![]()
Do you have evidence of that, or...? Because while there have been crowners with sketchy results before, this doesn't seem to be one of them, and I'm not sure where your suspicions are coming from.
I'm not saying people are necessarily telling other tropers to vote a certain way; while that's certainly possible and I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case, I don't have any evidence for it and this might just be a more organic thing. My suspicion is just that people are just trying to "get the vote out".
It's probably just people seeing a positive vote and thinking, "What the hell? Pressure's off so I may as well vote on the unanimous option."
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.Honestly, I think it's great. I wish all TRS crowners had this much engagement. Then people couldn't accuse us of not getting enough consensus.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallSo, just so we're prepared in case it happens: what do we do if "Redirect to Anvilicious" and "Redefine SANTBD" both win the crowner? Would we have a runoff crowner? Would we redo the new definition from scratch on TLP?
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.I mean, nothing says we can't attempt one of the redefinitions on the TLP. It just wouldn't have to be part of the TRS effort. If, somehow, someway, both ideas gain consensus, then...yeah, that's what I'd say we do. Just kick it to TLP and do whatever we have to there.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall
We can even use examples already on the various Some Anvils Need to Be Dropped subpages and in the wicks.
I like the definition using "an aesop that can justify itself", but that's basically almost as subjective as the current version. I just don't see that not being used as exactly the same thing- Anvilicious, but good. Theres not really any objective criteria distinguishing it from Anvilicious (subjective tropes still have objective elements, for example a story with no overt moral cannot be Anvilicious.)
However I like the idea of keeping this on Sugar Wiki, regardless of chosen definition. there's lots of good stuff here we don't need to throw out
Eh, when it comes to something like this...I don't think just breaching "consensus range" would be enough to matter here. When the crowner is this disproportionate...
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall"An aesop that can justify itself" will still attract rampant, horrible misuse. How well an aesop can "justify" itself depends strongly on your personal views.
It just ain't worth keeping.
"I like girls, but now, it's about justice."I agree that requiring examples to justify themselves would be too subjective.
I got a rock for Halloween.By the way, Ordeaux, any reason you didn't address concerns about Anvil of the Story and Anvilicious on the crowner? Just wondering.
Crown Description:
What would be the best way to fix the page?

Edited by ImperialMajestyXO on Jun 16th 2021 at 10:21:23 AM