Missed opportunity to speak of TITLES

[ghostlight]

Surely no one takes these titles seriously?

Wouldn't the fact that this topic keeps coming back suggest that some gave them more attention than they were due?

From my perspective, part of the problem with the past implementation of the titles was that they were taken seriously. If they had just been a tongue-in-cheek attempt at some gentle fun as you said, there would not have been a need to exclude some of the forums from one's post count. But some of the forums that are the most tongue-in-cheek and/or fun and/or directly friendly were the forums that did not count.

We were told that the reason for the exclusion was that those forums weren't particularly kilt relevant. If that was the case, then post count and associated titles were not simply tongue-in-cheek fun. They were a measure of each members kilted relevancy.

Titles with any sort of exclusions applied are exclusionary by nature. And they frequently give the appearance of attempting to label the relevancy of other community members.

This isn't an X Marks issue. This is an internet wide issue. I doubt you could find an online forum with any history behind it that hasn't had this topic come up as a hot button issue at least once for all of the same reasons. Most of the forums I have visited have titles turned off for exactly these reasons.

Are we here to discuss kilts or are we here to measure one anothers relevancy? If we're here for the latter...

Nice kilt!

[azwildcat96]

I have only been here a short while, but I have to agree that the silly titles, number of kilts and post rankings, made it a bit more fun to read threads. I would like to see them back too.

This is not the only board that I read, but it is the only one that I am a member of and the only one that I contribute to.

IMHO someone that has 25 kilts is not neccessarily wealthy...they may own less expensive ones, or have collected them for 60 years, or purchased them used at a reasonable price, or they just love the kilt. Or, they may be wealthy!

Someone that has 5,000 posts may not know a thing about kilts, as 4,999 of their posts may be welcome, happy birthday, nice kilt, or I agree commments. Or, they may be a true kilt guru!

So what do these titles, number of kilts and number posts really tell us? Nothing! But they are still fun!

I don't think that any of these things created a "class system" by any means. I believe that anyone who spends a little time here can identify those members that are knowledgeable, and those that are full of it.

Steve, please bring back a few of the things that attracted me to this forum.

[robthehiker]

Wouldn't the fact that this topic keeps coming back suggest that some gave them more attention than they were due?

I would humbly suggest that each member is paying as much attention to this topic as they see fit.

[ghostlight]

Ghostlight. It appears that you may have missed my point.

It seems I did.

Whether or not special morale titles are awarded independently of post count (and I really have no stake in that side of the titles issue), I hope the people who helped make X Marks what it is remember that they distinguished themselves through their actions before they held special titles. While funny tag lines under user names might be amusing for the bearers of those titles, the rest of us selfishly get more enjoyment out of the bearer's continued contributions to the community.

I hope I'm reading too much into the fact that this particular issue keeps coming up for discussion. I hope people understand that their past contributions to the community and their place in the on-going community haven't been devalued over different or missing titles.

[auld argonian]

"...and I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have people like me as a member." -Groucho

I don't think that anyone took the titles seriously...it wasn't like rank or anything like that, it was just about the time you put in....though, there were/are people who managed, say, the 2,000 posts that rated them a "kilted legend" designation in a very short time and some who took years to achieve it. Consider that some posters didn't post unless they had something to say and some posters had a lot of "nice kilt" posts that added to the count. Thus, the discriminating participant knew that the number of one's posts had less to do with one's contribution than the quality of one's posts.

Think of it in terms of any martial art (or any of several other disciplines, I suppose)...if all you go into it for is to get a "black belt", then you've missed the point.

It was, however, nice to see who the old duffers were...some of these folks established a lot of "cred" sticking around that long.

Best

AA

[ccga3359]

Surely no one takes these titles seriously?

I assure you that as "Grand Defender of the Rubber Chicken" I most certainly took my role very seriously, and then there were all the trappings that came with it...

From my perspective, part of the problem with the past implementation of the titles was that they were taken seriously. If they had just been a tongue-in-cheek attempt at some gentle fun as you said, there would not have been a need to exclude some of the forums from one's post count. But some of the forums that are the most tongue-in-cheek and/or fun and/or directly friendly were the forums that did not count.

My title, as it were, was not based on post count but on association to rubber chickens. Before I was awarded this fitting title I was a "Grand Defender of the Kilt" for having over 4000 posts, some of which were accidentally almost quite profound! A count that I did take pride in as it showed that I contributed, I helped build this forum.

There are gentlemen like Jock Scot or Matt Newsome that can in a single post contribute more to kilt wearing than I could in 100 posts. So in that mind the post count based titles are irrelevent. They are very deserving of their special titles that they did indeed earn. Where I cannot add in knowledge I hope I've added in fun. How many have tuned in just to see that Panache thug give that handsome Grant fellow his come-uppance?

[BoldHighlander]

How many have tuned in just to see that Panache thug give that handsome Grant fellow his come-uppance?

Oo...Oo...I did! I did!

(...and might I say it was usually well deserved too! )

[Jock Scot]

Oo...Oo...I did! I did!

(...and might I say it was usually well deserved too! )

Me too!

Grant your contributions do, as far as I am concerned, help the fun element along in a major way. Gosh! Did I really say that? Should I have said that? Well actually --------YES I SHOULD!

[thescot]

Wouldn't the fact that this topic keeps coming back suggest that some gave them more attention than they were due?

. . .

Not necessarily. Perhaps it's just the opposite. Perhaps it suggests that the topic should be reconsidered by the powers that be due to the numbers who wish them to do so. Perhaps objections to our silly titlles suggests more importance assigned by the objectors than is due.

Arguments and assertions to the contrary, the titles were always taken as tongue-in-cheek by the vast majority of the forum's members. Anyone who took them seriously should reevalute things.

And if you somehow felt "excluded," I will personally assure you that you are welcome here, that you are full member, and that no one intends to exclude you from anything. See? You are not excluded at all. I can't imagine anything on this forum that a title--or lack of same--could possibly have excluded you from.

[Lady M]

And if you somehow felt "excluded," I will personally assure you that you are welcome here, that you are full member, and that no one intends to exclude you from anything. See? You are not excluded at all. I can't imagine anything on this forum that a title--or lack of same--could possibly have excluded you from.

I suspect that after being around for all of 30 posts (as of this particular posting by you) you may not have a very good feel for the ambience of the place. There are many personalities, and, like a family, it has developed a unique and somewhat complex relationship between its members. Often times, "traditional" things like titles take on importance way beyond the literal. You see, we all know that none of us is really a samarai, but it was part of who we were.

I'm pretty sure people on this forum have been judged by how man posts they have and have been left feeling excluded.

Alrighty, anyway, I'll throw my 2 cents into this. I'm a member of another forum of an unrelated nature. The forum has almost 30,000 members. They do not use a standard ranking system. No one receives a "rank" until they have reached 1 years time and 1000 posts. At that time, they can then set their own title.

The board has a "welcome" section as well as games and a few others that are irrelevant to the board, these sections do not count towards post count. I should also mention that this forum uses the same software as ours. Just putting it out there that it's worked very well for them. People get a fun title of their picking once they have been around long enough and have contributed enough. Gives people something to look forward to without a lot of "Nice kilt" and "I agree" posts clogging up the works.