Diagonalizing The Matrix
Honestly, I don't know, but the whole point of crowners is to make people stop arguing in circles, acknowledge the objective picture of what options have what extent of support and act on that basis. The option to argue that a crowner DOESN'T COUNT really defeats the purpose of having one in the first place. If there's something you think should be done and isn't an option, add it in.
edited 1st Sep '10 5:12:43 AM by TripleElation
Pretentious quote || In-joke from fandom you've never heard of || Shameless self-promotion || Something weird you'll habituate to
Does that even count as a consensus? At the moment...:
83% of the positive votes went to "do something", and 17% for "do nothing". Therefore, we have a consensus to do something.
80% of those do something votes went for some form of split, and only 20% for scrapping one of the tropes, therefore we should split.
75% of the positive split option votes went for a specific form of split, therefore we should do that. (though, as I noted, the two can be practically combined)
It's not like a single proposition crowner, where even if a single option has 65% votes, it automatically means that everyone else is completely against it, so we should err on the side of caution.
The overwhelming majority of these votes went for pretty similar actions, so it is better to go through with the most popular one, than to do nothing and thus follow the least popular one just because we don't have full consensus on some technical details of what to do.
edited 1st Sep '10 5:38:17 AM by Superior
De gustibus non est disputandum.
The Other Troper
"The option to argue that a crowner DOESN'T COUNT really defeats the purpose of having one in the first place."
I'm arguing that it doesn't count because it's in favor of splitting things that aren't part of the trope in the first place. They might look like it, but they are still separate tropes.
If something isn't there in the first place, it cannot be split.
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.
DBZ, the thing you're describing is a) not a trope, b) not something found in either the description or the examples of the trope page. That's why we're ignoring you.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
The Other Troper
1. That doesn't make parts that are not in the trope, suddenly in the trope. They are still not there, and your comment has not proven they are.
2. Bull.
"The character cannot be fully diagnosed until he or she is copied enough that the type they embody gets subverted or parodied as a type."
Now that could be worded better, and the whole description should be, but that is in the description.
And how is that not a trope? How is a writer consciously choosing to mock in a work that people want to copy a character a lot not a trope?
edited 1st Sep '10 6:29:09 AM by DragonQuestZ
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.
^ Does it have any examples? The current examples on the Overused Copycat Character page all clearly fit into one of the two split suggestions.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
That line is most likely an artifact for when this was specific to Tabletop RPG, Drizzt, former Trope Namer, had gotten to such a point of overuse that some decided to take it a step further, either subverting the expectations of such a character or bringing it to the level of parody.
edited 1st Sep '10 6:41:44 AM by Twilightdusk
The Other Troper
Well, as noted, if there isn't the "make fun of the overuse part", it's basically The Same But More of Captain Ersatz or Expy. So there has to be some kind of differentiation.
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.
^ Just because a trope can be described as "like x, but more y", it doesn't necessarily have the problems that are noted on The Same But More page.
Thirty Xanatos Pileup, Chekhov's Armoury, The Ditz, and many others could be described as the exaggerated use of another trope, but they are still legit. (the former two are settings that are practically defined by their frequent usage of a trope, as opposed to "once, this trope happened", and the latter is usually used in a different, unrealistic cartoonish context, while The Ditz can be a realistic stupid person.
"This character is an expy" vs. "This character has many expies" are different tropes. For one thing, they are about two different parts of a relationship. Second, "a writer once wanted to pay homage to another random character" is different from "this famous character is notably influential as a source of expies in the whole genre"
De gustibus non est disputandum.
The Other Troper
Well even then, this still is about the copycats turning into a joke. And the description should be fixed at the very least.
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.
The description isn't getting fixed because this is going to be split into its two parts, which will help clear it up.
The Other Troper
No, the description needs to be fixed to make it clear it's already distinct from those. That's why the split is redundant. This is not merely a character that gets copied a lot, so that the ykttw is already a separate trope, nor is this merely about gamers who like to copy a character. This is when a character is copied enough that works make fun of the fact that the character is copied a lot.
The inspirations for the trope were from a demotivator making fun of Drizzt being played a lot, and Order Of The Stick poking fun at the same thing. Those were not Drizzt being used a lot, but specifically making fun of him being used a lot. Here's the original ykttw.
"When a character is Expied enough by fans and other works it becomes almost a joke."
So this is, and always was, a separate trope from both things on the crowner.
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.
DQZ, the whole point of this thread it someone (two people, now) pointed that Superior's proposal of a new trope was Overused Copycat Character. The thing, Overused Copycat Character is too much 'negative' and focused on mockery while Fountain of Expies is more neutral. It seem you disagree that Superior's YKTTW is already covered Drizzt Syndrome but not every one thing that way. The crowner was made to split the Fountain of Expies from Overused Copycat Character.
The Other Troper
The thing is that you don't need to vote on a split if everyone agrees it's separate. Then the split technically has already happened.
As for the apparent negative tone, that can just be fixed in the description.
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.
^ But not everyone agree it is separated. That why this thread is created in the first place, someone pointed out on the YKTTW that the Trope already existed (and then someone pointed it again recently). If I understood correctly, most think both tropes are currently covered by Overused Copycat Character but it shouldn't be. Hence the 'split'.
Anyway, there is little point in this discussion right? Most, you included, agree Overused Copycat Character and Fountain of Expies are different right? So, regardless if you call it a 'slip' or a 'fix', the fact is a new trope will be created and the current one will be repaired.
The Other Troper
Then the crowner really is redundant. That was what I was trying to get at.
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.
No, as it proved that an action was needed and that most agree the two tropes are not the same.
The Other Troper
Crowners measure approval, not need. Because quite often the two don't mesh. The fact that there was such confusion over the trope proved the need, not the crowner.
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.
But before the crowner it was unclear people thought it was two separated Tropes. You say they obviously are, but at last two people didn't thought so.
But, eh, the crowner was already made and it already reached a conclusion. Can we move on?
The Other Troper
The crowner is to decide actions after we are clear on what needs to be done. The decision for the crowner was made without real discussion.
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.
People not agreeing with you does not mean there wasn't discussion.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
The Other Troper
No, not even responding to me until about this page was what you did (I wrote acknowledge, not "agree"), and just claiming I was wrong is not a justification for that, since you still should have done that earlier, and then given me a fair chance to prove my case earlier.
edited 1st Sep '10 1:34:29 PM by DragonQuestZ
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.
The current top choice may be getting votes from those who just want something more akin to the original Drizzt Syndrome and the fanfic behaviour that it was originally launched upon. If something is in YKTTW at the moment, then let it go through actually proving itself while people may feel content with calling a recognisable fan issue as just a fan issue.
The Other Troper
I'm not against those. I'm against acting as though that's split off from this, when you can see from the ykttw that it was always distinct. As in that was not what the original drizzt syndrome was about. The crowner should not be used to justify Square Peg Round Trope. It should be used to solve those.
Splitting off something that was never there does not solve it. Making a whole new trope for what they thought it was would solve it.
edited 1st Sep '10 1:53:00 PM by DragonQuestZ
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.
Crown Description:
What would be the best way to fix the page?
Why is no one at least acknowledging my insistence that this trope is not what they thing it is?
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.