Silly Title wanted, or not!

[ccga3359]

Did I not say that we needed a poll to see if we should do this poll?

Why does nobody listen to me?

[Rob Wright]

Did I not say that we needed a poll to see if we should do this poll?

Why does nobody listen to me?

I say we have a poll to determine if we should have a poll to determine if this poll should indeed of been posted.

Oh and it is 9:29:30 Grant

Rob

[ccga3359]

I say we have a poll to determine if we should have a poll to determine if this poll should indeed of been posted.

Oh and it is 9:29:30 Grant

Rob

On a "Scottish Kilt" forum why are they called 'polls'? Why not call them 'cabers'? Oh and the time is 2335E.

[morrison]

Don't run with that caber! You someone could get poked in the eyes.

[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.

[macwilkin]

Just to clarify, I told Rob the discussion was moot, that is all. My "huff and puff" was a reply to you, making a general statement about this thread and other threads like it. At no time did I "imply" something about Rob personally. In fact, his as post was just a clarification and not even an argument, it wouldn't make any sense if I had directed it at him. If he felt that way, then I'm afraid we had a misunderstanding which he and I can clear up ourselves without further stirring of the pot, so to speak.

As I said, please send all inquiries via private message, I'm not interested in arguing over implied tones or semantics. I stated a brief opinion on the matter, an expression that we should all have some patience. It seems to have been taken in a bad light, which is unfortunate however it's just my opinion... Nothing to worry about.

Very well; if I have misunderstood, then my apologies.

T.

[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

[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.