Can someone tell me why are using tvtropes as a reference here? Last I saw, we do things differently here. We discuss it here among each other, not use tvtropes as a yardstick.
Can someone tell me why are using tvtropes as a reference here? Last I saw, we do things differently here. We discuss it here among each other, not use tvtropes as a yardstick.
Amen to this. I mean seriously, it's ridiculous.
let's not - I said my piece but I also made it clear why pursuing further is a bad idea.. we can work on ways to further our own wiki identity versus tropes but some parts (especially complete monster and whatnot) are issues best just left because it never ends well.
my comment wasn't a means to start a fight - that's been done too many times.. I meant what I said: "it's a subject best left alone".
I wouldn't like to say it's "best left alone". We shouldn't have to yield to another site just because it's popular. However, I understand the headaches it would cause.
there's ways to tackle sensitive subjects, public threads are rarely one of them - especially on internet, where threads are often hijacked, derailed or just used to one-up by all levels (users and admins alike) : the best way is to find a means of getting a neutral ground (on a platform an admin can not simply close when the debate doesn't go in their favor) and starting talks that way.. those in power have to be willing to negotiate for a start..
so until we get better replies than "I don't see the problem", "this is unnecessary drama" or "x is to blame" it is best to focus on better things.
for change to happen at all there has to be a willingness to allow it, so far on this particular subject there's not a willingness to allow meaningful change : just arguments and closure of threads etc.
so until we get better replies than "I don't see the problem", "this is unnecessary drama" or "x is to blame" it is best to focus on better things.
for change to happen at all there has to be a willingness to allow it, so far on this particular subject there's not a willingness to allow meaningful change : just arguments and closure of threads etc.
I agree with this too, overall. Only question is what kind of neutral ground could that be? After all, admins do have certain powers and privileges. Even if we agree to have a place for discussion that an admin can't just shut down when it doesn't go their way, what guarantee would we have that that promise would be kept? After all, if tempers flare, and a given admin gets angry, they might still exercise their power to close a discussion thread down anyway.
that's why I said "best left alone" - until admins and users both agree to sit down and discuss it equally and without threats of closure of thread or derailment.
thus if an admin did close down a thread they'd be seen as abusing their powers and held accountable.
until that point comes just leave this minefield alone as it is not worth all the problems it causes, in the long run.
thus if an admin did close down a thread they'd be seen as abusing their powers and held accountable.
until that point comes just leave this minefield alone as it is not worth all the problems it causes, in the long run.
Probably not, but I don't like being quiet about my discontentment; if I find something outrageous or objectionable (such as the way TV Tropes' decisions are treated on this site), I feel compelled to protest against it, whether someone else considers said protests "shit" or not. If I disagree with something that is said, I disagree with it. Simple as that, really.
And, for the most part, I do leave the minefield alone. It's why I never bother to propose villains for the PE category these days. I know from experience that it's a fantastic waste of time.
I feel that part of the problem isn't just TVTropes but most wiks seem to follow Disney's theory in there's no such thing as an unofficial villain. Basically if the character is bad or at least on the bad side they're a villain. I think we should have a disclaimer on the rules stating that while other wikis may follow this rule on Villains Wiki is is a such thing as an unofficial villain. And it should be in bold letters. That's just my suggestion.
Personally, I don't really think that's the issue, and, honestly, there IS such a thing as an unofficial villain. Whether or not the audience is meant to perceive a character as a villain is immaterial; what matters is the actions and behaviors of the character that determines if they're a villain or not.
For example, I don't think Arrowverse Oliver Queen is meant to be seen as an official villain. However, his list of murders, tortures, plus skinning someone alive all combine to ensure that, whether the writers intend for him to be seen as such or not, he ultimately counts as an Anti-Villain vigilante in the vein of the Punisher.
To give another example, Rhett Butler from Gone with the Wind: the writers did not intend for audiences to see him as a villain. But between fighting for slavery and later seemingly raping his wife and then callously abandoning her, he counts as a villain, regardless of the author's intent.
So again, if you're arguing that there is no such thing as an unofficial villain, then I disagree wholesale. But if you agree with me that there IS such a thing, then good to know we're on the same page. But either way, I don't really think that's the issue at hand here.