Silly Title wanted, or not!

[robthehiker]

Just to clarify, when many of us speak of titles, we are not referring to the ones based on poast count but to those bestowed on individuals. Raphael was The Kilted Dragon, I was the Kilted Writer, Grant was the Grand Defender of the Rubber Chicken. Those titles were earned. They were not based upon post counts.

Rob

Some titles have (re)appeared. cajunscot is "Forum Historian" and Hamish is "The Kilted Legend".

[morrison]

Them specialty honors are bigger-tongue-in-bigger-cheek up next to the tongue-in-cheek post count titles. They are a direct chide about the (post count) titles themselves from the forum proving itself as not above some hilarity and harmless self deprecating humor.
The little meaningless titles help us to remember to "Not takes our selves too seriously, Lest we be dismissed as zealotous, self important contributors on a truly very important World Wide Web address."

[Mark Keeney]

I don't know why, but I enjoyed being a Kilted Warrior.
I have never held my post (caber) count as any actual power over anyone else.
I don't think I would ever put it in my signature because it would be my label instead of a label given to me. (for whatever reason)

But, they are gone now. Lets talk about kilts.

[Tattoo Bradley]

All arguments and misunderstandings aside, there is one fact that is clear from this post/poll as well as the other outcry posts about titles:

Steve stepping in and removing honorary titles with no forewarning or consideration for the feelings of the forum at large was a stupendous mistake.

You can go back and forth all day and until you're loden blue in the face, but the numbers (see poll results) do not lie.

[CameronCat]

Hmm,

This one seems to spiraling off the intended flight path. Let's try some mid-course corrections.

@ Rob Wright, earlier..
Except some of us earned those titles over the years. Bit hard to be flippant about them for some of us.

Then later:

Just to clarify, when many of us speak of titles, we are not referring to the ones based on poast count but to those bestowed on individuals. ... Those titles were earned. They were not based upon post counts.

Thank you for the clarification, and perhaps you see how the original could have been mis-interpreted. But that idea fits in with my support of titles FOR members BY members. Could you clarify the "criteria" for how those titles were determined to be worthy and by whom? Only the list owner? The Totally Official Board of Chosen Moderators? The Rabble here assembled?

@Kilted Abuser of Rubber Chickens
I am hard-pressed to recall a single instance in the 3 years I've been on board that someone has waved their post count over someone else's head.

@ Ghostlight
I believe I stated that I've seen members with lower post counts dismissed over their own count. There's a difference. I'm not the only one who's been on the receiving end of the latter.
Twice recently someone with a low post count who could have been argued with from a different perspective was instead shot down simply over his post count. What does that say to others about the character of the general community?

Thank you Ghostlight, for the support. I call on other casual readers to chime in with opinions as well.

And that as stated, friends, is one of the main reasons I'm against the strictly-numeric based titles. Although I try not to use meself as an example, I have experienced just this on another forum.
After being invited to join by a friend, I answered a question from another member and pointed out a flaw in a prior response. The prior poster was on me like paint because I was "new to the forum" and he had over 2500 posts in three years. (His words...really!)
The simple fact that his answer created an electrical hazard that could have resulted in a fire was lost on him--he'd been there longer so he knew more. Again I cry: Nonsense.

While I have not seen such here in my short time, there is little doubt similar has probably happened. Why encourage it? There are other and polite ways to tell someone they may be a bit off base without throwing a statistical lack of posts at them.

@Tatoo Bradley
All arguments and misunderstandings aside, there is one fact that is clear from this post/poll as well as the other outcry posts about titles: Steve stepping in and removing honorary titles with no forwarning or consideration for the feelings of the forum at large was a stupendous mistake.

Again, I'm uncertain here as to the meaning of "honorary" title. If it refers to the extra, saltired bar just under your user name I still would like to know how those are determined, but if it's internally bestowed I'm OK with them. Perhaps their sudden removal was offensive to some. But if "honorary" refers to the numeric post-count titles, then I support their removal and applaud their demise.

You can go back and forth all day ... but the numbers (see poll results) do not lie.

Nor do they tell the truth you seek. At this writing, 68 members out of the many thousand forum members have voted in favor, and that's only 3/4 of those taking time to vote. Fewer than 100 have voted and yet over 1000 have viewed the topic. Right now, the tally stands at 0.068% of viewers in favor, and even less for all members (>2100 active, >11,000 total)

The results are statistically insignificant as a current indicator of the massed rabble's opinion.

To get a more accurate reading, perhaps someone could start a non-partisan thread way up at top of the forum list: "There is a poll being taken, and your opinion is important. Please read this thread, then vote." (Not sure the Forum Lairds would tolerate that, though.)

I'm also not sure that an overwhelming result either way would sway The Laird one bit from his intended course. And that's probably not a bad thing.

But it's still a great conversation. Thanks

Kind regards,
JT

[Tattoo Bradley]

Again, I'm uncertain here as to the meaning of "honorary" title. If it refers to the extra, saltired bar just under your user name I still would like to know how those are determined, but if it's internally bestowed I'm OK with them. Perhaps their sudden removal was offensive to some. But if "honorary" refers to the numeric post-count titles, then I support their removal and applaud their demise.

I, as most everyone else, am NOT referring to the auto-titles the software was assigning based on post count. By honorary I am referring to the custom titles (ie. Kilted Ghillie, Kilted Writer, Kilted Juggernaut, Kilted Dragon etc.) As to assignment and history of those, it has been discussed at great length in this closed thread.

Nor do they tell the truth you seek. At this writing, 68 members out of the many thousand forum members have voted in favor, and that's only 3/4 of those taking time to vote. Fewer than 100 have voted and yet over 1000 have viewed the topic. Right now, the tally stands at 0.068% of viewers in favor, and even less for all members (>2100 active, >11,000 total)

The results are statistically insignificant as a current indicator of the massed rabble's opinion.

To get a more accurate reading, perhaps someone could start a non-partisan thread way up at top of the forum list: "There is a poll being taken, and your opinion is important. Please read this thread, then vote." (Not sure the Forum Lairds would tolerate that, though.)

I'm also not sure that an overwhelming result either way would sway The Laird one bit from his intended course. And that's probably not a bad thing.

But it's still a great conversation. Thanks

Kind regards,
JT

Firstly the views indicate exactly that: how many times that thread has been viewed. It does not indicate that 1,000+ unique users have viewed a thread. It counts each view by each user AND guest. So, unregistered "lurkers" up the count as well. I alone can probably be held to about 15 or so of the views on this thread. In fact, I would be willing to bet there are no where near 1,000 unique users visiting this site on any given day, much less viewing a specific thread.

As to the <100 voters: I also feel that's a more fair pool than the "many thousand members" as many thousand of those are not active. In fact many of those thousand have 1 post or even 0. They registered and never came back. So, to quote those sort of numbers is inaccurate. So, since your misconception of the views equating to unique viewers figured into your guesstimation of 0.068% has been clarified, that percentage can be dismissed as well.

I don't have the raw numbers or access to the sort of resources to give exact numbers, but 200-300 seems about a reasonable guess of active or even semi-active posters on this forum (which is of course the group concnerned and affected by the changes.) If 100~ vote, and the rest do not, then they've indicated they don't really care one way or the other.

This is not a democracy and the poll holds no official weight or pull as to the titles. It was initiated by a member, and not the XMTS staff. To assume that the results of this thread will dictate the fate of the titles would be foolish. However, it is a very good picture into the view from "down here" and the reception and perception of a very brash and sudden change by management. It would be equally foolish of Steve to ignore or dismiss it. My first post was a reference to just that.

[morrison]

Here's ONE colossal clarification,

We are talking about ALL titles, the auto-generated and specific honorary titles.

I should know, I started the thread!

"WOOF,WWWOOOOOF!

In "Saarlooswolfhond" (Leendert_Saarloos) dogbreed, that means:
It behooves us all to be diligent in this poll (cabercatch) to be close to the heart and sensitive to the friend in the post inter play exchange.

Since each member is permitted one vote and the automatic thread lock-down occurs six months from LAST POST to thread, I felt it prudent to have the process remain open for three months. Many hundreds of members might logon, notice the poll and vote. Recently I went nearly three months and didn't even look at XMTS. There are other things happening in the world. A 90 day poll is adequate time enough to catch most of the would-be participating-voters in the poll.
It aint official.
HOWEVER, it seems by its appearance in the percentage values, at this point that the relevance of humor and specifically humorous recognition of various members is highly important and can carry upward to an official voice in lobbying FOR the elements in favor of caricatures - via silly titles - of members by having auto-generated & specific honorary titles.
arf"

[Zardoz]

As many have noted, it seems the majority of active members liked the titles, I know I liked being a "Kilted Elder" and thought it would be cool if I was ever granted a honourary title as well.

I would rather see the titles come back, and the post counter go away, or just be on the user pages. The post count is what drives a lot of forum post whores.

[thescot]

An observation: all discussion in this matter is moot. What your point? It is a discussion about opinions and desires, but none of it is determining in nature, so of course it's moot.

Additionally, it is my own observation that the afrementioned incidents of people being "put down" due to low post count had to do with a couple of fellows coming on and virtually attacking the status quo. I believe tartanraven and Mr. Akins come to mind. Noe of those alleged put downs had to do with knowledge or anything of import.

Hey, I've got a great idea--right out of Vonegut. (see "Harrison Bergeron." I think you can find it on the internet.)

If you know a lot about kilts, you have to wear headphones that constantly make blaring noises to inerrupt your thinking and keep you from showing your knowledge. If you persist, you are put on suspension for three weeks.

And if you look really good in a kilt, then you have to wear only kilts that don't fit or have garish tartans along with pink tights and sombreros.

And if you've been around a really long time so that you have freinds here and understand the subtleties of how the site has worked over the years, you have to type upside down, adopt a new name and avatar, and try to convince others that you are a newbie.

And if you really are a newbie, then everyone else has to do exactly what you say and dress just like you and foget things that have developed over years of practice.

Then we can all be equal and just the same. Gosh wouldn't that be swell!

[ghostlight]

Jim:

This thread asked for opinions. It opened options for dissenting opinions. A couple of us have provided them. I've said what I had to say. If anyone would like additional clarification for further conversation and debate of my opinions, please feel free to PM me.

But I have no interest in even attempting to justify myself to someone who is far too busy shoveling words into my mouth to properly debate my opinions.