Typical, I fall into the Innocent Inuendo trap ;p. But "Bring Me His Head" doesn't have that same ambiguity.
I think Be Careful What You Dont Wish For (or some minor variation thereof) sounds brilliant. This trope is pretty similar to Be Careful What You Wish For anyway, the main difference being that it isn't an explicit wish. It doesn't sound stupid like some of the other ones and it accurately describes the trope in a much more direct, accessible, and unambiguous manner than the quote.
edited 23rd Sep '10 3:39:50 PM by troacctid
When I Said I Want His Head brings context ambiguity. You want his head then what? You actually mean his cock? You actually mean his head? Like his lips? I don't see it much as a problem from Accidental Innuendo than the sheer ambiguity.
There was one proposal I liked a lo, I think it was I Didnt Mean It That Way, but I'm not sure how broad it is. Mistaken For An Order seems a supertrope for this and about 12 things we discussed when talking the possible renames...
Fanfic Recs orwellianretcon'd: cutlocked for committee or for Google?Minor variation attempt: When I Said Get Rid Of Him...
^ Silent, the ambiguity is kind of the point, for the person hearing it who when misinterprets it. (Actually if I were writing the article, I would make the first line of the description be "...I didn't mean cut it off and bring it to me.").
Ninja-below: Actually, all those are way better than "don't wish for".
edited 23rd Sep '10 3:44:34 PM by Elle
There seems to be another trope related to this (supertrope-wise) that we don't have, which is "Careful What You Say, You Don't Know Who Might Be Listenning". In other words, keep your thoughts to yourself. Like Speak of the Devil, the indication is that saying someone out loud will cause it to happen, and the Aesop is "don't speak what you might regret, not even in private".
edited 23rd Sep '10 3:58:33 PM by Vree
Unless I'm mistaken, this trope doesn't require killing (or even serious harm) that's just what results 90+% of the time from it. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm pretty sure if we added Gary Coleman and a Pornstar to the crowner we'd have a California recall election though, we have a lot of (mostly bad) options. Rhetorical Question Have Consequences? I'm not sure I even like it more than most, but it looks like every option is about to go negative so...
Too broad; at least from my view, more than Mistaken For An Order. I Didnt Mean It Had To Happen gets closer to the intended meaning of the message, but it could be confised with deital (sp?) wishing.
I'm kind of feeling sorry that for how close it gets to the trope and how concise it is, Wishful Thinking Taken As An Order has gone down. At the point it was posted, it seemed the best alternative for the "we don't want historical references" crowd, that followed the intended goals for a rename, that is.
edited 23rd Sep '10 8:15:48 PM by SilentReverence
Fanfic Recs orwellianretcon'd: cutlocked for committee or for Google?The historical trope wasn't mistaken for an order. Henry II wasn't talking to the knights in question, nor did he even know they were there, and the knights knew that.
The knights overheard a rhetorical question, and decided to give their king what they thought he wanted, in the hope of reward, but they knew perfectly well there had been no order.
It's as if some of your dimmer relatives overheard you sarcastically saying 'Why don't I just paint myself purple and walk down the street, playing bagpipes', and, believing you were dead serious, bought you 3 tins of purple paint and a set of bagpipes for Christmas. There wouldn't be any mistaken order involved then either.
The new name should really be one that still describes the historical quote.
Cattle die, kinsmen die. You yourself will surely die. Only word-fame dies not, for one who well achieves it.I think we officialy have an issue regarding what the trope definition actually is.
Sometimes a character may think he is speaking to an empty room, an inanimate object or someone beyond hearing; but unbeknownst to him, someone is listening, and ready to act on his wishes. Alternatively, a character may speak in hyperbole, or wish for something that he thinks no sane person would actually carry out. Of course, he would be wrong... Or there might be someone insane around.
Pretend to forget everything you know about the Trope Namer. What does this mean?
Ann says something, perhaps to Bill, perhaps to herself, which is not literally true. Charles, Dora and friends overhear, get the wrong end of the stick, and decide to give Ann what they now think she really wants, but is in fact among the things she least wants.
Ann's initial speech could be an angry tirade or drunken rambling, but usually includes a rhetorical question. The consequence is usually lethal, but doesn't have to be. It just has to be severe enough to leave Ann in a very bad position, and deeply regretting her words.
Cattle die, kinsmen die. You yourself will surely die. Only word-fame dies not, for one who well achieves it.I'm out of ideas in the sense that I think there is no need for more. I'm more worried by the fact that there are more negative than positive votes overall, as if people were actually against bringing up proposals for names... EDIT: I'm also amused that the ignore option has been voted down...
edited 24th Sep '10 12:59:46 PM by SilentReverence
Fanfic Recs orwellianretcon'd: cutlocked for committee or for Google?In theory, people should have voted up the rename because the name needs to be changed, regardless of whether they like any of the options. I get the feeling that there's a lot of "None of these names are very good, but these ones suck the worst" - neutral and downvoting without upvoting because no names are liked.
BTW, I'm a chick.^^Funny, there's no mistaking my position, and I upvoted more than one suggestion.
The child is father to the man —OedipusThe thing is, though, there are a lot of options up for a rename, and even some of the lower options have a goodly number of upvotes on them. If you take an average person who maybe likes three of the suggested names, they'll vote up those three and vote down the rest. So it's natural to have more downvotes than upvotes for such a person.
I think we may have a situation here where the positive votes are spread around so many of the various options that the negative votes are simply overwhelming everything.
Visit my contributor page to assist with the "I Like The Cheeses" project!An interesting view on the issue. Could it be lessened if we, say, reformatted the crowner taking away lookalike or redundant choices? Like the ~5 versions of Will Someone Rid Me Of This X and the ~3 versions of Accidental Death Sentence. Oe would that be misrepresentative?
edited 24th Sep '10 1:37:50 PM by SilentReverence
Fanfic Recs orwellianretcon'd: cutlocked for committee or for Google?
Crown Description:
The Definition that the name needs to fit is as follows: A person says something he does not mean literally; he does not mean for it to happen. Someone else hears the statement and interprets it as an order or request. The person who heard it acts on it, believing it to be the genuine desire of the speaker. This results in something the person who made the statement did not want or expect. Upon learning that the non-order was carried out, the person thought to have issued it is displeased.- The speaker does not
- have to be alone when he makes the statement,
- have to believe that no one heard him say it.
- His awareness of or lack of awareness of the person who heard him is irrelevant.
- The result does not have to be death or even serious harm.
- The relationship between the person speaking and the person acting is irrelevant.
- The statement does not have to be phrased as a rhetorical question.
- The statement does not have to be made in anger or frustration.

Now they are all voting for the option they said they were going to vote for this whole time.
You can disagree about that being the best option, but please don't diss the process.