Discussion YMMV / HomePage

This belongs in the Trope Repair Shop.

That said, your reasoning is... weak, to say the least. "I didn't feel the chemistry" is just as bad as a shipper saying "I totally saw the chemistry." Author intent in these cases are usually pretty obvious.

As you say, though I disagree that intent is usually pretty obvious. Does the fact that people can disagree the intent is there not make it subjective? I will give it more thought, however.

They have it: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnresolvedSexualTension?from=Main.UST

Ho Yay and Les Yay are actually about non-canon fan feelings.

When you are on the page Namespace.Insert Name Of The Work Here, you edit YMMV.Insert Name Of The Work Here or Trivia.Insert Name Of The Work Here.

Like a copy-paste deal?

Yes.

Because very few (if any) of them have Word of God confirmation, so anyone can add whatever crazy comparisons that they want. Half the time it feels like they're Complaining About Shows You Dont Like. I don't know, maybe it's more Trope Decay than YMMV.

Same reason Complete Monster its direct opposite is here.

It seems the current definition of YMMV is too broad, it doesn't account for certain things, such as Draco in Leather Pants syndrome chewing away at work's Complete Monster, or Game-Breaker now being considered subjective for some silly reason.

Take Complete Monster for example, the trope itself is about something that is defined as not having any variation, almost an objective standard of evil.

That is to say, a Complete Monster has no redeeming features.

The problem in this case however is Draco in Leather Pants syndrome, IE somebody finds this horrible, horrible monstrous bastard appealing. But not all examples of Complete Monsters are DLI Ps too. FFVII is flamewar waiting to happen over the antagonists for that one, on the other hand, reading the obscure Polity novels which have several C Ms, its clear none of them are capable of DILP status, and yet they're on a YMMV tab because all of CM is now YMMV. Putting them in YMMV cheapens just how bad these characters are, anyone browsing the article will see it and simple assume its a matter of how much a troper sympathised with them.

Gamebreaker is another example where a broad YMMV definition falls down. Yes some things can't be agreed upon as to whether they're GB or not, especially in competitive multiplayer, but isn't that what the Metagame exists for? The metagame is where this "debate" takes place, making GB status a temporary position elected by a community in the case of G Bs that fit to the YMMV example, 40k for example is a veritable s***storm of subjective gamebreakers because the community can't really agree on much and the metagame can shift dramatically after a single tournament.

Gamebreakers can't be measured on an objective scale, but you can't say that therefore there can only be subjective gamebreakers: the Black Lotus card or any of the Power Nine in Magic: The Gathering are nowhere near subjective, they're universally accepted as gamebreakers by everyone.

Applying YMMV for gamebreakers seems like a poor generalised authoritarian approach when compared to simply splitting gamebreakers into the following categories:

• Hard examples that are mechanically broken in a favourable way (Magic's Power Nine, Pun-Pun),
• Democratic examples that are of a gamebreaker based on community/Metagame perceptions of power rather than mechanical effects that will lead to examples being relevant for a given period of time until a paradigm shift comes along in the relevant work (40k army lists and perceived Codex power tiers, M:tG in general due to its sheer complexity) EDIT: Democratic also conveniently covers anything that is debatable in its status as a gamebreaker.
• Meta-Exploitive examples which are gamebreakers based on exploiting an aspect of the metagame/community that is contrary to existing views that may or may not have a resulted in an existent Democratic example dominating the competitive field (Anti-Latest Cheese/Codex lists in 40k, the AI built fleet that won the 3 Trillion Credit Challenge).

The last one is harder to find examples of as it is rare by definition of going against an entire community, and maybe even the creator's, definition of powerful.

Good luck objectively determining whether or not a reaction occurred, and how prevalent it is among the viewers.

Whether a character has Alternative Character Interpretation is an opinion held by the viewer. He or she views a character different then the author intended.

Also, this fits better in the forums, where more people will see it.

Also, not everyone in the audience reacts the same way to the same things.

^^ "He or she views a character"=objective, "different than the author intended"=objective. Also, What do you mean by "Good luck objectively determining whether or not a reaction occurred"? And what does it matter how prevalent it is? If a reaction occurs, a reaction occurs. If it doesn't, it doesn't.

^ So? I might have a different reaction to a scene than someone else does, but I can't argue that because I didn't have the same reaction, that their reaction didn't occur.

You seem to think that YMMV pages are only about subjective tropes you may not agree are in the work. It's also about instances where the audience's mileage varied.

Alternative Character Interpretation is an opinion held by the viewer, and you may not agree with the particular interpretation.

Please read under the second bold line on the article.

So you didn't even read the page?

Example — Everybody who doesn't like the work have gotten together, formed a Hatedom and as such share a certain view of the work. As sure as the Sun will rise tomorrow, there will also be a Fandom and there will be wars and rumors of wars. These wars are stories of a sort, they are constructed from tropes like Revenge Fics, Fan Fics, trolling ... the list is pretty long.

Also, it only takes one extra click to access the YMMV page - don't assume that Viewers Are Morons and need it on main. Stuff marked as Trivia gets moved, do we "discriminate" against those as well?

Evidently the fans and the haters enjoy these battles. Okay. Best of luck to them. The point is that there is no accounting for taste. Tropes about this kind of story, though, don't go in a work's page; that is a place for storytelling tropes. Audience Reactions are a part of the conflict, not the story the conflict is about.

And the message that shows up when editing a page is useful for knowing what needs to be moved, and for giving a hint to causal editors about what goes where. I facepalm when a page has a ton of YMM Vs and someone adds another.

Moleman, I seem to recall you being banned from the site before for attempting to rail against YMMV policy. Did you forget you were told before you were on your last chance? I'm not a mod, but I highly recommend you delete this post and apologise profusely for it as quick as you possibly can.

I also demand...

Oh, well if Moleman9000 demands it! Seriously, who died and made you king? How do you go around deleting stuff unilaterally without discussing it first?

@Ghilz The only reason I'm using that kind of assertive language is because the people enforcing this controversial policy are doing just the same thing by demanding everyone follow it and trying to force editors to go along with it. I'm not saying I'm the "King" here, but I do think that someone else thinks they are.

Moleman, I think you better stop. You might get banned permanently...

He's had, what? Three bans this year alone?

Saw him complaining in the Flame Bait discussion page as well.

The Examples section is only for in-universe examples, but the actual trope applies to out-of-universe examples as well.

People can cry at things that weren't engineered to induce tears. If they do, it's still a legitimate Tear Jerker scene for them whether it was deliberate or not.

But what if someone felt something was a Tear Jerker while someone else thought it was Narmy, or otherwise a failed attempt to induce tears?

These are still subjectives, as those two are about opinion values about characters. Even if the Scrappy has a hatedom, it doesn't mean that every people hates him/her. Ditto for the Darkhorse, it doesn't mean that the entirety of the fandom likes him/her.

Also, popular where? What if everyone on one fan forum hate the character and everyone on another fan forum love her? And what if one fan forum where 90% of the posts are hatedom against her actually have five spammy loudmouths who hate her and hundreds of timid fans who love her but got silenced by Chewbacca Defense and similar a long time ago? :-)

Here's the thing: characters can fall under both favored (i. e. Ensemble Dark Horse, Draco in Leather Pants, etc.) and unfavored (i. e. The Scrappy, The Wesley, Ron the Death Eater, etc.) fandom tropes. Or more succinctly, they are Base Breakers.

So, every character in a given series is a Base Breaker?

Potentially, yes. :-)

I don't see how that would make it a matter of opinion. The Scrappy doesn't mean "a character that everyone hates", it means "a character with a Hatedom." Likewise, Ensemble Dark Horse doesn't mean "a character who everybody likes", it means "a minor character who becomes very popular, or a character intended to be minor who ends up becoming a major character." Even if a minor character has a massive fandom and a massive hatedom, so? Then they are both tropes. That doesn't make either one a matter of opinion.

Thing is, they aren't actually in the work, so they go on the subjective page. Personally, I think Audience Reactions should get their own tab, but that's a different topic.

It's likely due to the existence of Draco in Leather Pants. Some people are just into that kind of thing.

Additionally, people often disagree on whether the character's acts are truly unforgivable or just ordinary everyday villainy.

It's DILP syndrome all the way. Just try telling fans of a certain JRPG that the bad guys are evil. Their record for removing any such edits is twenty-two minutes. Heck, Hojo gets this treatment. And there are many pages just like it.

Because whether or not someone is redeemable is subjective, as is whether an excuse is adequate.

It's just temporary due to misuse. See the TRS thread.

What does TRS mean again?

Never mind.

Trope Repair Shop.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

Total disagreement here. The decay things call for a judgment of 'decay.' The other two are opinions, as well.

Additionally, most of the time you'll see those on a page, it's not someone trying to catalogue the tropes as much as it's someone trying to say, "This show sucked because..."

I'm curious... why Hey Its That Guy and Hey Its That Voice are in this list?

I think the idea now is that they go on the Trivia tab, rather than the main page. They can probably come off of here, since they have been marked for Trivia banners.

^ Done.

My concern is, why those two tropes? I don't think those two tropes I've mentioned can be subjective ones, since they rely more on recognization (it's in the name!) rather than value judgement. If those tropes were about good or bad acting, well, I agree, but those aren't the cases AFAIK.

Ok,ok. I understood why you want them outside the main page. Sorry by have removed them. But i yet am curious: why Ass Pull and Character Derailment are opinions?

Sometimes someone will see something as Character Derailment that someone else sees as Character Development, or even, no change at all. Other times it's more apparent than that, but there are occasions where one interpretation of a characters' motives are consistent and another is inconsistent.

As for Ass Pull, maybe people think that it means "plot point done badly" instead of "plot point done quickly without any buildup" and are being offended that Their Show has it listed.

... Ass Pull is listed as subjective because suffered Trope Decay?... Thanks.

Character Derailment is now listed as Flame Bait.

Just us the in-universe or [[invoked]] tag.

Pot Hole to In-Universe or use [invoked].

It's [[invoked]].

Shouldn't Discussed and Conversed tropes also be given passes since like invoked they are In-universe examples of tropes?

Yup, just use one of the tags anyway.

Adding the text "in-universe", or potholing to "Invoked" (no quotes) gets rid of the YMMV warning you know.

I did not know that. Was that All There in the Manual?

Yup, on What Goes Where on the Wiki, under "Exceptions".

You can put an [[invoked]] in the in-universe example, and the whole "YMMV markup" won't mark that example up.

Narm is subjective - it's on Darth Wiki.

Then, Narm Charm should be moved to Sugar Wiki?

Some car commercials tend to say "your mileage may vary." It's become internet slang for stuff that people may disagree about.

I think it's legal jargon that they're required to use when a car company, tire company, whatever, makes a claim about how many miles per gallon you'll get with their product. They got a good number while testing their product that they'd like to trumpet, but they know you're likely to get less in the not-so-ideal conditions of the real world, and would prefer not to get nasty letters about it.

I guess the point with these subjectives is that they attract too much natter and "This Troper" statements than many other non-subjective tropes.

There's also the matter of Edit Wars and the risk of disgusting readers who don't agree with whatever troper made the subjective statement.

LOL, I remember one time when I visited a fan forum for Buffy The Vampire Slayer. Some idiots was ranting about how much they hated one character I liked. I never replied, I simply un-bookmarked the site and quickly forgot it's name. Good riddance.

Ah well, sooner or later every trope will end up on the YMMV page for any given work. And then we'll be back where we started and have to come up with some new and interesting way to point out that people have differing opinions.

Slippery Slope Fallacy much? The site isn't about opinions anyways.

Because the new super-subjective YMMV is dogpants idiotic.

^You know, you should have checked the pages before complaining about YMMV - they're both limited to in-universe examples, and lack a banner.

The deleted "comment" wasn't constructive criticism so much as a overly loquacious and whiny bitchfest about how this site is apparently "transforming into Wikipedia". As for the edit ban, try discussing it here. Oh, and don't be a jerk about it; the ban will be permanent if you do~!

1. We have an anti-Natter policy here; it makes the page look schizophrenic when it starts having a conversation with itself. These tropes also attract a bunch of other undesirable things, like edit wars, This Troper statements, justifying edits; basically everything about entries that we don't like tends to crop up when it's a matter of opinion whether or not a trope applies.

2. We do delete natter, but this is a preventive measure rather than a reactive one. It is not expected to get rid of it 100%, but nothing will; this makes the main page a lot easier to keep clean and puts all the natter-bait stuff together so one can keep an eye on it all at once.

Beyond this, about 1, the pages have one limit of characters. Beyond this, the page needs be cut in pieces. This is one excelent motive to not want natter.

I don't know about a ban, but regardless, the person who cut listed this is going to need a better reason than "It just sucks" to get something like this cut.

I don't know about a ban, but regardless, the person who cut listed this is going to need a better reason than "It just sucks" to get something like this cut.

"It just sucks"... Sounds like whine.

Read the page, it says this.

A term for a plot that hangs together only because the main characters behave like idiots.

1. It's still natterbait and a complaint fest. 2. Read the examples. Lots of "why didn't the heroes do X?" And lots of responding.

Put it back as per above.

Fast Eddie thought that this solution might confuse people, so I just started a new trope on YKTTW instead: Value Judgement, a trope about characters invoking YMMV tropes.

Memetic Mutation is not at all subjective. It's something that describes a subjective interpretation of a work, but that's about it. That also means that the other Memetic tropes don't belong here either.

"It's something that describes a subjective interpretation of a work," you want say as one Audience Reaction?

YMMV is for tropes that are present in the work, but it's not objectively clear whether, how, and to what extent. Audience Reactions don't appear within the work at all; they deal with the way audiences react to the work. Memetic Mutation falls into the latter category (where it is currently indexed) but not the former.

The trope description used to rad that the relationship is bad but the author doesn't know it. In other words, it was a trope for Complaining About Shows You Dont Like. I toned this down a while ago, but the trope is still a grey YMMV area between more objective tropes.

Short answer, yes, as they're no longer technically tropes.

It's not on the actual index, so I wouldn't worry too much about it. Likely it was due to Badass Decay being listed and the entire Badass index got marked up.

I guess that the problem is in this paragraph: "Another big problem is that in multiplayer games, where people actually care about what other people do on their games, players will often not agree what is game breaking and what isn't. Heated debates (or worse) will spread like wildfire on the Internet, or even around the house. It's obvious that the extremes of the Munchkin or the Scrub are wrong. However, there are techniques whose power is hard or even impossible to call. Nor is banning glitches and "unintentional" moves an easy solution either; sometimes it can be hard to tell whether something is a glitch or not, sometimes a glitch happens so often that you'd have to go out of your way to have it not happen, and other times it can be argued that a glitch adds more depth to a game rather than less."

IMHO it depends on context.

Speaking of context, ANY subjective trope is totally valid as an example when it's actively used by a character who for example is the audience of a Show Within a Show.

Well, i questioned this because of one discussion in the Pokemon generation III characters page. Here are the uses of subjective tropes : In Nincada/Ninjask/Shedinja:

• Your Soul Is Mine!: Looking into the hole on Shedinja's back is said to cause it to steal your soul. Guess what you will look at constantly if you use one.

• You Fail Biology Forever: So, Game Freak, how exactly does a 14.5 meter long whale weigh 400 kilograms!?
  • Fridge Brilliance kicks in when you consider Wailord is a "Float Whale" Pokémon. It's based on a blimp, while Wailmer is a beach ball. Doesn't explain how Wailord is less dense that hydrogen, but oh well...

• Implacable Pokemon: Cacturne form packs to stalk travelers through deserts, waiting for said travelers to become too tired to move. The Cacturne then beat the everloving crap out of said traveler, and proceed to eat their victim after beating it to a pulp.

• Enemy Mine: They are mortal enemies and have been for quite some time. Doesn't mean they can't be on the same team, fight together on a Double Battle, or even breed.

• Does This Remind You Of Anything?, Getting Crap Past the Radar, and Freud Was Right: Those things hanging off Castform in its normal state are either breasts or testicles. Either way, it's not something you'd expect to see on what's supposedly a kid's video game.
  • Fridge Brilliance kicks in when you realize It's based on a teru teru bozu, so it's supposed to be shaped like that. Still looks rather naughty to those unfamiliar with Japanese culture, though.

By the context, said links are valid?

CMOA has it's own page.

YMMV Index

Whoops, didn't see that. Thanks.