Motion to pull, as I don't think this is a trope that can be demonstrated with an image

Seconding on both points.

Thirding a pull.

Pulled...leaning toward voting this as non-pictureable.

What's going to be done here? Is this non-pictureable?

Motion to call as non-pictureable

support.

Support.

Ludicrous, how does the image fail to demonstrate the trope?

How does it? It's just two guys in slightly different costumes standing there.

Exactly; it's a textbook JAFAAC. We need a direct lampshade to get this across, and I didn't see one in the examples.

bump. Whats going to be done?

Will it be okay if I draw up some kind of graph for this?

No arguments here.

The picture was added back to the page and I removed it and left a warning not to reinstate. If the discussion decides to reinstate just let me know OK?

Suggestion:

I'd rather see a cover for the second one.

I firmly think that, unless a suitable replacement is found 'first', there's no reason to pull a JAFAAC, especially when it, y'know, explains the trope perfectly. A lot of times the replacement pic ends up being a JAFAAC anyway, except that the Captain is now 'inside' the pic, rather than below it.

You firmly think wrong. JAFAAC are always pulled, because they DON'T explain the trope perfectly. I don't watch wrestling so I don't know who either of those people are, so the image is completely lost on me. Same for everyone else outside the fandom.

edited 14th Dec '11 9:23:09 AM by KaiserMazoku

Yeah, part of the definition of JAFAAC is "doesn't explain the trope unless you're familiar with the show".

Clock is set.

Clock's up; locking for inactivity/lack of consensus. No further action is to be taken based on this thread.