Dance of the Title Fairy: ORCA's Greatest Hits

[Glork]

Honestly, who really gives a fuck? Does singer having a title that is vaguely related to Scummer of Love really ruin your site experience that much that you have to keep fighting it?


I feel like this is a "mountains out of molehills" situation. I mean, if you wanted to argue that it's not a great fit for her, that'd be another story. I don't think it's the best fit for singer personally, but I don't care enough to

prevent

someone from getting a title they'd like, that is supported by other community members. *shrug*

[singersigner]

I tried to get the policy changed in January and was shot down. I also don't think anyone is "punishing" you, unless you think not getting a title is "punishment".

You're actively fighting for something you personally disagree with just because it didn't go your way the first time? Not getting a title is hardly a punishment, if you want to go that route.

Though I might point out again, that it's technically forum-based, because it came entirely of something posted publicly in the forum, unprovoked, outside of any meet thread. This wasn't someone/s spamming the meet thread, or something randomly done at a meet that wasn't permanently documented for posterity, and then deciding it was funny enough later. Lucille would have never passed, and I can guarantee you that I never would've been nominated for "Brandi's title," or any variation thereof, if it weren't for Brandi's thread.

I'm still unsure of the details for what was denied in your case, but I agree with Esurio, that if something is significant enough to enough people, I don't see why it would be denied.

[Ythan]

Now that I think about it there was that video conference.

[xRECKONERx]

Honestly, who really gives a fuck? Does singer having a title that is vaguely related to Scummer of Love really ruin your site experience that much that you have to keep fighting it?


I feel like this is a "mountains out of molehills" situation. I mean, if you wanted to argue that it's not a great fit for her, that'd be another story. I don't think it's the best fit for singer personally, but I don't care enough to

prevent

someone from getting a title they'd like, that is supported by other community members. *shrug*

I mean, if that's the case, fine. Clearly some people give a fuck, otherwise we wouldn't have had an army of people crying about how The Reckoning peeps wanted to give Pie a meet-based title.

I tried to get the policy changed in January and was shot down. I also don't think anyone is "punishing" you, unless you think not getting a title is "punishment".

You're actively fighting for something you personally disagree with just because it didn't go your way the first time? Not getting a title is hardly a punishment, if you want to go that route.

Though I might point out again, that it's technically forum-based, because it came entirely of something posted publicly in the forum, unprovoked, outside of any meet thread. This wasn't someone/s spamming the meet thread, or something randomly done at a meet that wasn't permanently documented for posterity, and then deciding it was funny enough later. Lucille would have never passed, and I can guarantee you that I never would've been nominated for "Brandi's title," or any variation thereof, if it weren't for Brandi's thread.

I'm still unsure of the details for what was denied in your case, but I agree with Esurio, that if something is significant enough to enough people, I don't see why it would be denied.

The title came out of a thread in response to things going on at the meet, so it was still meet based. Despite the fact that during The Reckoning, we had plenty of people posting about it on the site, plenty of people posting about it in the meet thread, and pretty regularly scheduled webstreams (with permanent video documentation) of plenty of the happenings going on at the meet, I was told that a title that comes from or is spawned by a meet isn't relevant enough to the community at large to be put into place. And I fought for it, but there were plenty of people there who either had a grudge with me or were butthurt about not going to meets or just genuinely felt like it shouldn't be allowed that it was shot down.

I honestly don't care if you get a title or not. If you are going to get one, I feel that we can do much better than the current suggestions, and would be happy to hear others and sit down and contribute. My main point of all this rabblerousing is to point out that six months ago, when it was my meet, meet titles were blanket banned. If we're going to change the policy now, although I'd find it mighty convenient, that's fine. I actually happen to think that meet-based titles should definitely be allowed. I think this is a community that extends far beyond a forum and mafia games. I live with people I've met through this community, I've loved and been intimate with people I've met through this community, I regularly play video games with, take trips with, and do several extracurricular things with people I've met through this community.

I'm just bringing up a policy issue that was already addressed. Despite the fact I was defeated last time, I've let it sit. If this is an actual policy that can be changed, I'm all fucking for it. This site is so much more than "lol u said that funny thing that one time in that mafia game" and I think we should recognize it.

[quadz08]

I agree with the spirit of Reck's argument. Not sure why meet-based titles weren't allowed in the first place. *shrug*

[Oman]

This is actually turning into a bigger deal than just one title, and it's only fair I give it a better assessment that I could tonight. If I can get to this tomorrow I will, otherwise 2 days. I think this might drive something bigger than just one title though.

This will lead to an abuse of power in one direction or the other, so be prepared for that. However, I'll be reading both sides and using that to base my decision, so please feel free to weigh in. PM inbox is always open for the pee-shy

[Quilford]

People give a fuck because when titles are based on real life experiences that aren't easily if at all recorded or recounted it ruins the fun of titles?

[quadz08]

No it doesn't? lol

[shaft.ed]

it's not a meat based title since its based on a thread
just sayin

title still sucks though

[zoraster]

Here was my reasoning then as it is now:

Titles should be for things that happen on MS, not things that happen in "real life." There's a question when the two overlap whether it's enough to really make it something that happened on MS. Brandi came in and made a drunken post in MS that was kind of funny. If this discussion had been about Brandi getting a title for it, I think I'd have less of a problem.

But it seems to me that using Brandi's thread is really just a way to shoe-horn a meet-up based title onto Singer.

Don't get me wrong: I think meet ups serve a vital part in strengthening community bonds. I nominated singer because of the meet up for a scummy, for example. But it seems inappropriate to start adding titles because of funny stuff that happened off site, even if it involves many of the people from the site.

[Korts]

Okay, titles based on events at meets are not acceptable. Nor are, it seems, titles based on one-off threads based on meets; okay. So how far back is the complaint of OH NOES IT'S MEET BASED legitimate? If a title is based on a thread based on a thread based on a meet, does it carry more weight? If it's based on a thread based on a meet, but the thread passes x pages, does it carry more weight? See where I'm going? No? Then you're a moron.

My point is, how about instead of prolonging this fight endlessly in an effort to quantify the immediate relevance to the site a title suggestion has to have, we agree on setting a general guideline? Something along the lines of "when making a title suggestion, be aware that the level of connection to on-site content will be a factor in the Title Fairy's final decision," and from there we let Oman deal with it.

[zoraster]

First, for someone who routinely gives posting advice, why go for the "you're a moron" line for some hypothetical conversation you're having?

Second, was there an attempt to quantify it?

Personally, I think the idea of a centralized title system with approvals, etc. may have outlived its purpose. We've become so stingy about what counts or not (and I am aware that what I'm saying is part of that) that we'd be better served to just let people pick their own titles so long as they're not offensive. I know part of the charm is that the title represents that you're recognized as "part" of the site, but I don't know if it's worth it.

[redFF]

Something along the lines of "when making a title suggestion, be aware that the level of connection to on-site content will be a factor in the Title Fairy's final decision," and from there we let Oman deal with it.

Isn't this pretty much exactly what's currently in place?

[Faraday]

I wouldn't be so adamant if this exact same thing with the exact same reasons hadn't come up 6 months ago and The Reckoning peeps had been told "nope, not allowed, suck it up"

So re-nom Pie. I wasn't even at the meet and think it's a fucking great title for him. There are a lot of people who weren't there who get the reference, and it's funny and it definitely should have went through.

I skimmed most of esurio's post but I think I've said the sentiment before - meet based titles are as strong as anything for me.

[quadz08]

I feel like meets are now a pretty ingrained part of site culture. There are multiple meets per year, all over the country (and the world yay ponybash/scumburgh). Everybody knows that meets are a thing, people go regularly; they're an IRL extension of the discussion portion of the site.

I agree with Faraday. Re-nom Pie. *shrug*

[animorpherv1]

I don't think it's fair to give SS her title if we don't give IPie his (or at least reconsider it). They were both meet related titles. SS's resulted as something that Brandi said on the forum about the meet, and IPie's title was mentioned by someone in the meet thread, but it quickly became a running joke on the forums between all parties involved. So they both did hit the forums, and I'd argue that IPie's title hit the forums harder as a whole than Brandi's thread (complete with typos) did.

That would solve the meet-related title business, and make the majority of people happy I think. Both sides win

[quadz08]

there are no sides, JUST AWESOMENESS

[animorpherv1]

there are no sides, JUST AWESOMENESS

Two titles of AWESOMENESS!

[xRECKONERx]

"when making a title suggestion, be aware that the level of connection to on-site content will be a factor in the Title Fairy's final decision,"

This is the exact kind of indecision and fence-sitting I've come to know and love from our skittles

I'd be fine with re-nomming Pie but I want to hear Oman's verdict on the situation before that happens.

I also wish the damned crash hadn't eaten all the debate around Pie's title from January, but alas.

[zoraster]

what was the nomination for again? I forget.

[LlamaFluff]

I agree with zoraster on meet based titles, dont think they should exist still. If its something that heavily supplements an on-site thing that has existed then its more ok. If its the origin (or only occurance), I dont think that really should be allowed.

If anything starts with "you had to be there" its probably a bad thing for a title. At least with stuff that happens here someone can read back and see how it actually unfolded (zorasters title for example), but its like a friend who tells you what they think is a hillarious story from a party they went to. Chances are its not going to be that funny to you because you werent there.

Lets say I meet some random scummer for lunch and during lunch they knock over their drink half a dozen times. Should I come back and nominate them for "clumsy" or something based on them doing that? No. It may be funny to me, and to them, but no one else is really going to get it or remember them by that fact. If this somehow relates to singer as related to the site and did before the meet too, then its a decent title. Anything that would not have existed without the meet should not be a title though to me.

[quadz08]

I disagree. I think every title, about a month or two after it is accepted, becomes "wait how did you get that title?" It's not that different if the answer is "well in this one post that I have to go find hold on" or "well at this one meet let me tell you about it."

[LlamaFluff]

Same area im coming from though.

For example to only title on this page that I do not get is shaft.ed.

zoraster came from that one assassins game
oman was the fakeclaim as SK
reck is from the GP2 thing
ani is because he adds nothing to anything he touches
ythan is for him posting a ton in games
faraday is because he cant keep games straight

The last three are all "if you play with them you get it" titles that can be appreciated for that reason. The other two while the games are old, they can actually be pointed to and the title be enjoyed for that reason because if someone is so inclined, they CAN read the game. Meet titles you only can pick up from word of mouth. Reck has the closest to borderline im happy with since it was something from real life, but it manifested itself into one of the largest threads on MS history.

If the title nom is SUPPLEMENTED by a meet, its fine. If its SPAWNS from a meet (ipie) then no, its not something I would support.

[quadz08]

And there we disagree. I don't really care where it spawns, if it's particularly memorable (iPie's is an especially good example; it's referenced at least occasionally now, half a year later, by people who weren't even there) then it's fine to be a title.

[animorpherv1]

(iPie's is an especially good example; it's referenced at least occasionally now, half a year later, by people who weren't even there)

Exactly. it may have started as a meet related, but it's now a site-wide thing. I think this of deserving of a title re-nom, at least.