Rename: NEW CROWNER (Alt Titles 12-28-12): Asian Gal With White Guy

If the crowner were still open, I would add "Cut" as an option. There isn't a trope there; Zeal and X can each YKTTW their idea.

If everything else fails, cutting and sending back to YKTTW is the most reasonable option that remains.

However, we will still have the BIG argument regarding how to name the trope. I do NOT want an edit war.

I am strongly against the title "Me Love You Long Time", while King Zeal is strongly in favor of it (or alternatively an expy that in my opinion is almost as bad). I have suggested White Man's Asian Woman.

If we DO send this back to YKTTW without resolving the name issue first, I strongly suggest that we use a placeholder working title such as "WMAW or MLYLT". Maybe we'll be able to agree on a title. Otherwise. we'll just have to go back to TRS once launched.

At this point, I suggest we do two more crowners.

First crowner would be a single proposition crowner:

• Yes, we will accept version 10, (the mutual proposal of King Zeal AND Xzenu) and move on to the naming issue.
• No, we don't accept it. Next crowner will be on whether or not the trope should be cut.

With "at this point", I' referring to the fact that this thread has been up for months, and no one but King Zeal and me has bothered to make a draft for trope description.

If the mods think we should wait yet another week before doing the single proposition crowner, just in case someone else suddenly make a draft for description or bring something else new to the table, I'm fine with that.

And of course, if the mods want to make "version 10 versus cutting" as one crowner, I'm personally fine with that too. However, it has already been decided by mods that we will use this thread, not YKTTW, to decide the new description and title. Thus, I assume that cutting and sending back to YKTTW should be kept off the table until all other options has been exhausted. Same goes for leaving the failed trope as it is. Note that locking the thread and leaving the trope as it is is something we ALSO have an official decision against.

So the single crowner I'm proposing is really "have we solved this issue so we can move on? Or shall we declare failure?"

Edit: If it DO get sent back to YKTTW, the working title should be ""WMAW or MLYLT (needs better title)". For clarity. ;-)

edited 3rd Jun '12 4:29:16 AM by Xzenu

Yes there is. "White guy has relationship with asian woman where the power is stacked in his favor". That's a trope.

You keep saying there isn't one, but giving no explanation.

edited 3rd Jun '12 8:37:50 AM by KingZeal

That is the trope you want it to be. But there isn't one there now.

So why does that mean "Cut" instead of "Redefine"?

See attached crowner.

I don't see it.

You might be seeing the crowner option you want there, but hasn't yet been added.

Most of this thread has been an argument between two people. Perhaps they are both wrong.

I see two "redefine" options with no consensus. I would add a "cut" option, personally.

I would agree if, again, this wasn't something that is discussed out of this wiki by various people on blogs and various other sources across the net.

The only benefit I can see to cutting it would be hoping YKTTW would have more beneficial input from tropers than this page.

Or, we could make a YKTTW now.

What are you disagreeing with, exactly? I'm sure you have a perfectly valid trope in mind, which is supported by Internet research. But the suggestion that this trope should be redefined to that was officially made and officially rejected.

I'm disagreeing with that option, obviously. Septimus, Spark and Xzenu have made other suggestions which I agree with more.

@Rodney: the discussion about what this trope should be was settled long ago. By moderator decree, and with the rest of us (including King Zeal and me) agreeing. The recent vote was not about "do you agree with this concept or not", it was about "which of these two versions do you prefer". A huge majority of those who participated voted yes to one of the versions and no to the other.

However, a single proposition crowner about version ten (or a crowner where one option is "version ten" and the other option is "cut") would fill this function. If people vote no to version ten, or yes to cut, then it's because they disagree with the concept as such.

Seriously, we can't have a retroactive "surprise, you voted for something radically different than you thought you voted for".

The situation was: If you prefer one version, vote yes to that one (and no to the other). If you don't have a preference (but like the concept), vote yes to both."

Not: "If you vote yes to one version and no to the other, you are actually voting no to the underlying concept on which the version you are voting yes to is based".

You NOW say that you should have added a "cut" option. Well, you didn't add that. And you didn't add a "i disagree with the underlying concept" either. And no, you can't retroactively add either or declare either to be the winner. Those options were not included. If they were, people would have been far liklier to vote yes to both my proposal and king zeal's proposal, instead of voting yes to only one of them and no to the other.

Both your options go against previous decissions in this thread. Suddenly declaring them victorious without ANYONE actually having voted in favor of either? No thanks.

edited 3rd Jun '12 11:54:18 PM by Xzenu

@King Zeal:

Did you...

• A) vote yes to your own option and no to mine, or...
• B) were you one of the few to follow some other pattern than voting yes to one and no to the other?

If A, then Rodney just told us both "Hey, Xzenu and King Zeal! I just decided that you both actually voted against the shimaspawn decree and everything else you based your work on these last months. Surprise! But now you know what you ACTUALLY voted for. "

@Rodney: I voted "no" on the King Zeal proposal because voting no to the underlying concept wasn't on the table. If it were, I would have abstained. Or even voted yes to that proposal, along with voting yes to my own.

I didn't sign up for voting in favor of your secret surprise retroactive proposal. So don't draft me! :-(

edited 4th Jun '12 12:08:13 AM by Xzenu

Bump.

So....is this getting solved?

Up to the moderators, really. I don't think this thread can move forward without action from a moderator.

In the previous crowner, it seems a huge majority voted in favor of version 8 OR 9, voting down on the other one - resulting in a stalemate between those versions. (During the crownver, I checked in a few times per day. Almost every time the score had moved, it was one version going up one vote and the other version going down one vote.) We have a moderator decision against version 8 and 9, on the basis of them having lost the vote to each other. What we have now is two suggestions:

1. We have description version 10, combining the best of versions 8 and 9.
2. We have Rodney's option that the trope should be cut and version 10 moved to YKTTW.

What we need now is a new crowner. Preferably a single proposition crowner:

• Yes to version 10 (the next crowner will be about title), or
• No to version 10 (the next crowner will be about cutting the trope).

edited 30th Jun '12 1:04:54 AM by Xzenu

Created a crowner here

I'm afraid I can't attach that since the way this discussion has been going in circles. This compromise will make more problems than it will solve.

How this will proceed is up to Shima.

Right, Xzenu has been uninvited from this conversation so let's focus on just getting the trope down without it turning into a) a wall of text, b) a diatribe on race relations and a history lesson. That stuff can go on the analysis page.

So what does everyone think this trope is?

Now what?

Cut and YKTTW anything tropeworthy buried in it?

What is your issue with this trope?