Board Thread:Clean up Concerns/@comment-2175012-20171129183922/@comment-15895329-20171130005008

JoxFox2109 wrote: Overseer80 wrote: AustinDR wrote: It makes sense.. If the work they are from is exploiative garbage, they are not accepted. I disagree, it makes no sense at all. A Pure Evil villain is likely to inspire disgust and revulsion, and the quality of the thing they come from is immaterial; all that matters is whether or not they are sufficiently wicked and bereft of redeeming qualities. It shouldn't matter if the movie or work they come from is Oscar worthy or Razzie worthy.

Your standards for who is and who is not Pure Evil are already way too strict in my estimations. Adding in one more frankly arbitrary rule or guideline that makes no logical sense to me whatsoever just makes it worse. If the villain is bad enough and has no sympathetic qualities, they are Pure Evil. It should be as simple as that. Having an excessive number of different arbitrary rules is pointless and needlessly overcomplicates the matter. I totally agree with you and that was my opinion too. Why is must be so complicated if it can be so easy? The way it was, was perfect. And now it's weird and bad. Mmhmm. That's what happens when one introduces too many pointlessly arbitrary technicalities and rules and needlessly overcomplicates the "heinous standard" idea.