To-do list:

• The definition has been expanded to include the two sides coming to an agreement that they both have a point in addition to a neutral third party pointing it out. However, the trope is In-Universe Examples Only, so the acknowledgement must come from within the work. Remove any examples that don't fit. Progress is being tracked with Sandbox.These Wicks Have To Be Cleaned.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Oct 1st 2022 at 2:42:18 PM

Anyway, this needs to be In-Universe Examples Only like "Not So Different" Remark since a third-party observer is required, and a rename wouldn't hurt, though I can't think of anything at the moment.

Man, if the stock phrase rule didn't exist I'd suggest something like "You're Both Right".

Both Sides Are Valid Remark was suggested in the Trope Talk thread. Obviously we'd custom title it to put quotation marks around "Both Sides Are Valid".

Edited by GastonRabbit on Jun 21st 2022 at 1:03:26 PM

Double posting because I discovered that the wick check sandbox has a better TRS OP draft than the Trope Talk thread, so I replaced the text of the opening post. The argument was still the same, but the draft in the sandbox was more thorough and suggested options for what to do.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Jun 21st 2022 at 1:01:17 PM

Rename and require either mutual agreement or a third party. The audience part sounds like YMMV or even WMG, I'm not sure with what definition it can be yarded.

Since 90% of not mentioning a third party stems from the trope definition rather than zero-context examples or blatant misuse, doesn't it make the most sense just to remove the stuff about the third party from the definition? Works can demonstrate that two sides of an argument have a decent rationale without a character stating it aloud, so I don't see why valid examples the writers of the Brave or Green Lanterns one should just have their work wiped off the site.

If you still like the idea of a trope where a character says aloud out a debate is nuance as a sort of author mouthpiece, I think making a different trope in TLP is the best way to go for that.

It's like with any other trope with a considerable subjective part. How much was intended and how much does a user read into it? Allowing only lampshaded examples will remove this uncertainty. But it will also discount works using this concept more subtly.

If we make this trope YMMV, we can still keep the general idea of the misuse, while not removing any context by limiting it to in-universe examples only, or by forcing a third party to be present for the trope to make sense. At least that's my perspective.

I just question what's the scope of the YMMV trope would be. If all sides are intentionally made agreeable, like in Grey-and-Gray Morality, then viewers agreeing with them is not a trope. If the work has one side more unsympathetic, then audience agreeing with both sides would be Strawman Has a Point (also YMMV) or Informed Wrongness against the lighter side.

I share dust's and eerock's concerned

I wonder if the misuse (no in-universe acknowledgement) stems from an assumption that the majority of media is black-and-white or has a side making bad arguments, and therefore media that avoids it is notable and examples important to point out. So, use of this trope has decayed into viewer analysis, which doesn't occur in the work.

I think keeping the in-universe requirement should not be that difficult. It could be the third group eventually getting pegged as enemies of both for agonizing over both sides' arguments. Or an organization making small concessions but avoiding addressing either side's main point because its members are split on the same issue. There are subtler ways of the neutral party acknowledging this than word-for-word saying both sides have a point.

I suppose making this YMMV and removing the requirement for a third party would be an option (examples that feature a third party would be marked as in-universe), along with my suggestion of keeping the requirement for there to be a third party and making this IUEO to further enforce the requirement for a third party to be present.

I think renaming would only be necessary with the IUEO option, but not the YMMV option.

As for what I think, I'd still prefer making this IUEO and keeping the requirement for there to be a third-party observer, instead of making it YMMV and allowing viewer interpretations.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Jun 22nd 2022 at 5:12:39 AM

"A character acknowledges that they can see both sides of the argument" is definitely a trope, and one we should keep in one form or another.

We could split off the audience reaction, in principle, but "the conflict is not completely one-sided" doesn't really feel like a trope.

I could see it as a subversion of expectations where it looks like the conflict is black and white and then we learn more about the other side, but that might already be a trope.

That's a good point regarding what making this YMMV would result in. I'm going to stick to preferring making this IUEO and renaming.

I was thinking something like You Both Have A Point but that's probably too phrase-y?

If we make this IUEO, it wouldn't have any advantage over the current name anyway unless we added a word like "Remark" or "Comment" to the name to indicate that it's an in-universe comment from a third party. That, and if we make this YMMV and take away the requirement for a third party to comment on the situation, there probably wouldn't be any need to rename it at all.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Jun 22nd 2022 at 12:23:28 PM

I don't think we need to make this YMMV if we remove the third-party requirement. As long as the description makes clear that this trope is in play when the work portrays two sides as having a point, we don't have to worry about this being used for troper's to pontificate on their own opinion. I think the Wick Check backs me up on this, since the only example I noticed where the work is blatantly unsympathetic to a character's arguments are the Jungle Book example.

If we made this YMMV, what would be the difference between it and Strawman Has a Point?

^ That seems like an unintentional version of the concept.

What about reframing it around the execution of the argument with a name like Equal Sided Argument? I guess that'd still risk meta examples though...

Well, first we want to see whether we want to allow meta examples (with or without making it YMMV) or make it IUEO while requiring a neutral third party to comment on the situation. We could use that name if we remove the requirement for there to be a third party commenting on the two sides.

Would either side making a remark count the same as a third party comment?