^ It would be the second time the topic was put on hold, and it's only been through heavy application of the mod thumping stick that this hasn't derailed again. I don't think waiting longer is going to change anyone's attitudes or particularly help it in any way.
What I *think* the issue is is that we have two or more factions mutually opposed over what the name should be, plus the inability to come up with a 100% clear title that isn't ISAIDWHAT, plus consensus for the rename itself, though produced, highly contested.
edited 26th Nov '10 7:27:27 AM by Elle
Rhetorical Order Blunder should be clear enough though, if only for its similarity to Rhetorical Question Blunder. Alternatively, ISAIDWHAT is a bit silly and longwinded, but it could be considered Fridge Brilliance that this arguably applies to this conversation.
Huh. I think that might be the only thing we agree on in this thread.
The child is father to the man —OedipusThe thumping was because all that was going on was the two factions were screaming at each other and repeating the same arguments over and over again. No new arguments were being offered, and screaming doesn't change anyone's mind.
If you have an idea about how to reconcile two groups who aren't interested in being reconciled, I'd like to hear it.
I would say just go with Rhetorical Order Blunder for now; even if it does not have to be an order (what else would it be, a request?) it is only equated with that in overly literal interpretations of the title. Even that is better than an overly literal interpretation of Rid Me Of This Priest. o.o
I personally would like to see the winner cross +10 before carrying out a rename, particularly for one this contentious. Not that we have any kind of numerical standard (and I don't think we should); I just think it would be less prone to coming back here in another thread in two days with "Rename Rhetorical Order Blunder."
edited 3rd Dec '10 7:10:19 PM by MoCellMan
Searching for plausible mechanisms.↑Actually, yeah... it would be. Where were you two months ago?
And considering the crowner I do did plan to come back to try and rename in a couple of months anyway. Bust just look at how much effort would lake a 10+-difference crowner lead!
edited 3rd Dec '10 8:33:46 PM by SilentReverence
Fanfic Recs orwellianretcon'd: cutlocked for committee or for Google?I'm amazed too. At least for me, I'm pretty bad actually identifying tropes at works (I get too distracted watching/reading the works I guess). I could bring about 12 examples from Real Life, but those don't go in trope pages so...
Fanfic Recs orwellianretcon'd: cutlocked for committee or for Google?Out of those two I'd go with Rhetorical Request Backfire. It's better than most of the options, though I stil prefer the expanded quote. The main problem is that every time I check this thread (more and more rarely) the top two options change pretty consistently.
...Yeah, it's one of the fun issues with this thread. When the crowner stabilizes we let it (the thread) rest for a while; then as soon as we check for definitiveness more people appears to (re)vote.
I'm almost debating myself between a depriested version of the quote (IMHO, always preferable) and Rhetorical Request Blunder. Maybe some Added Alliterative Appeal to the candidate may sway my vote...
Fanfic Recs orwellianretcon'd: cutlocked for committee or for Google?By a depriested version, you mean Rid Me Of This Trope?
@Michael: That's pretty much the one. A more explicit choice like Will No One Rid Me Of This Trope (or X or whatever) would be marvels, too. But Rid Me Of This Trope sounds cool as well.
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.

"No action at this time" is not the same as "no action", and useless actions are far worse that no action, in my book. We're getting nowhere at the moment, save for increasingly silly gag titles and to me, it only makes sense to put the whole thing on hold for now and come back to it later, preferably in a new topic. Neither treading water til we drown, nor leaping whimsically in some random direction seem like appealing choices.
Leave the crowner open, close the topic, and see if one of the pots boils while we're not watching it. When/if the topic comes up again, we may have an answer at the ready. In the meantime, I think many are willing to see the back of this, at least for now.
Creed of the Happy Pessimist:Always expect the worst. Then, when it happens, it was only what you expected. All else is a happy surprise.