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.
The title Both Sides Have a Point seems to suggest this is about a work presenting two opposing opinions/motivations with merit in each. However, if you look at the description it talks about a neutral character necessary to acknowledge/lampshade this fact. It has been like this from the get go
.
The Wick Check reveals that only 5 examples (10%) adhere to this strict definition. I attribute the misuse of 90% to the fact that none of the other X Has A Point tropes require a third party to acknowledge the validity of a character's opinion. In this sense, the trope sticks out like a sore thumb.
Then again, someone having a valid reason for their actions (from a certain point of view anyway) is almost a given and this creating a conflict with someone else's valid opinion is likely to occur in a work. So the question is how much tangibility we require for this "conflict of valid opinions".
The two obvious courses of action:
- Keep current definition and curb misuse (hoping that enough examples remain). Possibly rename to clarify.
- Losen up on the definition and allow the audience to decide if the trope is in play
Note that we had a similar issue with Not So Different where the decision was made to keep the definition and change the name to "Not So Different" Remark in order to clarify the narrower meaning.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Oct 1st 2022 at 2:42:18 PM
The Man Outside Reality
I still think making this trope YMMV would be the best option, since the third party requirement just...doesn't show up so much anymore in-universe, at least in the fictional works I'm reading. Plus, I like the scope that the audience gets to cover if it becomes YMMV, as there may be people who point things out that nobody in the work acknowledges that other viewers might not have picked up on.
Trust no one.
Just stoic wisdom.
You could have a second, corresponding trope that operates the same as this but for YMMV audience reactions?
Vehicle-Based Characterization | Grief-Induced Split | Locker Mail
The Man Outside Reality
I mean...we could, but I'm too scared to go anywhere near TLP. Hence why I'd prefer to just change this one instead.
Trust no one.
If the issues is the examples where it's given narrative weight, then it's not used as a trope then. I don't think such fits YMMV as if we're not supposed to agree or disagree then there's nothing to form an audience reaction over.
On the subject, should Jerkass Has a Point, Villain Has a Point, and such also require in-work characters acknowledge such? Or is that a later or separate debate?
The Man Outside Reality
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
I feel like if two characters are right on something, there could be a solid debate by people over which side is more "correct" than the other, which could make it a healthy YMMV trope.
Now a lurker. Thanks for everything. | he/him
If you feel it's a valid concept, and there's agreement that it is but you don't want to TLP it yourself, you could add it to the Trope Idea Salvage Yard.
I'd recommend running it through the Trope Idea Sounding Board first though.
I don't see why we would need a YMMV version of Both Sides Have a Point. We already have Strawman Has a Point.
Sounds good on paper (he/him)
Calling in favor of keeping the requirement for there to be a neutral third party commenting on both sides having a point, and making the trope In-Universe Examples Only.
Since renaming is an option with this option, let's see if we're doing that.
Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.
the Retromancer
A leftover question: if both sides mutually agree with each other, would it still be this trope?
TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup
Sounds good on paper (he/him)
The crowner was just hooked, so I added it so we can tackle that along with whether to rename. A name like Both Sides Are Valid Remark and the In-Universe Examples Only restriction could still be used if the scenario involves the two sides agreeing with each other rather than (or in addition to) a third party making the comment.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Jun 30th 2022 at 11:20:04 AM
Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.
In light of how there appears to be a lot more than 50 examples on the page (and possibly elsewhere on this site), should an additional wick check be made to account for all the other examples to be considered in this dilemma?
I'm helping!
Per How to Do a Wick Check, the target number is max(50, sqrt(total wicks)), and the square root of 1,845 is ~42.
While one certainly can check more wicks just to see what they find, the number of wicks in this case does not, by itself, require such.
Edited by wingedcatgirl on Jun 30th 2022 at 8:27:01 AM
Trouble Cube continues to be a general-purpose forum for those who desire such a thing.
Captain of USS Bajor
Would it be accurate to summarize the new definition as "Gray-and-Grey Morality is acknowledged In-Universe"?
the Retromancer
I don't think it has anything to do with morality. Just two people making conflicting arguments and the story making them equally valid, opposed to Protagonist-Centered Morality.
TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup
Captain of USS Bajor
All right. Pretty much thinking ahead to rewriting the Laconic.
Sounds good on paper (he/him)
Calling in favor of allowing instances of the opposing sides saying each other has a point, in addition to third parties commenting on it. We're keeping the name the same.
We'll need to update the description.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Jul 3rd 2022 at 11:38:49 AM
Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.
(she/her)
I moved the wick check to Sandbox.Both Sides Have A Point Wick Check to make room for Sandbox.Both Sides Have A Point.
Expanding the description should be easy if it was written normally but the Example as a Thesis is throwing me off. Should we stick with Alice and Bob or should we write a more formal description?
Macron's notes
Sounds good on paper (he/him)
I think ditching the Example as a Thesis in favor of a more formal description would be a good idea, though that could be my dislike of Example as a Thesis talking.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Aug 2nd 2022 at 11:32:16 AM
Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.
(she/her)
OK, I tried to simplify it. I am not happy with it but this is the best I can do with a sleep deprived brain.
My revision for reference:
Edited by MacronNotes on Aug 3rd 2022 at 11:25:30 AM
Macron's notes
(she/her)
Bumping for feedback on
Sounds good on paper (he/him)
It looks fine.
Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.
(she/her)
Well, I'll wait until Monday for feedback. If there aren't any objections, I'll swap the sandbox in and close.
Macron's notes
I have a question about the sandbox. It seems to have dropped the original trope and created a new one. My understanding was that the original trope would remain, but be expanded.
The original trope is that a character who is supposed to either pick a side or stay neutral refuses do either through observing that both sides have valid points. That doesn't cover how the argument might be resolved, or even if it can be. It's solely about the character who refuses to get dragged into it.
However, the expansion now allows for any character(s) who realises that each side has a point, be they neutral or on one of the involved sides. Given that the point is about the observation, there could be any possible outcome from the comment being ignored to it being a catalyst for conflict resolution. The sandbox is currently only focussing on conflict resolution as if that's the point of the trope, so I'm wondering if I've misunderstood the crowners.
Edited by Wyldchyld on Aug 7th 2022 at 5:11:40 AM
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.
(she/her)
It's not a requirement. That was what the crowner voted the expand the trope to include because originally, a third party was required. I couldn't find a better way to incorporate them both into the description. Not sure how to fix the sentence.
Edited by MacronNotes on Aug 7th 2022 at 8:03:41 AM
Macron's notes
Crown Description:
Consensus for Both Sides Have A Point was to keep the requirement for there to be a neutral third party commenting on both sides having a point, and make the trope In Universe Examples Only. Renaming to indicate that an in-universe comment is required (similarly to Not So Different being renamed to Not So Different Remark) was suggested, so should the trope be renamed? In addition, modifying the definition to allow instances of both sides agreeing with each other was suggested; this would still be classified as in-universe. Should the definition be modified that way?
^ They would have to acknowledge the validity of the opposite site's argument, I guess.
Edited by eroock on Jun 27th 2022 at 1:20:57 AM