Absolutely not. First of all, it asserts there is a problem with the pages; skipping "is there a problem?" right to "how should it be fixed?"... again. Second, the pros/cons of the first two options say "this won't work", and the third (which is obviously and heavily favored) says "there is a problem, and furthermore this will fix it" with a nonsensical "con".

Strongly prefer adding clarification to existing descriptions to adding new (and unnecessary) tropes to conform to a different organization scheme.

edited 3rd Jul '12 6:50:15 PM by rodneyAnonymous

I think there is definitely a problem with the examples section and probably changes we could make to the description but that is not a good crowner to solve those problems.

If we had a crowner, it would need to be about defining the boundaries of the trope. And there certainly should not be pros or cons since those are always terrible.

edited 3rd Jul '12 3:30:02 PM by troacctid

Let me try my hand at this.

Crowner: Some of the examples in the "Hard-hitting Speedsters" section of Lightning Bruiser do not match the trope description. Lightning Bruiser is defined as excelling in offense, defense, and speed, not lacking in any of those categories. Some of the examples in the aforementioned section only reference good offense and speed, but either have bad defense or don't even mention defense. Indeed, even the name of the section, "Hard-hitting Speedsters", does not make any reference to defense.

Proposed Solutions:

• Do nothing. (I don't think we need a separate crowner to decide to take action or not. There IS a problem, the only question is how serious it is.)

• Rename the "Hard-hitting Speedsters" section and clean up the examples that don't match.

• Delete the "Hard-hitting Speedsters" and put any salvaged examples from that section that actually match the description in the "Other" section.

I actually think we might need two crowners. We could include where to put the misplaced examples in the first crowner, but I think it would be too confusing.

Crowner: Where do we put the cleaned up examples from Lightning Bruiser that have good offense and speed, but bad defense?

Proposed Solutions:

• Delete them.

• Put them in Glass Cannon.*
  I would put them here because some Glass Cannon examples do mention high speed, while Fragile Speedster examples rarely mention high offense.

• Create a subtrope of Glass Cannon defined as excelling in good offense and speed, but having bad defense.*
  I would make it a subtrope of Glass Cannon because some Glass Cannon examples do mention high speed, while Fragile Speedster examples rarely mention high offense, so while the trope itself is equally similar to both, the examples would be more similar to Glass Cannon.
  This trope and Mighty Glacier would essentially be two sides of the same triangle.

• Create a separate trope defined as excelling in good offense and speed, but having bad defense. Clean up and transfer all the examples in Glass Cannon that meet that definition to the new trope, and redefine Glass Cannon as having poor speed in addition to the existing poor defense drawback.

edited 3rd Jul '12 6:56:53 PM by shiro_okami

The description tries to explain the split by playing on whether speed or strenght is the "unexpected" stat. Whether something is obviously tough and strong yet still fast or obviously fast yet still tough and strong. So "Hard-hitting speedsters" does not mean Fragile Speedster with high offense, it means something that looks fragile but isn't. Unfortunately this meaning is not clear from the names.

"Tougher/faster than they look" is entirely unrelated and the split is likely the source of the misuse (since the description is clear this is high all stats), so the division would be better removed. There's no particular reason to separate mechanical examples, either.

I concur that adding "pro" and "con" sections doesn't help anything. However, a multiple-option crowner with "do nothing" as one of the options is a more practical solution than starting with a vague "should we do something Y/N" crowner and putting the actual proposals on a second crowner.

That would make "do nothing" one option among many instead of one of two options. Kind of like having "keep the name" on an alternate names crowner, and skipping the single prop to decide whether to rename or not.

Tho I think the question is "add another trope, or not". "Do nothing" is a straw option.

edited 5th Jul '12 10:48:15 AM by rodneyAnonymous

That's the whole point. We don't need a single proposition crowner, it will just draw out the process longer than necessary. I don't think there's a rule that says we have to have one. The only troper who has so far commented on this thread who wants a single proposition crowner and still seems to think there isn't a problem is you.

And I fail to see how "Do nothing" is a straw option. If you're saying there isn't a problem, then "do nothing" would be an accurate statement of the (in)action taken to "fix" it. If you want I can say it differently, like "There is no problem", or "It's not serious enough to fix".

Actually I said "there is no problem with the page" and that should maybe be refined to "no problem with the number of pages" since some clarification of the description is apparently necessary. Cleaning up examples isn't "do nothing", that's silly. Nobody has suggested doing nothing. That, along with "trope may be too narrow", is a (willful?) misunderstanding of the position.

And the "you're the only one who..." is false and irrelevant.

edited 5th Jul '12 12:12:48 PM by rodneyAnonymous

My bad, I misunderstood. From what I read from your posts, I thought you said it was a non-issue and were against taking any action at all. I had no idea you supported cleaning up the examples.

But if you want to clean up examples at least, why do you still want a single proposition crowner?

edited 5th Jul '12 12:16:54 PM by shiro_okami

My objection is and always has been to making new and unnecessary tropes to fill imaginary holes. Pretty sure that is a majority opinion, annoying to be painted as a lone nut.

You wouldn't be paint as a lone nut if you took time to actually read what people write before posting(and sometimes answer to the argument they make against your position). When you have a proposition crowner with three proposition, one of which is about clean up, the other about a clean up and a rewriting of the description and with only the last one about the creation of a trope, it's really hard to understand that when you say that the crowner is bad because there is no problem, it actually means that you are for a clean up and a rewriting of the description.

Moving on, I agree with Shiro's proposition crowner (put both group of proposition in the same crowner and make sure that people understand that there is two thing to vote on the crowner's description.

To eliminate the problem of "this trope shouldn't exist because combinations of those basic types can be subjected to infinite reduction", I add other attributes to specialize even better the units.

• Offense
  • DPS
  • number of attack per second
  • Range
  • area of effect of the attack
  • offensive Standard Status Effect (increase the damage took by the ennemy)

• Defense
  • HP
  • HP regeneration
  • size (Hitbox)
  • damage reduction
  • defensive Standard Status Effect (increase your protection, decrease the effect of ennemy's attack...)

• Speed
  • maximum speed
  • acceleration

Do note that each attribute I can think of belong to one aspect of this dynamic and one aspect only (with the exception of the ability to paralyze/stun the opponent, which can use both offensively and defensively), thus reinforcing it rather than adding confusion.

edited 6th Jul '12 11:31:52 AM by VioletOrange

Lightning Bruiser is fast and strong - is the description too broad?

Lightning Bruiser is fast and strong AND tough. You can annihilate entire armies lightning fast but go down in one shot, OR you could do the same AND can still take a hell of a beating. The latter IS the Lightning Bruiser.

The problem I have with some examples of Lightning Bruiser is that they're fast and strong but their defensive abilities are vaguely, if ever, described. For this reason, we can't be sure if these examples are really Lightning Bruisers in the sense that they can deal damage very fast and can still take a decent amount of punishment, or if they simply employ "beat enemy down before it beats you down" tactics because they're so soft they almost always go down in one shot.

I also noticed that Fragile Speedster is described as fast but weak, but what kind of weak depends. One reason why Fragile Speedster can overlap with Glass Cannon because someone can be fast and strong at the same time but still suck at defense.

I also noticed we don't have a trope yet for "good speed and defense, bad attack', but I guess it covers both types of Stone Wall (namely, toughness-based and evasion-based).

edited 7th Jul '12 5:52:37 AM by judasmartel

I completely forgot about this. If one of the mod could lock it, so that the new crowner can be made (and hopefully have the same result).

It seems to be a poorly made crowner, having several options that seem to have been overwritten but not deleted, and the description is written as an option instead of where it's supposed to be. I say we make a new one.

That was my first crowner, you meanie. But yeah it was an horrible one, and even if it wasn't, it is a 9 months old crowner, for an other TRS. So new crowner, and for that, I need the old one locked.

Not at all. Objectively, it's not well done at all, so saying it doesn't bother me.

edited 7th Jul '12 1:18:01 PM by VioletOrange

Oopsie, I put my foot in my mouth again, didn't I.

Guys, Lightning Bruisers refer to the fact that they're excessively good at ALL stats while Jack of all Stats means just average. Just chipping my two cents.

EDIT- Forgot to add that a solution would be to narrow the definition down, like mention the bit about the difference between Jack of all Stats.

edited 13th Jul '12 6:30:49 PM by darkforce392

I didn't know you could make multiple action crowner for one trope. So first crowner and second crowner.

Before there are any vote, everyone is more or less okay with these ?

This one doesn't seem to make much sense.

Then could you please correct it ?

Yeah, the problem is that it has too many options. I'd try to fix it, but I don't think you can delete options once their put up.

Do number Four and indicate that number two is invalid then.

What about this:

Bob can outrun a cheetah, and can withstand billions of bullets, but can't put a dent on glass. In other words, great speed and solid defenses, but bad attack.

It's listed often as a Stone Wall. Examples from Pokemon include Tentacruel, Jumpluff, Pachirisu, and Serperior.

edited 22nd Jul '12 6:53:04 PM by KirbyRider

To be fair, most people couldn't put a dent on glass. Glass is brittle; it would shatter.

But no, I don't think that needs a trope separate from Stone Wall.

edited 23rd Jul '12 12:55:20 PM by troacctid