TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

What to do about (New crowner swapped in 8/2/12): Nightmare Fuel

Go To

ccoa Ravenous Sophovore from the Sleeping Giant Since: Jan, 2001
Ravenous Sophovore
#326: Jan 30th 2012 at 5:49:13 PM

Actually, we have both Nightmare Fuel and High Octane Nightmare Fuel namespaces, and they're used completely interchangeably.

edited 30th Jan '12 5:52:59 PM by ccoa

Waiting on a TRS slot? Finishing off one of these cleaning efforts will usually open one up.
Ghilz Perpetually Confused from Yeeted at Relativistic Velocities Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Barbecuing
Perpetually Confused
#327: Jan 30th 2012 at 5:50:31 PM

edited 30th Jan '12 5:51:35 PM by Ghilz

JapaneseTeeth Existence Weighed Against Nonbeing from Meinong's jungle Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Mu
Existence Weighed Against Nonbeing
#328: Jan 30th 2012 at 6:01:21 PM

Okay, can we seriously just make a crowner already? At least then we'll have something concrete to work with besides sniping at each other.

Reaction Image Repository
Martello Hammer of the Pervs from Black River, NY Since: Jan, 2001
Hammer of the Pervs
#329: Jan 30th 2012 at 6:29:18 PM

I'd make one, but I don't know how.

"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.
JapaneseTeeth Existence Weighed Against Nonbeing from Meinong's jungle Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Mu
Existence Weighed Against Nonbeing
#330: Jan 30th 2012 at 7:33:24 PM

Okay, here's the crowner. Hopefully I didn't bork anything; I don't make crowners for TRS threads very often.

Reaction Image Repository
Ghilz Perpetually Confused from Yeeted at Relativistic Velocities Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Barbecuing
Perpetually Confused
#331: Jan 30th 2012 at 7:35:32 PM

"should the entries be limited to what is supposed to be scary" That's High Octane Nightmare Fuel.

In fact, which nightmare fuel is the topic of the crowner?

edited 30th Jan '12 7:36:02 PM by Ghilz

Shaoken (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Dating Catwoman
#332: Jan 30th 2012 at 7:40:29 PM

I predict Fast Eddie is going to come in the next day and axe that. He hates multi-option crowners unless it's for name suggestions, since it makes it impossible to really figure out what's going on.

LMage Since: May, 2011
#333: Jan 30th 2012 at 7:42:52 PM

You forgote to include "Have it go No Examples"

RhymeBeat True colors from Eastern Standard Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: In Lesbians with you
True colors
#334: Jan 30th 2012 at 7:43:40 PM

Seems more efficient to me than multiple Single Prop crowners that still have people debating on alternate solutions on the thread proper. Besides it's not like most of these options are mutaly exclusive.

The Crystal Caverns A bird's gotta sing.
shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#335: Jan 30th 2012 at 7:48:02 PM

[up][up] It's on there.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
LMage Since: May, 2011
#336: Jan 30th 2012 at 7:49:11 PM

Oh! I missread "Should new examples be disallowed?" as keeping the current ones but locking from future ones. My mistake.

JapaneseTeeth Existence Weighed Against Nonbeing from Meinong's jungle Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Mu
Existence Weighed Against Nonbeing
#337: Jan 30th 2012 at 8:00:17 PM

@L Mage: Yeah, it doesn't have it's own option, but "cut current examples" and "disallow new examples" are both on there; if they both end up being chosen it'll be an exampleless page.

@Ghilz: Both of them, basically.

And yeah, I know that multi-prop crowners are kinda frowned upon, but this discussion was kinda going nowhere, and I tried to make sure that the options aren't horribly mutually exclusive. Some of them kinda are, but I think it's obvious that if something like both "Disallow new examples" and "examples need to be signed" get approved, the first would obviously take precedence. It's not like we can have a situation where both "Keep all examples" and "remove all examples" are both viable options.

edited 30th Jan '12 8:03:21 PM by JapaneseTeeth

Reaction Image Repository
Noaqiyeum we must dissent (it/they) from across the gulf of space (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
we must dissent (it/they)
#338: Jan 30th 2012 at 8:02:17 PM

I misunderstood that too. I'm going to edit it to clarify that; if someone objects, it's easy enough to change back.

Also, what exactly are the arguments for not merging the two? I've heard nothing but evidence that HONF and ANF are used utterly interchangeably, yet the crowner indicates otherwise.

edited 30th Jan '12 8:04:39 PM by Noaqiyeum

ERROR: The current state of the world is unacceptable. Save anyway? YES/NO
JapaneseTeeth Existence Weighed Against Nonbeing from Meinong's jungle Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Mu
Existence Weighed Against Nonbeing
#339: Jan 30th 2012 at 8:04:39 PM

[up]Yeah, that was badly phrased on my part.

Reaction Image Repository
Noaqiyeum we must dissent (it/they) from across the gulf of space (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
we must dissent (it/they)
#340: Jan 30th 2012 at 8:07:19 PM

Also, does cutting the current examples entail cutting the work-based pages entirely, too?

edited 30th Jan '12 8:09:06 PM by Noaqiyeum

ERROR: The current state of the world is unacceptable. Save anyway? YES/NO
LMage Since: May, 2011
#341: Jan 30th 2012 at 8:08:10 PM

We have already decided that cutting the pages is out of the question. The crowner bellow determiend that.

Noaqiyeum we must dissent (it/they) from across the gulf of space (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
JapaneseTeeth Existence Weighed Against Nonbeing from Meinong's jungle Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Mu
Existence Weighed Against Nonbeing
#343: Jan 30th 2012 at 8:27:26 PM

I'm under the impression that we leave the pages there; most of them will probably be promptly recreated anyway.

Reaction Image Repository
Shaoken (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Dating Catwoman
#344: Jan 30th 2012 at 9:07:12 PM

Well so far the exampleless idea is clearly out with an eight-to-zero headstart now, with cutting all examples is the current front runner.

LMage Since: May, 2011
#345: Jan 30th 2012 at 9:18:50 PM

[up]

Votes have swung by much larger margins in the past, so I am told anyway.

We should leave the crowner up for a few days and see what happens, if things seem to hover around a specific point after a while, then we will have our descion.

Shaoken (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Dating Catwoman
#346: Jan 30th 2012 at 10:45:21 PM

Here's a critisism of the crowner; we have a varying amount of total votes for all the options. Some have ten, some have close to twenty.

EDIT: Come someone put a notice on the HONF page so they know their page is up for being merged? It's not exactly fair that we're talking about merging pages, but they get no heads up about it.

edited 30th Jan '12 10:54:16 PM by Shaoken

rodneyAnonymous Sophisticated as Hell from empty space Since: Aug, 2010
#347: Jan 31st 2012 at 12:55:20 AM

That is an invalid criticism. Anyone can vote on as many or as few things as they want.

edited 31st Jan '12 12:56:12 AM by rodneyAnonymous

Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.
Shaoken (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Dating Catwoman
#348: Jan 31st 2012 at 2:13:29 AM

[up]No, it's a valid critisism of the multi-crowner method; we can have two completely contradictionary positive votes, so it makes actually reading the crowner and understanding what the hell tropers want to do incredibly difficult.

Routerie Since: Oct, 2011
#349: Jan 31st 2012 at 3:04:41 AM

Yeah, so far, this crowner isn't proving too useful at all. So "cutting all example" and "merging" currently both are in the green, even though no one suggests that the two would make a good solution if implemented together? Merging is green but renaming is sharply red, even though a merge effectively renames one of the pages? Signing is in the green but limiting to one-entry per user is in the red, even though limiting to one entry has so far been the one argument for signing?

Shaoken (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Dating Catwoman
#350: Jan 31st 2012 at 4:02:19 AM

Plus due to the options different total count values, we can't even gage the amount of support one idea has over hte other; for instance merging and signing examples both have a 2 vote upswing, but signing has more positive votes for it than merging does (at this time). So we can have one option get higher on the crowning list despite having less upvotes for it because more people downvoted that one to make up the difference. So what exactly does that tell us? Do people feel strongly against one option but don't support another?

I have to agree with Fast Eddie's judgement on this; multi-item crowners are bad ideas because they don't give clear results.

SingleProposition: NightmareFuel
12th Jan '12 4:22:56 PM

Crown Description:

Vote up for yes, down for no.

Total posts: 780
Top