Mafiascum.net

HERE is the 6-6-6-6. Basically the game rules required for every player to vote for somebody to enter the Void, and the three top vote-getters would have a higher chance of being eliminated. Meme managed to convince/manipulate people to tie the vote between four players, which as per the rules meant that all four of them became immune and three other people who hadn't even been voted for at all were randomly selected instead.

The Super Survivor Bros TCs are here:
He forces 3 votes on Peach and 3 votes on Kirby.
In the next TC there are only five votes so he should get eliminated easily. He convinces a stray vote for Jigglypuff tying things at 2 votes DK, 2 votes Fox, 1 vote Jigglypuff, forcing yet another revote.

In post 1223, DeathRowKitty wrote:Sorry Sorry I'm here, I'm real, and I'm spectacular.

I don't have great context on the Banana Split nom. Can someone explain what a 6-6-6-6 split is/CaptainMeme's part in it/have any links they can direct me to that will make this title in general easier to digest for someone whose knowledge on MS is approximately zero?

1 - Connection to Donkey Kong, easily meme's most beloved survivor character.
2 - He has a connotation of getting votes in a game of Survivor to even out on multiple different people, going to far as to have done this task multiple times in the same game, which is more or less unheard of otherwise. The numbers in question here (6-6-6-6 in this case) is more or less irrelevant.

The numbers on the 6-6-6-6 are relevant in that the top 3 vote earners were in danger. A 6-6-5-5-2 wouldn't have been as cool since the top two people would have gone to the Void and only one slot would have been random. But making it so NOBODY gets their first choice and putting 8 people who thought they were safe in danger? That's commitment.

nominate wgeurts for Yogurts

In post 1216, Maruchan wrote:nth. we need more not-mafia theemd titles

How many mafia themed titles do we have?

remember back when DRK used to give people titles? me neither

is drk even rly around anymore i swear i haven't seen her or is that just a case of different circles being frequented

In post 1231, Davsto wrote:is drk even rly around anymore i swear i haven't seen her or is that just a case of different circles being frequented

no, her last post was a week ago, in this very thread

who wants a revolution

In post 1233, McMenno wrote:who wants a revolution

If it includes getting rid of Title Monarchy, I'm down.

Title republic.

here's my proposal: we alternate between two week periods. the first week of the first period, anyone can point out any other user who they think deserves to have a title (or deserves to have their current title reevaluated and possibly changed to something more current); during the second week of the first period, the top 3 or so people from the first week are voted on, and a winner is chosen. the 2 people who are in the top 3 but aren't #1 can't be voted on for the next, say, 3 months, so that the thread doesn't just stagnantly vote on the same people. during the second period, an open discussion of what would be a good title for that person happens -- realistically, there'll've already been discussion of potential titles for people before now, but this allows for more time for people to discuss it, and the nature of the discussion will obviously shift now that it's "hey, we're giving X person a title, what's a good title for them?" then, at the end of the second period, as long as that person accepts it, they get the title with the strongest consensus.

you'd still have a title fairy around (someone who, y'know, is actually active and participates) to ensure that, like, titles intended to insult the person who has the title are immediately knocked down, and there'd still be the option to just nominate someone directly when a really truly perfect title reveals itself, but this system would ensure that people who deserve titles actually get them. people will whine about how a few titles get through that don't perfectly encapsulate all aspects of a person's personality, but those people are boring and wrong.

Wow!
ZedZee for Title Fairy IMO

asdmgasu,agd,jgdmhfbasd,jfgrd,jagshdmgfasfhggarsjfgagsadsgffgfadgsdfadg

In post 1236, xyzzy wrote:here's my proposal: we alternate between two week periods. the first week of the first period, anyone can point out any other user who they think deserves to have a title (or deserves to have their current title reevaluated and possibly changed to something more current); during the second week of the first period, the top 3 or so people from the first week are voted on, and a winner is chosen. the 2 people who are in the top 3 but aren't #1 can't be voted on for the next, say, 3 months, so that the thread doesn't just stagnantly vote on the same people. during the second period, an open discussion of what would be a good title for that person happens -- realistically, there'll've already been discussion of potential titles for people before now, but this allows for more time for people to discuss it, and the nature of the discussion will obviously shift now that it's "hey, we're giving X person a title, what's a good title for them?" then, at the end of the second period, as long as that person accepts it, they get the title with the strongest consensus.

you'd still have a title fairy around (someone who, y'know, is actually active and participates) to ensure that, like, titles intended to insult the person who has the title are immediately knocked down, and there'd still be the option to just nominate someone directly when a really truly perfect title reveals itself, but this system would ensure that people who deserve titles actually get them. people will whine about how a few titles get through that don't perfectly encapsulate all aspects of a person's personality, but those people are boring and wrong.

I was gonna suggest something more liberal.

Giving people titles for the sake of giving them titles is a bad idea.

titles are a measure of which members of our community have contributed to that community by carving out a unique space and a clear, memorable, and enjoyable identity. the process of giving them out should reflect that.

In post 1240, Haschel Cedricson wrote:Giving people titles for the sake of giving them titles is a bad idea.

talking about titles for the sake of talking about titles, though! I miss that!

I remember when there were more controversial moments for titles.

In post 1236, xyzzy wrote:here's my proposal: we alternate between two week periods. the first week of the first period, anyone can point out any other user who they think deserves to have a title (or deserves to have their current title reevaluated and possibly changed to something more current); during the second week of the first period, the top 3 or so people from the first week are voted on, and a winner is chosen. the 2 people who are in the top 3 but aren't #1 can't be voted on for the next, say, 3 months, so that the thread doesn't just stagnantly vote on the same people. during the second period, an open discussion of what would be a good title for that person happens -- realistically, there'll've already been discussion of potential titles for people before now, but this allows for more time for people to discuss it, and the nature of the discussion will obviously shift now that it's "hey, we're giving X person a title, what's a good title for them?" then, at the end of the second period, as long as that person accepts it, they get the title with the strongest consensus.

you'd still have a title fairy around (someone who, y'know, is actually active and participates) to ensure that, like, titles intended to insult the person who has the title are immediately knocked down, and there'd still be the option to just nominate someone directly when a really truly perfect title reveals itself, but this system would ensure that people who deserve titles actually get them. people will whine about how a few titles get through that don't perfectly encapsulate all aspects of a person's personality, but those people are boring and wrong.

I would take this burden upon myself,,,

but maybe there are too few people for there to be two week periods

In post 1230, xyzzy wrote:remember back when DRK used to give people titles? me neither

This reign has been utterly perfect and if drk could be title fairy dictator I would support it

No fun allowed

None of you

In post 1240, Haschel Cedricson wrote:Giving people titles for the sake of giving them titles is a bad idea.

Also this

Do something interesting first u fucks

No u

In post 1247, vonflare wrote:No u

Ya got me

In China, there is a political theory known as the dynastic cycle. Where a dynasty will rise, peak then fall. It is said that the dynasty had lost the mandate of heaven. Once this happens, the dynasty is replaced by a new one where the cycle starts again.

This trend can be seen in the past title fairies with title nominations flourishing during the start of a new title fairies term, over time the nominations wain and eventually, the fairy will give way to a new one.

Though this might be a bigger break than the past since title fairies normally choose who they wish to be the fairy. There are three paths I can see.

Deroki return and become more active on the site allowing her reign to become prosperous.
Deroki returns to select a new title fairy.
Deroki continues down this path and might get replaced by the other mods.

I don't think any title fairy has been chosen by someone other than a title fairy before. And these paths ignore the possibility that titling might change drastically. What times we live in.