Silly Title wanted, or not!

[morrison]

In order of ascending hierarchy can anyone post a list of the titles and the number of posts required to attain them?

I'm guessing probably not...

I shall shed the baby fat [NEW] brackets with my tenth post. . (to be a Kilted Member);
Now, it’s on and up through the flights to the heights of Kilted-Dom.
I’ll find the Kilted Regiment @ 50 posts;
The Kilted Samurai @ 100 posts;
The Kilted Warrior @ 250 posts;
The Kilted Gentry @ 500 posts;
and the most honorable Kilted Noble @ 750 posts;
Fittingly I’ll be on the threshold of history with 1000 posts as I become the Kilted Elder;
Should I persevere to the grandest, loftiest of titles? Yes. For as I enter my 2000th (that’s two thousandth) post I will be a Kilted Legend!
Could this be the highest height? Could this be the Grandest of the Grand? No? Here, I have seen the Grand Defender of his Kilt.
Yet, higher still we have come finally to attain a sighting of the Ancient oder of the Kilt.

I think the older the post the greater the aroma

[ccga3359]

Morrison I stand corrected, I thank you. I would bestow upon you the title "Kilted Elder, keeper of archives".

[Woot22]

Maybe there is a happy medium where those who do not want to see "Kilted Samarai" next to our name can opt out and those who want it can choose to display it. I think they are cheesy but if you like them I don't see why you're not allowed to have them I guess.

[CameronCat]

I have yet to see a post by someone who adamantly feels that they should not come back and have no place in the forum.

-- Oh, look! Here is one now...

I will stand for the opposition and voice a strong opinion against titles based solely on the number of posts. No matter how cute the titles chosen, having them numerically based sets up a hierarchy, e.g, "I have a higher number, so I'm a more Grander Exalted Defending type-person than you."

To which I holler: Nonsense, and no you're not. Frequency doesn't always equate to knowledge or helpfulness, and other threads have noted the abundance of "nice picture," "I agree," and similar post padding that doesn't really add much to the discussion.

Steve said it best in the FAQ: "Post Ranks and Special Titles have now become more about separating us instead of bringing us together." and I call on Steve to stand his ground here.

Now to be clear, I am NOT against titles, be they cute, honorary, bestowed, hereditary or purchased at Wal-mart. My sole objection is to basing them upon the number of posts, which is an indicator of nothing at all Scottish or kiltish.

As one compromise for those who must, I would propose that many title advocates create their own and add it to their sig at the bottom of their posts...there are already many clever ones and we could all get a smile from some more.

Additionally, I would particularly favor internal titles, bestowed ON members BY members for services rendered or information provided. (I believe the Dandelion works that way, non?) There are many here whose knowledge and experience I respect highly and would be pleased to advance them as Titled Rabble.

* * *
However, old ways die hard for some and to those that feel they must have a title by their name, I say: Let's keep it relevant to topics and Scottishness and require some (gasp!) personal involvement to advance.

For instance, and these are only examples...a point system. Use the previously cited 4 titles: Kilted Samarai, Kilted Warrior, Kilted Noble, Grand Defender of the Kilt and set the points breaks where you will.
Such a system would be surveyed on joining and updatable by the user on the honor plan. You could increase your points and gain a higher title through your own actions that advance the cause of the kilt, not the cause of the keyboard.

-- Own a kilt? 7 pts Note: Simple...you're a kilt owner, or not. NO points for more than one; that would introduce economic factors as to who could afford what.

-- Worn a kilt this calendar year? 5 pts

-- Ever worn a kilt? 2 pt

-- Provider of authoritative, researched and reliable kilt, tartan, heritage or history information, such as published books, papers, histories etc, OR holding a related position in academe or conservancy? (There are several established authorities on this forum) 5 pts

-- Established and experienced kiltmaker or outfit supplier (sporrans, etc.)? 5 pts

-- Born in Scotland or currently resident there? OR Direct lineal descent within 4 generations (you-parents-grands-great grands) only? 3 pts

-- Ever visited Scotland? 2 pts. for each visit. (English/ Welsh/ Irish members asked to only score for holidays or extended stays, not just popping in for a day or two...)

-- Actively involved in preserving celtic/Scots heritage outside your own home? (You somehow bring or support the heritage to others through playing the music, storytelling, jewellry, visual art, etc. Doesn't have to be on a perfomance level, just sharing it with others. Also membership in a clan society or other group, or even just attending a games event.
Almost anything outside your own house would count.) 1 pt



So, how would you score on this plan?

And more importantly, who would you prefer as the Grand Defender of the Kilt: a kilt owner and perhaps maker who has traveled to the homeland and is a renowned authority on tartans... or somebody with 4000 posts on a web-forum.
If they happen to be the same person, lucky us...but in many cases we know it won't come out that way.

Steve: Stand fast! Many here support your position. Vote NO titles to be based on number of posts.

Peace
JT

[ghostlight]

-- Oh, look! Here is one now...

I will stand for the opposition and voice a strong opinion against titles based solely on the number of posts. No matter how cute the titles chosen, having them numerically based sets up a hierarchy, e.g, "I have a higher number, so I'm a more Grander Exalted Defending type-person than you."

To which I holler: Nonsense, and no you're not. Frequency doesn't always equate to knowledge or helpfulness, and other threads have noted the abundance of "nice picture," "I agree," and similar post padding that doesn't really add much to the discussion.

Steve said it best in the FAQ: "Post Ranks and Special Titles have now become more about separating us instead of bringing us together." and I call on Steve to stand his ground here.

Now to be clear, I am NOT against titles, be they cute, honorary, bestowed, hereditary or purchased at Wal-mart. My sole objection is to basing them upon the number of posts, which is an indicator of nothing at all Scottish or kiltish.

And here's another. I will also stand for the opposition and voice a strong opinion against titles based solely on the number of posts. Unfortunately, the poll doesn't contain this option, so I'm voicing my opinion here knowing that my input is probably not going to make me any friends.

Frankly, I'm tired of seeing people have their opinions dismissed during the course of a lively debate not because they failed to make a logical argument, not because they misunderstood a key point in the discussion, not because they presented facts that were in error, but simply because their post count was smaller. And I'm tired of seeing some of the folks doing it going back to edit their posts later to cover their tracks.

This isn't a frequent occurrence, but it doesn't have to be frequent to be damaging to the community. It leaves a lasting impression and it happens regularly enough that I firmly agree that it divides us. It's often hostile towards new members even before we're aware of their stances, knowledge and motives for being here. Some of the people doing it are some of the people voicing support for bringing back the post count driven titles. To those people I say,

"If you've demonstrated that you were going to hold members post counts against them with or without the titles in the past, why should we believe that you would reform and behave any differently if they were brought back now?"

The fact that nudging newcomers in the ribs has revealed one or two of them to be trolls does not justify treating everyone in this manner. While nudging your friends in the ribs and questioning their motives now and then can be fun and/or encourage lively debate, nudging people you've just met in the ribs and questioning their motives the moment they walk in the door is just plain boorish and obnoxious. This is, unfortunately, one of those times when a few of us can cast a bad light on all of us.

Are we not the Ladies and Gentlemen of X Marks the Scot?

[Canuck]

Maybe we should go the one step further eh? and take out the join date. Then that would solve everybody's problem as you wouldn't know who was knew or who hasn't been here from the beginning. As for the tone in my post it's extreme sarcasm!
As one of the old farts on this forum, I've been through the changes, I think 6.
Sometimes it's easier to point someone to the search button, guide someone into some easy research. In so doing it's easy to tell who has a wealth of knowledge and the quality of the post.
I never had a title, no probs. I got a kick out of the monikers. Heck it's a forum! Grab a chair, pour a dram or bevy, read, communicate.
As in our true Canadian Game, I'll take a 2 minute penalty and watch the power play.
Geez it's a full moon tonight!

[Rob Wright]

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

[Lady M]

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

Steve has already stated that those (in some form) will return and for some people they already have. So, discussing them is moot.

[macwilkin]

Steve has already stated that those (in some form) will return and for some people they already have. So, discussing them is moot.

Respectfully: I don't think any discussion is "moot" until we have an official announcement from Steve that those titles are now restored. I think Rob was right to bring up that distinction between those titles and the "canned" ones that were based on the number of posts.

Regards,

T.

[Lady M]

Respectfully: I don't think any discussion is "moot" until we have an official announcement from Steve that those titles are now restored. I think Rob was right to bring up that distinction between those titles and the "canned" ones that were based on the number of posts.

Regards,

T.

If Steve has plans to restore some (if not all) personal titles, discussing those particular titles doesn't do a lot of good as none of us know which titles will return and for whom. We should patiently wait for the process to be finished rather than huff and puff about something that hasn't happened yet. I'm sure Steve has a lot of things on his plate, we need to give him the time. Which leaves me back again, I believe the argument is moot until we hear more information from Steve. At this point, it's all just speculation.