Remove ads

RWBY Thread III: Time To Say Goodbye

Reader mode
Stop: So gotta few things that need to be said real quick.
  • Staff Post
    • so gotta few things that need to be said real quick.
    We get a lot of reports from this thread. A lot of it is just a series of people yelling at each other over arguments that have been rehashed hundreds of times since the end of the recent Volume. And I get that the last Volume - and RWBY in general, really - has some controversial moments that people will want to discuss, argue about, debate, etc.

    That's fine. We're not going to stop people from doing that, because that's literally what the point of the thread is. However, there's just a point where it gets to be a bit too much, and arguments about whether or not Ironwood was morally justified in his actions in the recent Volume, or if RWBY and her team were in the right for withholding information from Ironwood out of distrust, or whatever flavor of argument of the day descend into insulting other posters, expressing a demeaning attitude towards other's opinions, and just being overall unpleasant. That tends to happen a lot in this thread. We want it to stop happening in this thread.

    So! As of now the thread is in a higher state of moderation. What that means is that any future infractions will result in a weeklong boot from the thread, and repeated offenders will likely be permanently removed. So please, everyone endeavor to actually respect the other's arguments, and even if you strongly disagree with them please stay civil and mindful when it comes to responding to others.

    In addition, users should refrain from talking about off-site users in the thread. Bear in mind that this does not mean that you cannot continue to post tumblr posts, for example, that add onto the discussion in the thread, with the caveat that it's related to RWBY of course. But any objections to offsite users in the thread should be handled via PM, or they'll be treated as thread violations and infracted as such.
     
    Last edited:
  • Staff Post
    • Stop: Stop
  • Staff Post
    • stop Hello all. Just be here for a moment.

    @Mook You are getting a staff notice under rules 3: Be Civil and rule 4: Don't be disruptive for this post:
    Mook said:
    Check out his posting history in this and other RWBY threads with Sun, Blake or Black Sun as search words and you'll see what I mean. Or notice how every time he talks about how awful shippers are he never talks about the other big main character ship Whiterose (which seems far less likely to become canon), or inherently toxic ships like Tauradonna or whatever OzpinxRuby is called. For some mysterious reason its always the ship that's the main competition to his own preferred ship.

    I just find it funny how he talks about how people who say their ship will be canon are awful while saying that his own unconfirmed ship is absolutely 100% canon while anyone disagreeing with him is delusional.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Which is trying to bait out another poster and antagonize them.

    @hellgodsrus for the post below you are getting an infraction and 25 points under Rule 4: Don't be disruptive, for antagonizing and sniping at another poster and 25 points under Rule 5: Don't make our jobs more difficult by challenging previous mod decisions in the thread they were made.
    hellgodsrus said:
    Again, Mook. You forget. If he does it, it's okay. If anyone who likes RWBY does anything, it is a sign of their evil and bias, and how they're being meaaaan to him.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Take a three day vacation from this thread.

    @Slater this post below is a wonderful example of the trend I see in this thread of essentially ostracizing people who hold annoying views or are otherwise counter to whatever opinion people support, be it their own or the general thread opinions.
    Slater said:
    See, now you just lying. You said "and likewise is contradicted by them never really fighting any giant enemies." But your doing just what I said you do, deflecting the topic so you don't have to admit your wrong by retroactively claiming you meant something else.

    Also the Nevermore was not an effortless kill at all, the entire point of that fight is its the first time in the show something is tough enough that the girls need to team up to deal with it.

    As for Ren and Nora dismissing her well....

    Nora: We... heard what you said to Cinder, at Haven. You're not being fair to yourself. We love you, just like we loved Pyrrha. We're teammates, family.

    Ren: We don't want to lose you too.

    or

    Nora: Pyrrha may not be by our side anymore, but we can fight like she is.

    Thats not a dismissal, at all.

    And you also clearly forget Pyrrha being brought up by Ruby in her conversation with Oscar last volume, mentions how she misses her and Penny. Ring any bells? No? lol.

    I could go on, but I'm sure everyone gets the jist.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    You're getting 25 points and a three day thread ban under Rule 3: Be Civil.

    Everyone else have a nice week!
     
  • Staff Post
    • So I just realized that while there is not one single RWBY character who could be called a mary sue/gary stu (though there are a whole bunch who could easily become such with like one or two changes in portrayal or role in the story) most of the main cast has major mary sue traits:

    Ruby has no flaws in universe and doesn't pay for the consequences of her actions ever. (Trying to talk down Raven, jumping into the Tyrian fight despite being proven outmatched, racing off to go stop the airships solo, racing off to go fight a maiden solo, etc.)

    Blake is ridiculously beloved by everyone (3 love interests in a show where most people have 0-1, (even if it's only two she still has notably more than anyone else), team doesn't give a shit she abandoned them, etc.)

    Weiss is breathtakingly overpowered, but saved by being a gigantic screw-up and a jobber in a fight, just like Gohan actually. (She literally has two semblances stuck together, her semblance is so versatile it's useful in every situation, and she still has a lot of room for improvement considering winter can summon hordes, contrast that with anyone else.)

    It's just something fun and interesting to think about.
     
    Last edited:
    Ohohoho!

    Apparently this was from some twitter thing:




    I've had a strong suspicion that Winter will return this volume, but only at the very end to pick everyone up and bring them to Atlas. The odds of that happening seem to be increasing.
     
    I know that Commander Whatsherface is supposed to be all racist and stuff but it would be funny if after they defeat her and call her out on her racism,, she reveals that she was actually talking about Yang and how she crippled a defeated opponent on live TV in front of the entire world
     
    @devilkingx2
    Dude, at this point, I've kinda given up trying to find a more complex and impersonal definition of "Mary Sue", since it ultimately just comes down to audience taste at the end of the day. It's probably just best to go with using either "character that the showrunners like but I hate" or "character I really, really wish would just GO AWAY ALREADY" from now on, since those are both decent enough personal definitions for using the label on Cinder and Jaune.
     
    Last edited:
    Delphisage said:
    @devilkingx2
    Dude, at this point, I've kinda given up trying to find a more complex and impersonal definition of "Mary Sue", since it ultimately just comes down to audience taste at the end of the day. It's probably just best to go with using either "character that the showrunners like but I hate" or "character I really, really wish would just GO AWAY ALREADY" from now on, since those are both decent enough personal definitions for using the label on Cinder and Jaune.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    True. Which is why before calling someone a Mary Sue you have to give your own personal definition of the term. For example, my personal definition of Mary Sue is a character that is served by the plot, instead of serving the plot. With that definition, you could easily make the case that Ruby is a Mary Sue.
     
    thesevenwielder said:
    True. Which is why before calling someone a Mary Sue you have to give your own personal definition of the term. For example, my personal definition of Mary Sue is a character that is served by the plot, instead of serving the plot. With that definition, you could easily make the case that Ruby is a Mary Sue.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Cut that out, Korval. If you use that definition, you're gonna end up fitting every fictional protagonist ever into that definition.
     
    thesevenwielder said:
    True. Which is why before calling someone a Mary Sue you have to give your own personal definition of the term. For example, my personal definition of Mary Sue is a character that is served by the plot, instead of serving the plot. With that definition, you could easily make the case that Ruby is a Mary Sue.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    This relies on an assumption that characterisation and plot are not ultimately two aspects of the same thing.

    If the plot doesnt seem to have reasonable justification for what's happening beyond it aligning with a characrer's goals then that's poorly written plot. Vice versa if a character doesnt have reasonable justification for their actions then it's poor characterisation.

    However this does not mean that a plot/characterisatio where bad and stupid things happen or are done is automatically bad and or stupid. Characters and the world are under no obligation to act "optimally".
     
    thesevenwielder said:
    True. Which is why before calling someone a Mary Sue you have to give your own personal definition of the term. For example, my personal definition of Mary Sue is a character that is served by the plot, instead of serving the plot. With that definition, you could easily make the case that Ruby is a Mary Sue.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    In that case I could say that my personal definition of a Mary Sue is a character that has tattoos, therefore Drax the Destroyer from Guardians of the Galaxy is a Mary Sue, and that would be completely correct. If you're just going to make up your own personal definitions of a insulting term just so that you can use that term to describe a character you don't like (or that you're making a point with) then the term ceases to have any meaning.
     
    Mook said:
    In that case I could say that my personal definition of a Mary Sue is a character that has tattoos, therefore Drax the Destroyer from Guardians of the Galaxy is a Mary Sue, and that would be completely correct. If you're just going to make up your own personal definitions of a insulting term just so that you can use that term to describe a character you don't like (or that you're making a point with) then the term ceases to have any meaning.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    What about my definition, where I admit it's a subjective label based on personal attitude?
     
    Delphisage said:
    @devilkingx2
    Dude, at this point, I've kinda given up trying to find a more complex and impersonal definition of "Mary Sue", since it ultimately just comes down to audience taste at the end of the day. It's probably just best to go with using either "character that the showrunners like but I hate" or "character I really, really wish would just GO AWAY ALREADY" from now on, since those are both decent enough personal definitions for using the label on Cinder and Jaune.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Everyone knows a mary sue when they see one

    The trick is understanding that the traits of a a mary sue does not define them, the definition is complex and hard to word (best one I found was something around the lines of "a character that the show is written around, to the detriment of the show")

    But the idea is that having XYZ sue traits doesn't make someone a sue til it starts to actively screw up the show or til they start piling up.

    thesevenwielder said:
    True. Which is why before calling someone a Mary Sue you have to give your own personal definition of the term. For example, my personal definition of Mary Sue is a character that is served by the plot, instead of serving the plot. With that definition, you could easily make the case that Ruby is a Mary Sue.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    The thing about that is Ruby isn't important enough to be a mary sue, she's barely relevant most of the time.

    The reason this matters is that Mary Sue isn't supposed to apply to barely relevant side characters.

    Now, if she destroys atlas millitary property and/or kills atlas personnel and has no reasonable in universe excuse for any of this but gets off scott free, that would be very mary sue of her. (One shotting cinder and the dragon was 100% mary sue)

    Delphisage said:
    Cut that out, Korval. If you use that definition, you're gonna end up fitting every fictional protagonist ever into that definition.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Yeah That's a common problem people have, to some extent the story is supposed to revolve around the main character and they're supposed to be special/amazing so you have to be careful when accusing protagonists

    Keyword: to some extent.

    I outright don't think it's possible for a video game protagonist to be a mary sue though, by the very nature of the medium if the main character isn't the center of the universe that would be a detriment to the game.

    thesevenwielder said:
    No idea what that means. Maybe try to make an actual argument instead of relying on obscure references as insults.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Korval is a guy who did an episode by episode review of avatar the last airbender in a TV tropes blog

    He had a lot of insightful criticism (toph becomes nothing but a blind snarky earthbender rather than a 3D character, she gets little focus, little development, no episodes focused on her, no final boss or rival, no zuko adventure, etc.)

    But a lot of it (most of it) was nitpicking and bad taste. Like complaining about every single joke in the series ruining tension or wasting time.

    One of the comments was like "nobody would ever have enjoyed the show if Korval was right about a single thing he has said so far" which was hilarious.

    Carrnage said:
    If the plot doesnt seem to have reasonable justification for what's happening beyond it aligning with a characrer's goals then that's poorly written plot
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    What do you mean by this?
     
    Delphisage said:
    What about my definition, where I admit it's a subjective label based on personal attitude?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    It's correct I suppose? But it still highlights how useless the term has been for a long time. Mary Sue is such a overused term applied to such a huge variety of characters and has been expanded so far beyond it's original definition that by itself it means nothing. The most honest and true definition of a Mary Sue is "character that I don't like", because that's how the term is most widely used.
     
    Let's end the Mary Sue derail here. It's a term whose meaning has been debated to death and no one will ever fundamentally agree, unless you specifically want to delve into the Sue-ness of RWBY characters.
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top