Welp, then history shall repeat.
If ya'll want to advertise this time, please don't wait for the crowner to get hooked first. Advertise the crowner directly or something. Don't make us go through this nonsense for a third time.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallIt's hard, man. People will expect the active crowner to be the one that's hooked, and that one is closed. They won't want to dig through a thread to find the cronwer; posting directly to it bypasses any confusion, but does minimize the chance of people reading the thread.
Either way, there's going to be complications. We need to prioritize either the crowner itself or the discussion, and whichever one we don't pick will be less noticed as a result.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallDone
. Tried to explain things as best I could. I say we give it three days starting now and then call it.
Edited by TheMountainKing on May 19th 2020 at 2:23:21 PM
I just want everyone to agree that we won't completely discount the original crowner (reasons already explained here
), and that whatever the result of these 2 crowners ends up being, we move on. We accept it and do what we need to do. We don't continue debating over how important the trope is or what other tropes we could make or how maybe this option should've been rephrased.
Okay? Please? I'm frankly getting sick of this whole rigmarole, and I want us to go with the flow from here on out. I'm still concerned that there may have been some ulterior motives in pushing for a second round of this crowner, and I don't think any of us would enjoy going through this again to get a better result or whatever.
Edited by WarJay77 on May 19th 2020 at 2:28:05 PM
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallFrom the previous page:
Honestly, Suddenly Sexuality needs a TRS thread way more badly than Bi The Way ever did. That's not a passive-aggressive attack on this thread - it's just always struck me as a complete mess of a page/concept that urgently needs a fix. Bi The Way is a lot trickier and runs into problems with our whole approach to tropes. so I don't know how I'd approach it.
Edited by nrjxll on May 19th 2020 at 1:33:57 PM
I have a few questions about the "casually established option and would appreciate it if someone who supports it could answer them.
1. What is the logic of keeping this restricted to bisexual people, as opposed to all LGBT people (other than a reason to keep the name Bi The Way)?
2. Would this still be a character trope, because this definition seems to be more about the moment of establishment rather than bisexual as a trait of the character?
3. Would this be mutually exclusive with Depraved Bisexual? I only ask because "not Depraved Bisexual" seemed to be the only cosistent qualification for Bi The Way.
I'd also just like to note that this option will require the most work, because in addition to deleted or commenting out most to all of the current examples, it will also require writing and agreeing on a new description. I worry that a lot of people are voting for this option out of an instinctual opposition to cutting and not because it's actually a workable solution. But a lot of those people are also just voting because of the ATT and aren't going to read this post.
There seems to be a general agreement that "character is bisexual" was not a valid trope, as the option to keep that use was overwhelmingly in the red on the first crowner. As others have pointed out, that probably also invalidates Asexual and Transgender, which are even more explicitly "character is X". When this vote is resolved I'll make TRS threads for those tropes, arguing to cut them based on the precedent set here. Any objections?
Could we still put the main-page examples (preferably after looking through them) on UsefulNotes.Bisexual, because I'm pretty sure that option was voted down because it had "cut" in it?
Edited by Crossover-Enthusiast on May 21st 2020 at 4:15:52 AM
Jawbreakers on sale for 99¢
I put a note at the top explaining that we can do both the disambiguation option and that one. Should I modify the option itself to reflect this?
I'm personally neutral on moving the main-page examples, but I'm worried that if we go forward with the current results (which would mean not moving the examples) a lot of people will be upset, including people who downvoted that option because they thought it was incompatible with making a disambiguation.
Edited by TheMountainKing on May 21st 2020 at 4:30:27 AM
Orrrr they just don't want to move examples?
Seriously. We all need to stop assuming we know who the voters are and what they're thinking. It's the very reason this thread had to have three crowners in the first place.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall
I'm fine with not moving examples (I actually slightly prefer it) , I'm just confused by why so many people on the first crowner seemed to view it as an absolutely essential compromise (judging by the massive difference between the votes for "cut and move" and "cut") but now so many people seem fine with having those examples deleted.
Crown Description:
Bi The Way has been used to refer to any character who is bisexual. What should be done with the page? Cutting wholesale is mutually exclusive with all the other options, but cut-and-move-examples is not mutually exclusive with cut-and-make-a-new-trope. Please do not add new options here unless they have been discussed by the thread. If you would like to voice your opinion, use the "Add post" button above.

Did anyone actually holler?
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall