Idea for changing how we do rename crowers

Sometimes we do have tropes that are so complex that we can't come up with a clear name. It happens. Generally, all the options flounder and it just sits there.

Whatever happend with Catbert's proposal from way back?

1. Instead of creating a rename crowner that mandates not using the old name, have the "rename" option vote be replaced by a vote as to whether to create an alternate titles crowner.
2. Alternative titles crowners always include the current trope title as an option.

If a thread decides that the current name should be disqualified for some reason, we always have the option of doing that, but I still don't understand why there's this unbreakable rule against putting the current name in with the other titles.

If nothing else, it could give the thread a general idea of how well-liked the new names are, and convince them to put more effort into thinking of a new name.

edited 15th Mar '12 11:59:27 PM by abk0100

Did you read the thread? Shima and Ghilz basically answered that question. This was what happened in the past. It caused problems, it wasn't working out and they had to come up with a new system.

edited 16th Mar '12 4:57:37 AM by lu127

"Generally, all the options flounder and it just sits there."

Yep, taking up valuabe TRS slots. If we can't actually come up with a better name, we should give up on the idea of renaming, clarify the description, clean up the misuse (or entry pimp the page is the problem is underuse), lock the thread, and make due with the current name.

And accept that the old name will continue causing more misuse, necessitating more TRS cleanup in the future? Counterproductive.

Somebody suggested giving such a trope 6 months and then brainstorming new suggestions for a new alt-titles crowner. The brainstorming itself could happen on Trope Talk.

Did you even read my post Lu?

I never said we should combine the crowners, I said we should have 2 seperate crowners, but still give people an option to change their mind in the second one.

Seriously, is there a good argument for not giving people an easy way to change their mind after the first crowner? I'm waiting to hear it.

edited 16th Mar '12 3:32:55 PM by abk0100

There is no point to sticking with a broken name. A name that has caused misuse needs to leave. Cleaning up misuse is one of the most annoying things we have to do all the time. So no, leaving a misused name as an option would not help. It has already caused enough trouble. That's the most important point.

Now, a disused name is not as bad, it's just not getting enough attention. I can see that happening. Dunno how much it would help.

edited 16th Mar '12 3:38:51 PM by lu127

The thing with a disused name is that you won't know if the name is at fault unless you test the name in the same conditions as what other tropes have had. And when you take omnipresent tropes into consideration, that's unlikely to happen. Also I'd guess (lack of) crosswicking and media trends are more of three orders of magnitude a factor in trope disuse than the trope name in the general case.

Also, I promote the idea of allowing the old name to be available in the alt name selection crowner. Not all of us spend our time on TV Tropes 24/7 to know that a trope is to be renamed, or having taken part in the renaming decision.

It's not giving people a chance to change their minds. It's trying to circumvent the first crowner. We have a lot of people who don't take well to losing and they're the ones that seem to be the issue in these things. That said, the same people only push for these 'reforms' when they find they haven't gotten their way in a rename thread and the second that they do, they point to procedure. This seems like more of that sour grapes to me. "I didn't get my way the first time, so let's keep voting on it until I do."

I confess to doing that some times, but now I realize the futility of that behavior.

Plus I found that sometimes a result I want can eventually happen later, if I or someone else presents a proper reason to make it happen. So being patient trumps being pushy.

edited 17th Mar '12 11:49:29 AM by DragonQuestZ

Also, with regards to the "give people a chance to change their mind" and "give a longer span in which people can vote" things: what if it went the other way, too? That is, what if after every failed rename/cut/whatever crowner, there were an immediate follow-up crowner that had those options on it? Would that be seen as anything other than an attempt to circumvent the original majority?

Well it doesn't happen immediately, they usually wait one or two months and then try it. That is still an un-addressed problem with the TRS. We have "no backsies" on successful rename attempts, but pro-renamers can have as many bites of the cherry as they like. Which is where the perception of TRS standing for Trope Renaming Service comes from. Make a "no backsies" rule on failed renames and we're cool.

"What is, what if after every failed rename/cut/whatever crowner, there were an immediate follow-up crowner that had those options on it"

"Well it doesn't happen immediately, they usually wait one or two months and then try it."

Exactly. There is at least one page I can think of in TRS right now that someone hauled into TRS for a rename even though previous TRS threads decided not to rename it.

There is no "no backsies" rule for a good reason. Actions are frequently defeated on the grounds of "it's not something inherent to the page as it currently stands; people were just emulating early misuse". The examples and wicks are cleaned up, and all is well...until the misuse comes back because the problem was misidentified. If three months later, the misuse is already near the original levels, it's clear the original solution didn't work. We can't just turn to the people who wanted more extreme measures the first time around and say "I know you want a chance to try your solution, but since you didn't get consensus the first time, it's off the table forever." We always must have the option of recognizing that what we did the first time didn't work out and that options that were tossed out the first time may be appropriate in light of new evidence.*

Is bringing a rename/cut/merge/whatever up again one or two months later often a blatant attempt at a do-over? Yes. But if there's new evidence that could change the outcome, particularly if something that was fixed the first time is already a problem again, we can't just pretend that we clearly did the right thing last time—we should reevaluate.

Please, the whole "if there is a good reason" thing is a broken argument in itself, if you dig hard enough, and there is some pretty damn good deep mining engineers in the Trope Rename Service, you can find evidence for anything. It's abused to hell and back again.

Equal treatment, no backsies. Pro or Anti.

I almost agree with the above. The current system is too easy to game out by people who simply want to see a trope renamed. But removing the limitation on both ends would cause backlogging issues and place more or a burden on the people whoa ctually take the time to do the wick corrections, for example.

"There is no point to sticking with a broken name."

There is if the suggested replacements are more broken.

Last time I discussed the issue with a mod (after the whole thing with The Mario), the answer was that if someone tries to start a new rename thread without providing any new evidence against the name, to holler for the thread to be locked. So we just need to make sure that's actually happening, instead of letting people game the system.

It does happen. The mods lock those threads. It's a shame I can't link to the Magic Staff rename thread. Eddie rightly nuked it at the third post, because of the lack of evidence.

It's very easy to holler for these things. I do it all the time. Problem solved.

Yes, the new system for burden of proof has worked extremely well. The Half-Breed thread is a great example, because after the first lock, the OP re-posted with a little more explanation but still no evidence of misuse. A number of regulars - including me - gave him a chance to fix it, which he didn't. Then somebody else stepped in and did the wick check for him. Now it's actually a valid thread and misuse was, in fact, proved. Not the ideal way for it to work, but in this case it did. I think it was a good example of teamwork, regulars helping noobs, and not just Rules Lawyering the new system.

Good, so we have proof that the current system is actually working. So there's no need to complicate the process by adding a third crowner, or something like that.

I've been lock-hollering these threads a few times - I think one or two of the threads listed above.

Also, two other things(not sure if they should be here, though):

1. In a brief search of the morgue, I've noticed plenty of otherwise by-the-book renames that skipped the actual crowner call. What's up with them?
2. I think that a possible improvement on crowners could be showing a date and timestamp for the last vote cast in. That could make crowner procedure much easier.

Yes, this. Timestamps of last vote would help. Also, what happened to the total # of votes? That used to be tallied, and now it's not.

It displays on the permanent URL.

However, I think that giving the timestamp of the last vote would be a huge improvement. (And tying in in #1, since doing things without crowner call could only work if it's shown when the last vote was)

You don't technically need a mod to lock a crowner in order for action to be taken.