Barry for obvious reasons
• Nu!Wally: personally I still dislike him and find him a redundant character whereas Deathstroke series warmed other readers to him enough to let him exist at least. He is only causing confusion. I'm sure I don't feel alone.
• Iris West: I've seen shippers claiming other love interests like Jessica Cruz being a better choice and her inconsistent characterization hurting franchise.
• Patty Spivot: Mostly by shippers again but also people who simply find her boring. (She is Put on a Bus now though, so I don't know if it matters anymore)
• Wally's kids: Some people love them, some people REALLY hate them. There is no in between. I've seen people blaiming Wally's tenure ending on them.
• Godspeed: This one is quite new but it's hard to find a middle ground between fans about him. Some people like him because he has a cool name and suit and some dislike him because his introduction was poor and he's a blatant attempt at giving Barry a Hunter-Expy.

I've not seen much hate for Iris besides the standard 'I HATE these useless love interests!' heat that Lois Lane and Linda Park both get (the former more-so, Linda seems rather well-loved), but I don't doubt there's people who hate her, especially given how divisive her TV counterpart is. Her and Spivot should maybe go to Ship-to-Ship Combat or Die for Our Ship then, if its purely shipping reasons.

Nu!Wally, Jai and Irey, and Godspeed all count, no question on those.

This is along the lines of what I'd put, if anyone has any suggestions for changes, additions, or trimmings, let me know:

• Barry Allen, for many reasons, splits the fanbase. Either he's an Adorkable and relatable Every Man, or The Generic Guy and a Vanilla Protagonist, with people split on if his death should have stuck or not. This is not helped by how bringing him back lead to Wally West, who by comparison is the Breakout Character, being erased from existence.
• 'Nu!Wally' was controversial from the start for being a radical reinvention of Wally West for the New 52, but later rewrites of his character and his evolution into Kid Flash, as well as separating him from the original Wally (now retconned into being cousins), allowed him to be Rescued from the Scrappy Heap. With that in mind, many still dislike him for being redundant and a Replacement Scrappy for Bart Allen.
• Jai and Irey West, Wally's kids. Some considered them an annoying Spotlight-Stealing Squad that killed Wally's tenure, but others adored them and Wally's relationship with them. Despite the controversy, their erasure has been commonly cited as a problem with how the Flash comics have been handled recently.
• Godspeed. For some, he gets fan interest for his cool costume and name, winning out on Rule of Cool alone. For others though, his arc was too rushed and poorly handled, and his obvious status as an expy for Hunter Zolomon earns him scorn and ridicule.

I've met only one person who's enjoyed any of the New 52 one, specifically, and I've seen very few people who enjoyed Johns' contributions regarding Barry. To be fair, none have ever cited things like Eobard being a villain sue, but aspects like darkening Barry's backstory and propping him up above the other Flash family are things I've seen a lot of criticism for.

Regardless, this is a *YMMV* page; while you personally have not encountered people who didn't enjoy these or Barry's return, that isn't reason to remove it as your personal opinion and experience is not universal. Before removal you should probably check out more discussion boards and social media, or in general try to find different opinions, rather than decide an opinion doesn't exist.

If you feel the language is overly negative or agreeing too much with the entry, you can modify it to note that there's plenty who disagree. I'd suggest modifying to remove some of the more negative aspects, but keep things like noting that many didn't like the post-Barry's return stuff.

I have met many people who have liked Johns' run on Barry and the New 52 run. It is a YMMV page so it relies on the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment and I have met plenty of people both on and off the wiki who would start a flame war over this.

Exactly my point. This is a topic people disagree on, but opinions exist for it on both sides. I'm personally not a fan of Barry's return for what it did to Wally's character and how Barry became rather idiotic and selfish following, but I'm also aware that, while my view is common, its not universal. I'm not a fan of pushing ones own opinion on this wiki either way, so I wouldn't want people doing the same even if its something I agree with.

I can add the Dork Age stuff back but keep it more neutral, if that's OK. I'm making a few other edits and I can try to add something less 'this run SUCKED objectively' and more 'some people thought this run had problems'.

The Rule of Cautious editing judgment is to stop flame wars. If you put it back, even if you make it more neutral, fans would still try to change it. And that's the point. if a run is loved by many (or even more) than who dislike it, it wouldn't really be a Dork Age.

I haven't seen anyone who would call the resurrected Barry idiotic or selfish, so can you explain that?

The only people I've met who enjoyed 2010 and onwards blindly are either new fans or really old fans from Silver Age. Flash: Rebirth is definitely a divisive story and everything that came after didn't help things a bit. As a matter of fact at reddit and other internet communities, it's widely accepted that Manapul run was only flash with no substance and the saving grace of Johns 2010 run was Dastadly Death of The Rogues.

YMMV page should definitely address these complaints because they ARE popular opinions, even if you don't agree with them.

I have met and seen all types of fans who like these runs and none of them are liking these runs blindly. Both of those points are not widely accepted.

This has nothing to do with if I agree or not. The fact is these runs have plenty of fans online, and there are fans who would cause a fuss over these runs being on the list.

Not to make a personal dig or anything, but the only fan who's made a fuss so far is you, dude.

But more to the point, there is an observable number of fans who cry foul on these runs. These fans would consider this a 'dork age' for the Flash, and as said, you can find plenty of these fans online. By your argument, not including this would cause them to make a fuss (I mean, again, *we* are).

Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment does not mean 'don't post this in case it ruffles feathers', it means 'if you're going to post this, *don't take a side*'. Otherwise, there would be no reason to have a YMMV page at all. I've opted to meet you half-way and say this stuff in a way that's not shitting on it, so that's enough to follow that rule. Saying this nicely, but I think its wise to find a compromise instead of blocking us out with the 'but I've met fans who say THIS' defence.

That doesn't really mean anything.

Not really because the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgement applies to deleting entries that people would cause a fuss over not adding them.

No, it is there to stop flame wars and to stop points that might step on a lot of peoples toes. This is one such instance. I am not sure you can word it in such a way that would not step on a lot of people's toes because it is not the wording that is the issue, it is the inclusion.

That's not correct. The only things that get removed are comments on politics and Flame Bait tropes such as Mary Sue. If you're going to invoke Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment to excuse removing entries you don't like, maybe read it, because it outright tells you not to do that. Look, taken from that page:

• "If your example was outright deleted instead of whittled away, maybe there is another method of getting your point across without stepping on anyone's toes. Wording is everything. It goes both ways, too: please do not use the Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgement as an excuse to remove a viewpoint that merely goes against your personal beliefs."

Right now, that's exactly what you're doing. I'm following the guidelines set by the page, if you're going to invoke it, I'd suggest you do the same.

If it'd make you feel better we could invoke Broken Base, and include that many fans adore the runs while others call it a Dork Age, but for fairness sake that would mean adding that entry rather then removing this one.

What I said is correct because the Rule of Cautious Edding Judgment applies to all topics that could be considered to be "hot-button" and not just flamebait or political comments.

I did not remove it because I didn't like it, I removed it because a lot of people would not like it and it would have caused an issue. I have said this before, so the "you removed it because you don't like it" argument does not hold water. And this, of course, means that I am following the guidelines set.

I think adding it to Broken Base would be a fair compromise and would not cause that much of an issue. So I agree that that is the course of action we should take.

No it doesn't, ROCEJ doesn't require a sweeping removal of any potentially hot-button topics. If it did, YMMV would need to be completely annexed, given how by its very nature, people will disagree with many things said.

And I'd like to believe that this is your intention, but it really doesn't look it. It does look like you're just trying to silence an entry you disagreed with, and the 'it'd cause a fight' is just an excuse. If that genuinely isn't why I apologise, but that is the way it appears.

With that in mind, I'd suggest something like this in Broken Base:

• Barry's return, and every subsequent story between that and DC Rebirth. A good portion of fans enjoyed these stories for how they reinvented the franchise and modernised Barry's character, along with Francis Manapul's Awesome Art. However, many dislike how Barry's run caused Wally and the greater Flash family to be Demoted to Extra and subsequently erased all together, along with other changes to the franchise, and consider this chapter a major Dork Age.

If you have any changes you'd like made, please tell me and I'll try to oblige.

The Rule of Cautious Editing Judgement is there to stop hot-button topics that would start a flame war. This is stated multiple times on the page for it. This would be one of those topics.

That is my intention. And I made sure that it looks like that is my intention by the fact that I have clarified that it is my intention multiple times.

I think that looks good.

You're misunderstanding/misusing the rule. It isn't some blanket anti-controversy law, its, essentially, a guideline to say people shouldn't intentionally start fights. Stating that a reaction exists is not starting a fight, at least so long as we don't present this as unquestionably correct. There's a difference between avoiding fighting and censoring controversial opinions.

With all due respect, saying its your intention doesn't make it look like your intention. Actions speak louder than statements. You've acted more like someone who just wanted to get rid of something he disagreed with. I'm sorry if that's incorrect, but its hard to not suspect ulterior motives when none of these 'other fans' have argued this point here with you.

I'll add that to the page then.

No, you are the one who is misunderstanding/miss-using the rule. Nowhere on the page does it say it is meant to stop people from intentionally starting fights. It is meant to stop things from being added that would start flame wars. This isn't about "censoring controversial opinion" this is about not starting a flame war.

I haven't acted like that at all. The act of deleting those Dork Age posts didn't necessarily mean that I had an ulterior motive because adding and deleting things is part of editing a wiki. In addition to this, the fact that I have explained what I am doing multiple times should show that I am doing it for the reasons I have said.

We have come up with a solution, so if you want to keep discussing this, can you PM me.

ok, add it.

Wait, why did you remove the entry? I suggested we add a Broken Base entry but keep the Dork Age entry as well. If you didn't agree to that point you should have said before acting.

I'll take the motive part to P Ms since that's off-topic, but the use of ROCEJ is still relevant to this. 'Stopping people from intentionally starting fights' is the exact same thing as 'stopping a flame war'. Those are two statements that mean the same thing. If you look up any flame war-starting topic, from the DCEU to Ghostbusters to The Last Jedi, disagreements are handled the way I said; include but don't voice agreement. Point to me an example of this being done the way you're suggesting.

To be fair, I misread the end of your quote. But there is nothing really fair about this solution. You say that you suggested a compromise, but what you suggested is not a compromise as it does not eliminate the issue of the inclusion being the problem.

Adding a Broken Base but removing the Dork Age would be a fair compromise that would cause fewer issues and that is what we should do. So unless you have any more objections, I am going to remove it again.

Also, you shouldn't have added it again without talking about it first.

Those two statements don't mean the same thing. 'Stopping people from intentionally starting fights' can be a part of 'stopping a flame war' but 'stopping a flame war' is a lot broader than that and includes a lot of other things aside from 'Stopping people from intentionally starting fights'. Also, I am not going to look through the wiki to find examples of this one thing. It is in the text that it is to stop flame wars and that is what I am trying to do.

I disagree. My first offer to reduce the negativity of the Dork Age post was a compromise and you refused that and insisted on completely removing it. I then suggested adding a Broken Base entry to showcase the alternative view. All this time I've been offering compromises, and you keep insisting that the only action you'll accept is removing it from Dork Age completely. The compromise is only coming from our side on this.

Again, this is how its done elsewhere. A lot of what's in Broken Base is included in the page again, since otherwise, *every* entry would be merely Broken Base.

That's hypocritical. You removed the entry in the first place without discussing first. I didn't add it back entirely, its still noted out, which is what we're supposed to do if we're discussing removal of something.

Its 'broader' in that it includes 'unintentionally starting fights' as well. That's the only other interpretation of what 'stopping flame wars' could entail. In either case, you're doing it wrong. Removing a controversial opinion is not how you stop a flame war. If you're not going to check how a rule is invoked elsewhere to see how its supposed to be used, don't invoke it, because removing something because you know a lot of people disagree with it is not how you stop a fight. If anything, it inspires one.

This is how ROCEJ is invoked. Simple as.

If you still insist this is not how its supposed to go, I'd suggest we get a mod to look into this.

Adding a Broken Base and the Dork Age isn't a compromise. It is you pretending it is a compromise so you can get what you want.

Adding a Broken Base and not a Dork Age is a compromise because it would show both viewpoints, but it would not start a flame war.

I know, but I learned and when I removed it again I added my reason and I opened a discussion.

No, it's not. Starting "Flame Wars" can also entail Edit Wars, Bickering Natter, Fights on the discussion page and fights in PM's. And ROCEJ can be used to stop any of these things.

If you want to call a mod you can. I think you should because it would put this to bed.

I've been offering you compromises from the beginning. You called for an extreme reaction, removing it completely, I suggested neutralising it and you rejected that, and so I offered to include Broken Base to showcase the opposite view as well.

Those are all forms of starting fights, intentional or unintentional. This is ultimately semantics we're talking about here. Regardless of what it covers, that's not the issue. The issue is what you're wanting to do in the name of ROCEJ, which as I've said isn't what is supposed to happen to comply with that.

Regardless, I've taken in to Ask The Tropers, so we'll see what others think on this issue.

Removing it isn't an extreme reaction. It is the reaction that makes the most sense and complies with ROCEJ. I excepted adding the Broken Base, but also adding a Dork Age would cause issues.

That is the issue because it is they are the type of things I am trying to avoid. What I did does comply with ROCEJ because the addition of those runs to Dork Age, no matter how you add them, would cause an issue.

I think we should stop this until we get an answer from ATT.

From my understanding:

• You are a Barry Allen fan who enjoyed these runs. And that's fine!
• You are also bitter a VOCAL group stating dislike towards a run you liked. So YOU want to silence them. You have debated against three people who vouched for entry to stay in Dork Age. You are the one who should re-evaluate your own opinion on matter.

To be honest, Francis Manapul run was utterly BORING. It added nothing of value, took a lot from the core of franchise and it was only good for looking at pretty art. This isn't an unpopular opinion.

Also @any mods checking here: Looking at history, he also erased EVERY SINGLE YMMV entry that badmouthed Barry, including Never Live It Down or Memes about Barry ruining timelines (even though they definitely fill the tropes) while ignoring anything negative about other Flashes. We're dealing with a biased fan trying to twist ROCEJ for his own gain here.

Most of that is not true. I am not trying to "silence" anyone, I am following the ROCEJ rules.

That IS an unpopular opinion to many and it is something that many angry fans would fight over.

I did edit the wiki for other things but I had my reasons and ultimately those discussions ended with how the wiki looks now.

It is pretty hypocritical that you call me a bias fanboy when your avatar is Wally West. The only person who looks like they have an ulterior Motive here is you.

I don't know how my avatar makes my point any less valid. I've been contributing to several other parts of Flash page, including character pages. I picked a Flash related avatar because I'm mostly editing pages related to Flash. (ironically I mostly edit character pages, not YMMV)

A total of 4 people (including another discussion from History) disagree with the way you are editing the page. ablackraptor has pointed out you are trying to cover up your bias via bending ROCEJ to your own interpretation.

You haven't shown any problems with other Dork Age entries (which include Wally era as well). If we go by your standarts then we should erase all of entries there. For example I've seen people enjoying Wally's second run with his kids and I'm among one of them. But I know that the run was divisive and I'm not causing a problem even when I'm told by 4 different tropers that I'm doing wrong.

The runs are clearly divisive, definitely not considered as golden age to many. You fail to bring any arguments to defend the run and only say "I enjoyed it". Well, that's YOUR opinion. Go to reddit or online forums like CBR, many people will tell you similar things as we're talking here.

Also a ablackraptor put it perfectly: "I feel that's abusing the ROCEJ to silence criticism of a specific run, when we can still easily talk about the reaction without voicing support."

This is pretty much erasing a valid opinion held by many many people, which has lead to DC Rebirth in the first place. If the run was as acclaimed as the troper claims then DC Rebirth wouldn't have happened in the first place. Mind if I also point out that every single thing introduced in that run has been retconned or completely ignored, that should also raise some red alerts about the said run's staying power as well.

I rest my case, Your Honor.

I am not covering up my biases at all, I don't have any biases.

I have not deleted all the other entries because I have not seen as many rabid fans who would start a flamewar over the inclusion of those entries like I have seen many rabid fans who would start a flame war over the entries that I deleted. I can only edit from what I know.

These runs ARE considered to be a golden age to many, just because you don't see at as one, doesn't mean it isn't too many others. I have been to these places I have seen the validation for what I am saying all over the internet. My opinions are irrelevant and this is not the place to defend these runs. Many have online and many are rabid and that is all that is needed for this.

And as I have said many times, it is not silencing criticism, it is stopping something that would cause a flame war.

Rebirth was caused by a lot of different things, and The Flash book was not really one of them. What happened in Johns' run is being explored in the current comics and almost everything else that happened in the New 52 has still happened

On that last point, The Flash was a major reason why Rebirth happened. Its why Wally got to be the voicebox for the problems of New 52. Johns has said that the point was to undo a lot of the mistakes they regretted about New 52's handling and one of the biggest was undoing Wally's erasure by bringing Wally back. There were many other books that they needed re-aligning (Superman and Wonder Woman are the other two bigger ones), but to say it had nothing to do with the Flash is poppycock.

Onto the main point, you keep saying you're stopping something that would cause a flame war. I just have to ask, do you think The Killing Joke YMMV page should be cleaned up for similar reasons. It isn't hard to find people who love everything about the story and would find the Hype Aversion, Unfortunate Implications, and Never Live It Down tropes on that page to be upsetting. Given that I've seen people screaming violent threats at critics of the story, I'd say the reaction is even more rabid. Should we erase all of those then to please those people? This extends to the animated version, where there's a lot of other controversial things added. Yet my first encounter after it came out was seeing one podcast complaining about it then comments filled with people insisting they're wrong.

Seriously, why is it that criticising the Barry's return period is seen as some nuclear level flame war trigger to you? Even going back to the other Dork Age entries here, while you've not witnessed people who'd go ape-shit over their inclusion, I definitely have. By your logic should I erase those entries to avoid upsetting them?

As said before, this is an extreme reaction. We don't erase remove entry completely because its inclusion could upset those that disagree, even when those who do so have a rep for being rabid about it. We simply don't. If we did, every comment about Grant Ward in Agents of SHIELD would be annexed from its YMMV page. You might disagree that its worth doing, but you're outnumbered on that point. If we don't get a response from ATT soon, I'd move to keep.

Wally's return is the only reason connected to the Flash.

If there is a chance that they could start a flame war on the topic, yes.

Because I have seen it. I have seen people go crazy over it. And again, if there is a chance that there might be a problem, then yes.

Yes, we do, we do delete things that could start a flame war, that is the point of the ROCEJ rule.

Two to one isn't exactly enough to keep it without a discussion. If you don't get any more input, I suggest we call a mod directly.

He was the protagonist of the one-shot that started it. The entire thing is about undoing a mistake started by Barry, Johns singled out the Flash as an example, and The Flash series has been directly delving into the pre-Flashpoint lore. You're simply wrong here.

Well that's simply not how its done. Fact is, removing them will not solve the problem as even if we both leave it off the page, someone will come along eventually and re-add it. They will probably fight over it. That's why removal is not the answer typically, as both sides are liable to start the fight. Including it but framing it in a neutral way is the best way to please both sides. Would it help if we include a link to Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment on the entry? That seems to be enough literally everywhere else.

Regardless, I'm contacting a mod now to bring this issue up, as ATT is yet to get any additional insight.

LOL, no I am not. It is connected to Wally as in so much as it was used to bring him back, it had nothing to do with the Flash series from the start of the new 52 to the start of Rebirth. Also, the mistake didn't start with Barry, it started with Eobard (but that is not what we are talking about at the moment, so it does not matter).

That IS how it is done, this is literally explained on the ROCEJ page. If something might cause a flame war, it is removed. Writing a Dork Age entry in a neutral way would not help because the idea of a "Dork Age" is negative and that is what would cause issues.

The best way to please both sides would be to add the Broken Base entry because it shows both sides in a neutral way and get rid of the Dork Age entry.

Well, this is a lot of posts (summoned here by ablackraptor per PM). Opinions by default are disputable so "some people disagree" is not a reason for removing the Dork Age entry.

"Some people disagree" was not my reason for removing it. I removed it because it is a contentious subject and I could see many fans starting a flame war over the inclusion. So I thought that removal complied with the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgement

Edit: Posted a lengthy post before Septmus stepped in. Glad to see he's in agreement.

Edit: Removed because you removed your response. He isn't exactly "in agreement" because, as I said in a response, what he was in agreement to was not my argument.

It ultimately is. 'Some people disagree' is ultimately what you're arguing, that keeping it would ignite those that disagree into starting a flame war.

'Some people disagree' isn't what I am arguing. I didn't remove it because 'Some people disagree so it would not count' I removed it because it could start a flame war, which is different.

Why would it start a flame war, again? Because, some people disagree with it. You're arguing about semantics right now. We understand your argument. Its just not holding water.

It is a lot more complicated than just 'some people disagree'. The fact that opinions are disputable is fine and is not a reason to edit out an entry, but when it could lead to a flame war it becomes more complicated and goes beyond that. The ROCEJ is there to stop this from happening.

Every opinion could start a flame war. Which points are likely to start ones is purely a matter of opinion in itself. Who decides which points are too inflamable and which ones are OK?

People who start a flame war can be banned, you just need to ask in Ask The Tropers.

So, OK to keep the entry then, Septimus? Regardless of what Acomicfan 1 is saying?

Not every opinion could start a flame war. It depends on what you have seen online, I have seen plenty of fans who would argue this all over the internet and from what I have seen it is big enough and contentious enough to be an issue. The idea of "Who decides which points are too inflammable and which ones are OK" seems to be a problem with the ROCEJ rule itself, and when you get past the obvious examples, what would count really depends on the community that the example is linked to.

They can be banned, but the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgement seems to be there to stop flame wars from happening in the first place.

I've been in a flame war over what Barry' lightning belt should look like. I quit Scans-Daily over a fight about if Darker and Edgier fits the tone of the Fantastic Four. People will pick fights over anything. Hell, we're arguing right now over the idea that anything can cause an argument! Even still, what you've personally seen is, as already said before, not grounds to base evidence off of.

Its true that Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment is flawed, but in that its not exactly clear on the page what it exactly means. I'd suggest that that page have some clarification about this, since how its typically invoked and how its being invoked now are completely different.

Yes, people will pick fights over anything. Then it comes down to are those people mad enough that they would come here to start something over it and are there enough people like this that it might cause an issue. We have not talked about that, but what I have personally seen is grounds to base evidence off of as it's the only way to know if someone would pick a fight over it.

That...doesn't really make sense. Again, that ultimately comes down to you personally deciding that its too much of a risk, when as said before, you are the only one who's came to remove it. Can you prove that this is a big risk besides your say-so?

There is no real meter to judge it by, so threats can only be decided by people who have seen it. I might have been the only person to remove it so far, but that does not mean that there are not people who would try to remove it The internet is a big place, so finding and linking proof from every Chat board, Review, Comment section and offhand discussion would be a long task. I have no reason to lie.

In other words, no, you can't prove it besides your own anecdotes. That's not enough, simply, to worry about a Flame War.

It would be equally impossible to prove that it isn't the case. It is enough as there isn't anything in the RCEJ rules that says it is not enough.

Look, you keep going back to 'but the ROCEJ rules say', buy you yourself have admitted it has a problem of not specifying what is and isn't considered OK. Let's remember that the trope page there is just informing people of the existence of this concept without dictating what it actually is.

There's no actual 'rule book' on the page, so maybe don't cite it as this gospel that proves your point when it never actually says 'you should remove anything you think could make rabid fans angry'.

Yes, it has a problem of not specifying what is or is not OK. But that means it does not take a side on whether Tropers can edit using ROCEJ from just what they have seen, and so I am not wrong by doing that.

It DOES say that, that is the point of the ROCEJ rule.

If it doesn't take a side on the issue, then you can't cite it as justification doing that.

Quote the page. Point out a line that says users have to remove stuff from YMMV that will cause an flame war. It says people do that, but it never says its a rule they have to do.

Yes, you can.

"It vanished as fast as spam. Why did it happen? It happened because of The Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment. You stepped on the toes of the vast majority of the wiki, the people who really want to avoid flamewars."

In the context of this quote, the majority don't want flame wars. If it didn't mean that it should be used to stop Flame Wars, it would not be on here.

No, you can't. If it doesn't say what you're doing is right, you can't say you're right to do this because of that.

That is describing the occurrence. It is not saying this is correct procedure. Later on it references whittling away at and rewording entries, both of which I've offered to do. Even still, that's the reason behind making ROCEJ edits, no one is arguing that we want flame wars. We're arguing that this is not how you go about stopping them.

Yes, you can. If there is no rule saying I can't do it then I can do it.

You can gather that it is the correct thing to do by the context of it. If it says "this is what happens when ROCEJ is used correctly" it is also saying "this is how to use it correctly". As I have said time and time again, rewording would not work in this example because it is these runs being on the list that would be the reason for the Flame War.

That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying you can't say 'I'm doing this *because* of that', if that is not actually relevant to what you're doing. Its like saying you're drinking beer because a there's a no smoking rule.

It doesn't actually say anything about that being correct. Even still, I'm not saying deletion isn't wrong usage, I'm saying its not the absolute and only response. And as I've said every time, I disagree and think complete removal is far too extreme a solution, especially as not including it could start a flame war as well.

It is not like that at all. You said that me only using what I have seen is "not enough" despite the fact that there is no rule saying if it is enough or not.

I guess it does not say that because the person who wrote it probably thought that users would be smart enough to work out that if it is telling us what happens when it is used correctly it is also telling us how to use it correctly. It is all in the context. And as I have said as a response to that, it is not a far too extreme solution as it solves the problem.

Except, I've not claimed that ROCEJ actually says that this is not enough. The not-enough thing actually refers to the general reaction to edits on YMMV that are based on single user's anecdotal evidence.

That's your interpretation. And indicating its a matter of being 'smart enough' is pretty obnoxious. Even still, that's a single example of one form of usage, and it also references my suggestion of just editing the entry later on the page. And as I've said, removal would not solve the problem either as it would incite those that do think this era was a Dork Age. What's your solution to stop them doing that?

Let's be clear, the kind of fans you're talking about would probably not accept the Broken Base entry either, or at least would want to edit it into something that paints their view more positively, which itself could inspire a Flame War too.

Maybe instead, we include an entry somewhere else on the page for a trope that serves as a counter-point? Is there an audience reaction trope describing the reasons why people liked Barry's return?

The guy is outnumbered and they can’t provide basic defensive arguments. @ablackraptor, I’d just suggest contacting a mod because they are the ones pushing for an Edit War instead of accepting majority opinion. (I still haven't received an answer to why he only takes offense at negative entries regarding Barry and not other characters)

I’ll personally send a PM once I get time as well. The behaviour and implications, (what does even “smart enough” mean?) are very unfortunate and probably baiting. This seems like a fruitless debate and they won’t accept a no until they get their way.

Since opening a discussion and being told by three other tropers doesn’t cut for them, this only leaves for a mod to give the final decision.

Also @ablackraptor, you don't need to compromise with anything. That's a Dork Age entry, and it should stay that way.

P.S.: Geoff Johns himself said New 52 wasn't handled well and that's why he used Wally as a mouthpiece in Rebirth.(you can google actually!) He wasn't fan of most changes, for example he retconned Cold having metahuman powers at the first chance he got in Forever Evil. You are reeaaaally pushing for it to stick when everything in Rebirth books has shown to be undoing things introduced in New 52 series. Patty is gone, Turbine got killed recently, Daniel West got a Bus Crash at Suicide Squad and Speed Force has changed back to it's original form instead of the limbo they've shown in New 52 series. I mean, we have a Shoo Out the New Guy entry there for a reason.

If the series was Golden Age, their concepts would have stuck, period. But the only thing comes to my mind is Golden Glider's new look. (and even in that, she was introduced as only Glider but they reverted her name back to classic not long after.)

Well, if there is solely a risk of a Flame War, then the removal is not appropriate at all.

Then what’s the point of the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgement?

Welp, it seems there is no need for me to PM a mod! Thanks for the heads up Septimus, I'll do the necessary change on the page.

ROCEJ is mostly about real life disputes. Contentious tropes and YMMV items are seldom removed for ROCEJ reasons and if so then usually by order of a moderator.

I think, if anything, this deserves having the actual meaning and procedure for ROCEJ hashed out somewhere, since as said, the trope page for it is pretty vague. It essentially provides an extreme example of something contentious (politics) then explains why someone would remove it (though as I said, it then goes on to basically say 'if removed, try rewording what you were saying'). But, that's a discussion for ROCEJ's discussion page, so I might bring that up there.

Also, while it may not be necessary, I do think we could do with some positive audience reaction tropes for those comics, since clearly, there are some who think that way. Though, as far as I understand, the things people like exactly are the art (already noted under Awesome Art) and, essentially, its a simpler take on the Flash that makes it easier for people to jump into. Maybe Gateway Series?

And on that note, should we also neutralise the tone of the other Dork Age entries? The fact that, as part of the initial compromise offer, I made the Barry's return entry clarify it wasn't a universal entry, so unless those notes are removed maybe the others.

That could be done but I don't know how much you can "neutralise" Robert Venditti/Van Jensen era. After all Van Jensen admitted it to be an Old Shame later on Twitter. But I know that Wally's kids had their own fans and Bart's book was cut awfully short.

I figure Venditti/Jensen could be just reigned in to within reason, if not fully neutral. If its hard to find fans, we can mention that by comparison to the other runs, this is considered the lowest point by most. Wally's kids era definitely needs neutralising though.

As for the other point, I was thinking something along these lines for Gateway Series:

• The Brian Buccellato/Francis Manapul run brought in a lot of new readers, due to launching with the New 52. Though contested by older fans, this run's simpler take on a single speedster (Barry Allen), based largely on Geoff Johns' rewrite of Barry, accompanied by Manapul's highly regarded artwork, made it easier for newer fans to jump into. The fact it largely inspired the 2014 TV series likely adds to this as many would have jumped onto the series from that.

As said, while I personally didn't like the run at all precisely because its simpler take meant leaving out the things I love about the Flash (Wally chief among them), it does have its fans and I'm friends with many who got into the series because of that, so in the interest in fairness I'd like to add it.