Title Fairy: Killer App Edition (Swipe Right!)

[Kublai Khan]

Bossier than the old boss

?

[vonflare]

how about

Final boss

[Nahdia]

Like A Boss

[vonflare]

Like A Boss

this one

[InflatablePie]

Meet The New Khan

?

meh

[zakk]

how about since he's going back to the way he was back before

RetKhan

still has the terrible username pun and everything

[Shadoweh]

what's a bbm

Big Beautiful Man?

I mean to be fair

[Flameaxe]

I'm uncomfortable

[vonflare]

I'm un

khan

fortable

ftfy

[Flameaxe]

I'll allow it

[Davsto]

KHAAAAAN

[InflatablePie]

Nth ConManMick

title btw. I think that's five now?

I know drinking titles have been shot down before (e.g. singer) for not being unique but CMM has the third most posts in drunkposting if you don't count flaked or removed users (sapo, esurio, Axxle - the two above being UT and Majiffy) in the last year and a half. For a 5+ year thread, that's impressive.

Hell, I've barely interacted with the guy and the first thing to come to mind is "that user that's always in drunkposting".

Although I'd also like to suggest

PWI

as an alternative.

[zoraster]

The whole point of giving him a new title is to get "khan" out of his title.

[Kublai Khan]

The whole point of giving him a new title is to get "khan" out of his title.

Khan't be done.

Though I legit laughed at Retkhan.

[Kublai Khan]

Nth ConManMick

title btw. I think that's five now?

I know drinking titles have been shot down before (e.g. singer) for not being unique but CMM has the third most posts in drunkposting if you don't count flaked or removed users (sapo, esurio, Axxle - the two above being UT and Majiffy) in the last year and a half. For a 5+ year thread, that's impressive.

Hell, I've barely interacted with the guy and the first thing to come to mind is "that user that's always in drunkposting".

Although I'd also like to suggest

PWI

as an alternative.

Oh c'mon. It's pretty horrible.

There's not even a Scotch pun in there.

[Errantparabola]

Spoiler: Wherein I quote several title nominations that I think are poor, and restate other people's arguments expressing their displeasure at aforementioned title nominations but in my own words

The whole point of giving him a new title is to get "khan" out of his title.

Haven't people attempted to reference Kublai Khan's title as precedent for username-based titles so often that at this point, a Khan-based title would have the added plus of being self-referential towards Kublai Khan's title's propensity to serve as an example for people who want to push their username-based title agenda forward?

EDIT: I think I need to point out that I am not being entirely serious here.
This is probably a poor post overall.
I regret making it, but will leave it for the annals, and perhaps, future posters may learn from my mistakes, although that may be a dream that will never become reality.

EDIT2: On second thought, it may not be entirely preposterous for my original point to be a legitimate talking point when talking about the value of seriously nominating Kublai Khan for a Khan-based title. I'm reasonably certain that several titles have been born out of behavior related to the titling process and the titling thread, and this would be another example-- namely, subverting the near-universal belief that username titles are a poor idea, and giving the user that currently holds the prime example of a username title another username title.

EDIT3: I feel like I need to clarify that last thought. Ideally, a title should holistically relate to the nominee's presence and impact on site, and I do not believe that there is a lot of common ground between a title that bears the name of Khan and a title that is worthy of bearing the name of Khan. As such, although I will continue to read future discourse on these mostly frivolous Kublai Khan nominations, I will most likely not be contributing any input or support for said titles. As many people have previously said, it would be ideal if people did not have to comb through the unnecessarily large pile of aforementioned frivolity to find something that is worthy of actual title-based discussion.

EDIT4: Let's be real. This post is a complete fucking trainwreck. I really want to delete it.

EDIT5: It appears that I don't have the option to delete this post. Whether that is a consequence of me missing some sort of time window or never having that sort of power in the first place is of no great import. However, I will note that I do feel tempted to just replace the entirety of this post with some sort of content that would earn me the respect and approval of my peers-- perhaps, some insightful comment or maybe even some label that noted that the post that was previously edited out was in fact, insightful, but I did not want it shown for some particular reason. I've decided that I will settle for a compromise, and put this entire post in spoiler tags, and let the public know that what is inside the spoiler tag is not what most people would qualify as a "good post," and so if the user decides to click on the spoiler tag, it would be in part the responsibility of the user for bringing such displeasure upon themselves. This would partly absolve me of the responsibility for the exposure of this post, and I would be able to sleep more easily.

EDIT6: I realize now that titling the spoiler "definitely do not click on this" is going to motivate many to click on the spoiler. With that knowledge, I would still be morally responsible because I would actively and knowingly be making a decision that encourages people to click on the spoiler. After a few short moments brainstorming what would be the spoiler header that would discourage the greatest population from clicking on the spoiler, I arrived on some sort of statement pretending that this post was undesirable as well as uninteresting, while also detailing exactly what was inside the post. That way I would satiate the user's curiosity as well as let them know that this post is not something that they would want to click on. However, I also think that it shouldn't be too uninteresting, because that might make the user suspicious, and click on it anyway. It must be uninteresting, but unassumingly so. I arrived at the spoiler header you see now. I am claiming that this post is, in fact, me quoting "several title nominations that I think are poor, and [restating] other people's arguments expressing their displeasure at aforementioned title nominations but in my own words." This spoiler header conveys both that this post has nothing to add to the conversation, that this post is going to be unoriginal and have nothing of note, and as a result, it will hopefully ensure that a good number of users simply glaze over this post. I do ask that if you were one of the unlucky users to happen to have their interest piqued by the spoiler header, or perhaps you just open spoilers out of habit, please do not comment on it, for if it were to get buried that would mean that my mistake would fade away, noticed by as few as possible. I ask you, unlucky reader, to do this for me.

EDIT7: I do feel like I need to defend the validity of the original argument, and will cite this--

still has the terrible username pun and everything

See? The "terrible username pun" is a crucial part of Kublai Khan's title identity (if, of course, he wishes it to be) and being self-referential towards that identity is something that the masses would eat up. The issue would be making the reference inherent in the title, which is most likely never going to be resolved.

But I'm not saying that someone is inevitably going to come up with another title that both the community and Kublai Khan himself can agree is ideal. All I'm saying is that this "terrible username pun" thing isn't a wash as far as discourse is concerned. That's all I'm saying. That's all I ever wanted to say. I don't know how it got so out of hand.

[Shaziro]

Spoiler: Wherein I quote several title nominations that I think are poor, and restate other people's arguments expressing their displeasure at aforementioned title nominations but in my own words

The whole point of giving him a new title is to get "khan" out of his title.

Haven't people attempted to reference Kublai Khan's title as precedent for username-based titles so often that at this point, a Khan-based title would have the added plus of being self-referential towards Kublai Khan's title's propensity to serve as an example for people who want to push their username-based title agenda forward?

EDIT: I think I need to point out that I am not being entirely serious here.
This is probably a poor post overall.
I regret making it, but will leave it for the annals, and perhaps, future posters may learn from my mistakes, although that may be a dream that will never become reality.

EDIT2: On second thought, it may not be entirely preposterous for my original point to be a legitimate talking point when talking about the value of seriously nominating Kublai Khan for a Khan-based title. I'm reasonably certain that several titles have been born out of behavior related to the titling process and the titling thread, and this would be another example-- namely, subverting the near-universal belief that username titles are a poor idea, and giving the user that currently holds the prime example of a username title another username title.

EDIT3: I feel like I need to clarify that last thought. Ideally, a title should holistically relate to the nominee's presence and impact on site, and I do not believe that there is a lot of common ground between a title that bears the name of Khan and a title that is worthy of bearing the name of Khan. As such, although I will continue to read future discourse on these mostly frivolous Kublai Khan nominations, I will most likely not be contributing any input or support for said titles. As many people have previously said, it would be ideal if people did not have to comb through the unnecessarily large pile of aforementioned frivolity to find something that is worthy of actual title-based discussion.

EDIT4: Let's be real. This post is a complete fucking trainwreck. I really want to delete it.

EDIT5: It appears that I don't have the option to delete this post. Whether that is a consequence of me missing some sort of time window or never having that sort of power in the first place is of no great import. However, I will note that I do feel tempted to just replace the entirety of this post with some sort of content that would earn me the respect and approval of my peers-- perhaps, some insightful comment or maybe even some label that noted that the post that was previously edited out was in fact, insightful, but I did not want it shown for some particular reason. I've decided that I will settle for a compromise, and put this entire post in spoiler tags, and let the public know that what is inside the spoiler tag is not what most people would qualify as a "good post," and so if the user decides to click on the spoiler tag, it would be in part the responsibility of the user for bringing such displeasure upon themselves. This would partly absolve me of the responsibility for the exposure of this post, and I would be able to sleep more easily.

EDIT6: I realize now that titling the spoiler "definitely do not click on this" is going to motivate many to click on the spoiler. With that knowledge, I would still be morally responsible because I would actively and knowingly be making a decision that encourages people to click on the spoiler. After a few short moments brainstorming what would be the spoiler header that would discourage the greatest population from clicking on the spoiler, I arrived on some sort of statement pretending that this post was undesirable as well as uninteresting, while also detailing exactly what was inside the post. That way I would satiate the user's curiosity as well as let them know that this post is not something that they would want to click on. However, I also think that it shouldn't be too uninteresting, because that might make the user suspicious, and click on it anyway. It must be uninteresting, but unassumingly so. I arrived at the spoiler header you see now. I am claiming that this post is, in fact, me quoting "several title nominations that I think are poor, and [restating] other people's arguments expressing their displeasure at aforementioned title nominations but in my own words." This spoiler header conveys both that this post has nothing to add to the conversation, that this post is going to be unoriginal and have nothing of note, and as a result, it will hopefully ensure that a good number of users simply glaze over this post. I do ask that if you were one of the unlucky users to happen to have their interest piqued by the spoiler header, or perhaps you just open spoilers out of habit, please do not comment on it, for if it were to get buried that would mean that my mistake would fade away, noticed by as few as possible. I ask you, unlucky reader, to do this for me.

EDIT7: I do feel like I need to defend the validity of the original argument, and will cite this--

still has the terrible username pun and everything

See? The "terrible username pun" is a crucial part of Kublai Khan's title identity (if, of course, he wishes it to be) and being self-referential towards that identity is something that the masses would eat up. The issue would be making the reference inherent in the title, which is most likely never going to be resolved.

But I'm not saying that someone is inevitably going to come up with another title that both the community and Kublai Khan himself can agree is ideal. All I'm saying is that this "terrible username pun" thing isn't a wash as far as discourse is concerned. That's all I'm saying. That's all I ever wanted to say. I don't know how it got so out of hand.

Too long, read every last bit of it and then decided to deny your one request.

[McMenno]

did I hear the word shitposting

insert apt metaphor here

[Not Chara]

Spoiler: Wherein I quote several title nominations that I think are poor, and restate other people's arguments expressing their displeasure at aforementioned title nominations but in my own words

The whole point of giving him a new title is to get "khan" out of his title.

Haven't people attempted to reference Kublai Khan's title as precedent for username-based titles so often that at this point, a Khan-based title would have the added plus of being self-referential towards Kublai Khan's title's propensity to serve as an example for people who want to push their username-based title agenda forward?

EDIT: I think I need to point out that I am not being entirely serious here.
This is probably a poor post overall.
I regret making it, but will leave it for the annals, and perhaps, future posters may learn from my mistakes, although that may be a dream that will never become reality.

EDIT2: On second thought, it may not be entirely preposterous for my original point to be a legitimate talking point when talking about the value of seriously nominating Kublai Khan for a Khan-based title. I'm reasonably certain that several titles have been born out of behavior related to the titling process and the titling thread, and this would be another example-- namely, subverting the near-universal belief that username titles are a poor idea, and giving the user that currently holds the prime example of a username title another username title.

EDIT3: I feel like I need to clarify that last thought. Ideally, a title should holistically relate to the nominee's presence and impact on site, and I do not believe that there is a lot of common ground between a title that bears the name of Khan and a title that is worthy of bearing the name of Khan. As such, although I will continue to read future discourse on these mostly frivolous Kublai Khan nominations, I will most likely not be contributing any input or support for said titles. As many people have previously said, it would be ideal if people did not have to comb through the unnecessarily large pile of aforementioned frivolity to find something that is worthy of actual title-based discussion.

EDIT4: Let's be real. This post is a complete fucking trainwreck. I really want to delete it.

EDIT5: It appears that I don't have the option to delete this post. Whether that is a consequence of me missing some sort of time window or never having that sort of power in the first place is of no great import. However, I will note that I do feel tempted to just replace the entirety of this post with some sort of content that would earn me the respect and approval of my peers-- perhaps, some insightful comment or maybe even some label that noted that the post that was previously edited out was in fact, insightful, but I did not want it shown for some particular reason. I've decided that I will settle for a compromise, and put this entire post in spoiler tags, and let the public know that what is inside the spoiler tag is not what most people would qualify as a "good post," and so if the user decides to click on the spoiler tag, it would be in part the responsibility of the user for bringing such displeasure upon themselves. This would partly absolve me of the responsibility for the exposure of this post, and I would be able to sleep more easily.

EDIT6: I realize now that titling the spoiler "definitely do not click on this" is going to motivate many to click on the spoiler. With that knowledge, I would still be morally responsible because I would actively and knowingly be making a decision that encourages people to click on the spoiler. After a few short moments brainstorming what would be the spoiler header that would discourage the greatest population from clicking on the spoiler, I arrived on some sort of statement pretending that this post was undesirable as well as uninteresting, while also detailing exactly what was inside the post. That way I would satiate the user's curiosity as well as let them know that this post is not something that they would want to click on. However, I also think that it shouldn't be too uninteresting, because that might make the user suspicious, and click on it anyway. It must be uninteresting, but unassumingly so. I arrived at the spoiler header you see now. I am claiming that this post is, in fact, me quoting "several title nominations that I think are poor, and [restating] other people's arguments expressing their displeasure at aforementioned title nominations but in my own words." This spoiler header conveys both that this post has nothing to add to the conversation, that this post is going to be unoriginal and have nothing of note, and as a result, it will hopefully ensure that a good number of users simply glaze over this post. I do ask that if you were one of the unlucky users to happen to have their interest piqued by the spoiler header, or perhaps you just open spoilers out of habit, please do not comment on it, for if it were to get buried that would mean that my mistake would fade away, noticed by as few as possible. I ask you, unlucky reader, to do this for me.

EDIT7: I do feel like I need to defend the validity of the original argument, and will cite this--

still has the terrible username pun and everything

See? The "terrible username pun" is a crucial part of Kublai Khan's title identity (if, of course, he wishes it to be) and being self-referential towards that identity is something that the masses would eat up. The issue would be making the reference inherent in the title, which is most likely never going to be resolved.

But I'm not saying that someone is inevitably going to come up with another title that both the community and Kublai Khan himself can agree is ideal. All I'm saying is that this "terrible username pun" thing isn't a wash as far as discourse is concerned. That's all I'm saying. That's all I ever wanted to say. I don't know how it got so out of hand.

comedy isn't dead. good job.

[Psyche]

low benefits for effort used

[Killthestory]

idk i thought it was pretty funny

i thought this thread was funnier when people were super passive aggressive to each other and it led to actually ok title nomms lol.

im gonna go be productive now tho

[zakk]

Khan change your title to PredaKhan and your icon to this

Spoiler:

because

Kublai Khan
Predacon
Megatron


ok i'll take my nerdness elsewhere

[Aristophanes]

Is it in bad taste to advertise a nom in a different thread? Like, if I were to mention it in N the Drunkposting thread, would that go against the customs here?

I know a lot of people there adore CMM's posts and I think it fair that they get a chance to say so, but I wouldn't want to break any rules.

On the bright side though, it may allow for an influx of creativity if it isn't the same 10* people posting all the time. New blood could be good here!

*10 was an arbitrary number chosen to prove my point. It is not based on any empirical data.

[ConManMick]

It should be 13 cos that's prime

[Errantparabola]

that post was not completely sincere, but it is likely a lot more sincere that you might think it is at first glance