If that option wins, the stricter, clearer definition is just that. I said before that the current definition is way too vague. Exactly what that new definition might be will be discussed if that option wins.
Thing is, there's probably going to be a lot of arguing over what the new definition might be. Even though I have something in mind, I don't want it to be put to waste if it's not going to be immediately agreed on.
And of course, there was someone else that suggested the entirely different option of just deleting the page, so I'm acknowledging that decision, too.
Both of these decision could lead to a number of pathways, so that's why I put a "general" crowner in instead of something that abruptly jumps to a conclusive decision. I want to narrow that path so that even though it may take longer to make a decision, it will be one that everyone can agree on.
Then we ought to redirect it to Bad Ass. Still don't know what the "solution" in the crowner is aiming for.
Don't get me wrong, the reason why I am being so insisting is because we have had some really bad experience with crowner options that essentially put off the actual solution to later.
There's been way too much arguing in this thread in the past over what we should do; the solutions that were presented were all very different and no one could agree on something.
For this page, which is really big and messy, gradually narrowing our options down is the best way to get everyone to agree on something.
Actually, since we've already agreed to redefine it, the next crowner will be about what the next definition should be.
And as for the idea I already have, I'm going to put forward the definition I presented a long time ago: "explicitly stated to be stronger, faster, and more durable". And the "explicitly stated" part is the keyword.
how can there be a crowner definition for a "stricter, clearer definition" without a definition itself as part of the proposal? That sounds to me like "vote for the better definition" which... okay, yay, we all should do, obviously, but how is that helpful as a crowner option? The problem is knowing what that definition looks like in the first place!
There are honestly a lot of directions we can go with making a stricter definition for Lightning Bruiser (should we or should we not keep the subversion part of the definition; should we or should we not make it explicitly stated; should we or should we not keep it soft split how it is; among others). I just want us all to agree on a goal, since previously in this thread, there were many proposals that all worked towards different goals, making it very hard to agree on anything.
I think people are downvoting the cleanup option because it claims to draft a clearer stricter description when we don't have one already. I am, for example.
Yes, I've already been saying this, but I am not convinced that we can't make this draft before the crowner.
I'm still worried that we won't be able to agree on anything if we try to jump to a solution. I've followed this thread from the very beginning, and we were unable to agree on anything with all of these solutions with multiple goals in mind.
But if people want a detailed solution, should I put forth the idea that I have already? Will everyone be happier if I make a draft in the Sandbox namespace, then put it in the crowner? I'm worried that there will be contradicting opinions on what the draft will do, and that we won't be able to agree on anything.