In post 1837, zoraster wrote: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--
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.
