User talk:Mark D. Gordon

Jump to navigation Jump to search

About this board

Not editable

Your edit to "Magnificent Bastard/Fire Emblem" has been reverted

3
Robkelk (talkcontribs)

Mainly because of the edit reason you gave: "removing poor examples (already happened in TTT"

First, there is no rule at All The Tropes that an example has to not be "poor". In fact, we have rules that say the exact opposite, including There Is No Such Thing as Notability.

As for TTT - just because somebody gave an idea some Teacher Talking Time doesn't mean it's something that applies on this or any other wiki. (If that's the wrong TTT, please explain what you mean. Relying on TLAs is a bad idea.) Our rules are decided by our Tropers, not by a small group who might or might not take part here.

@Labster @GethN7 @Looney Toons @QuestionableSanity @Derivative @SelfCloak

GethN7 (talkcontribs)

Pro-tip, we don't accept that edits you made at one location are viable under the exact same logic unless (A) their policies are the same and (B) it's your edits on both you are making changing to.

Mark D. Gordon (talkcontribs)

Okay. (TTT means The True Tropes btw.)

Your consensus is needed here.

11
DocColress (talkcontribs)
DocColress (talkcontribs)

And if you could, could you please consider leaning towards keeping the category? It means so much to me and for a lot of people, so taking the most extreme possible solution to an easily workable problem is the thing we should NOT want to do or else we'll have become TV Tropes.

Mark D. Gordon (talkcontribs)

Okay, let's keep the category.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

You're going to have to submit that "let's keep the category" to the proposition page in order for it to hold weight in the decision.

Mark D. Gordon (talkcontribs)

Sorry for dismissing your friend proposal, but I'd rather like to work alone.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

So did I, but look at what good that did me. Working alone has only led me to trouble in the long run.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

So did I, but look at what good that did me. Working alone has only led me to trouble in the long run.

Mark D. Gordon (talkcontribs)

I understand.

Then just try to team up with some of the other users. User:LulzKiller seems like an active enough user.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

Lulzkiller is also undecided on this matter, though. But should the trope stay in-tact, I'd gladly start working with them.

Mark D. Gordon (talkcontribs)

Thank you. Have a nice day (or remaining night). (10.50 pm by Wiki standards)

DocColress (talkcontribs)

You're welcome and thank you too. Let's both hope for the best, less drastic outcome.

"The rules no longer support his inclusion"

10
Summary last edited by Robkelk 00:13, 25 September 2019 9 months ago

Re-opened because there is still a mod question that has not been answered. You don't get to informally shrug it off.

Looney Toons (talkcontribs)
Robkelk (talkcontribs)

This brings up a question, which I have asked here. If there are any current frequent contributors to the wiki who I did not mention, please bring that question to their attention.

GethN7 (talkcontribs)

For once, that's a pretty valid point, see my answer on Rob's topic for more details.

HeneryVII (talkcontribs)

Here's an excellent example of how that can happen: Maleficent

Originally, she was on the list, as she met every criteria - crimes considered evil enough to cross the Moral Event Horizon, never presented positively or sympathetically, never showing concern for others, never showing regret or remorse for their own deeds, and no justification. As presented in Sleeping Beauty, all were true of Maleficent.

However, when the live action movie Maleficent was released, the character's backgrounds, motivations, and past were explored more thoroughly; the story shows that the character did express concern, regret, and remorse, did indeed have a partially legit justification, and was portrayed sympathetically. These revelations (which were made in a Disney movie, and thus could feasibly be considered canon) eliminated several of the criteria, and Maleficent could no longer be considered a Complete Monster.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

If the criteria for qualifying as an example of the trope, the criteria given on the page, doesn't support the inclusion of a character, than the character can't be included. That's how we determine things regarding the trope, not any "rules" set in place. As far as I can tell, the character Mark deleted still qualifies based on the criteria.

And !HeneryVII: the character's name is Maleficent, and the live action movie is NOT something that would disqualify the animated version of the character, as they are not the same and the Maleficent movie is NOT canon to the animated Sleeping Beauty (character depictions are completely different - the good fairies and King Stefen especially - and story events in one are incompatible with the other). Angelina Jolie's Maleficent is different from the animated Maleficent who is different from Kingdom Hearts Maleficent who is different from Once Upon A Time Maleficent who is different from Descendants Maleficent, etc. One version being different from another changes nothing for the chances of a CM qualification.

What disqualified Maleficent is that her acts of evil, aside from placing a curse on an infant and one particularly cruel moment with Prince Philip, were totally standard for a villain of a family friendly animated movie based on a fairy tale (taunting the good guys, abusing her minions, hypnotizing Aurora, capturing Philip, and trying to kill the heroes when they start working to undo her evilness)), and she arguably has a mitigating quality in that she cares for her raven sidekick, Diaval. That's why animated Maleficent cannot be considered a Complete Monster.

HeneryVII (talkcontribs)

Sorry.

Mark D. Gordon (talkcontribs)

Looney Tunes: "The rules no longer support his inclusion"

Whose rules are these? When did they change here? Who changed them?

Please clarify.


There is no need for an answer, I already quickly decided to put him back right after.

I'd like to close this discussion right now.

Looney Toons (talkcontribs)

Oh, so generous of you to let an admin know that you don't need to answer his questions.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

While Looney Toons could have been less sardonic, I do have to agree with the point raised. Admins don't have time to ask questions simply to hear ourselves talk - we expect answers.

Mark D. Gordon (talkcontribs)

"he was literally executing an incredibly heinous norm of his boss, and they're all slavers and torturers"

"System Standards

These standards only applies if the villain is part of a corrupt system. Generally, given they are part of a specific system with certain morals, they don't commit actions that are beyond the basic heinous standard and meet "the norm", regardless of how heinous this norm might be. That's why minions or simple servants of greater villains usually never qualify.

However, a villain may qualify if:

They started said system, and thus meet every criteria (e.g. Poppy Adams).

They commit atrocious actions that go far beyond the norm of the system they exist within, which can also prove that they would commit such atrocities even if they weren't a part of said system. Jerome Valeska of Gotham is an example of this because, even as a member of the Maniax, he committed the worst atrocities, to the point that their leader unexpectedly betrayed him."

So first: We don't know who started this entire norm, as awful as it may be. Also, his description "Fat/Obese/Green Leader" is a speculation with no in-series evidence.

Two: If they all enslave even children and subject anyone to torture, how are they supposed to stand out from other villains from their own cult?

Three: The old entry literally described all of them as an example of this. All you see there is a group of guards:

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/fairytail/images/7/78/Erza_and_the_others_captured.png/revision/latest?cb=20120205095053

Four: They aren't Played for Laughs at all. Even my summary lists "the group rule" of that page:

https://allthetropes.org/wiki/Complete_Monster/Criteria#System_Standards

Last: There is a tweaked entry to describe the case closer (of the other ATT):

While all the Zeref cultists are nasty, no one made so much damage as the fat leader. He took part of the slaughter of every adult in the village Erza were in and kidnapped children, so he could enslave them. Along with his partner, he forced thousands of captives to build the Tower Of Heaven. They employed even children (among which, Jellal and Erza) to do this work, starving them almost to death, punishing and killing them over the most insignificant slight; and they weren't above Cold-Blooded Torture as well - it was because of a particularly brutal beating from them that Erza lost one of her eyes (the eye was later replaced with an artificial one). Killing them both was obviously Jellal's making as evil, but they had it coming.

Okay, but seeing it not a big thing, I left it.

Whenever you're back on here

3
DocColress (talkcontribs)

I'd like to ask something of you regarding this wiki's approach to some tropes. (Like, there has to be such a thing as being too informal.)

Mark D. Gordon (talkcontribs)

Okay, I try my best in being more formal.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

I know. I was meaning to say that most people on this Wiki seem to take the "We are not TV Tropes - we can be as informal and unprofessional as we please!" approach a little too far...

Your edit with the summary "new approved example"

5
Robkelk (talkcontribs)
Robkelk (talkcontribs)
Mark D. Gordon (talkcontribs)

Okay, I think I should not do this without talking.

Next time I mention it on a user's page.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

That isn't what I asked.

The phrase "approved example" is an issue. Who gave the approval? Why was approval even needed?

Mark D. Gordon (talkcontribs)

Sorry. I consider the wiki "formal". Although it says it isn't. I think it's a habit, that I have to stop here.

Closing topics on other people's Talk pages

3
Robkelk (talkcontribs)

You've closed topics on DocColress's Talk page twice now. I've re-opened them both so that DocColress can comment on them.

You are not a moderator. You do not have the authority to stop discussions on other people's Talk pages - that, in my personal opinion, is contrary to All The Tropes' policy of "academic freedom" in posting. Please stop doing this.

Pinging the other moderators: @Labster @GethN7 @Looney Toons @QuestionableSanity @DocColress @LulzKiller @SelfCloak

Looney Toons (talkcontribs)

As the one who brought this to the attention of the other mods, I fully support Robkelk's actions here. In fact, to me, your repeated edits, closing/restoring, and other changes looked more like vandalism than anything happening anywhere else.

-- LooneyToons, Admin

GethN7 (talkcontribs)

I concur.

On your own talk page, unless you are discussing things with an admin in an official capacity that require certain input before the matter is settled, you otherwise are sovereign over that, but it stops there.

Could I ask something of you?

11
DocColress (talkcontribs)

I'm not on this site ever day, so I could use someone else to keep track of updating tropes with new TVT approved examples, particularly Complete Monster, Magnificent Bastard, Smug Snake, and Moral Event Horizon. So if ever I can't get to that first, you could either do it yourself or/and notify me about the changes being considered if they're big and arguable enough.

Mark D. Gordon (talkcontribs)

No, thanks. I'm more of an On & Off User and don't care for most topics. I can only take the Anime & Manga, Video Games and Western Animation part and only some of each.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

Doc, your wording "TVT approved examples" worries me. All The Tropes forked from TV Tropes because we didn't like the way they did things - we really should not be taking our cues from them.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

Typically, TVT approved examples of tropes are approved as examples here too - where we differ is that we allow some TVT DISapproved examples to be here if they're well enough aligned with the qualifying criteria for subjective tropes.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

Do we also disallow some examples that TVT allows for the subjectives?

DocColress (talkcontribs)

On a few cases, yes.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

For instance, based on spoilers I have read, I'm anticipating that TVT might end up cutting (DO NOT highlight spoiler if you don't want an upcoming game spoiled for you!) Master Xehanort, 'cause he gets a sendoff like Obito Uchiha, Daemon Spade, Dartz, Nakago, Grand Maestro Mohs, Zouken Matou, etc that treats his soul as having been cleansed and redeemed even when it's far too late for him to actually do anything to make amends for his many atrocities. But since we don't count last minute Death Equals Redemption as absolution for a monster's crimes and showing any truly redemptive features or acts, I can assure you he won't be going anywhere on this Wiki.

Looney Toons (talkcontribs)

I still don't like the usage "TV-Tropes approved" in edit comments here. We are independent of TV Tropes. We do not, as a rule, follow their lead on any policy, and nothing should be added or removed here just because TVT says so.

DocColress (talkcontribs)

"Independent of TV Tropes" /=/ "Determining that every single thing TV Tropes does is wrong."

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

I think we're all saying the same thing with different words. Are we all okay with "Whether something does or does not appear on TV Tropes does not determine whether it should or should not appear on All The Tropes, but it can serve as a suggestion"?

DocColress (talkcontribs)

I'm certainly okay with that.

For future reference...

1
Looney Toons (talkcontribs)

... when uploading an image, please select a license option -- "Fair Use" is almost always safe -- and add a category identifying the work (and if it's used on a trope page, the trope).

Thank you!

There are no older topics