Dance of the Title Fairy: Accepting Applications

[LicketyQuickety]

1,000

Now I feel special

[PJ.]

If by "friend" you mean "people that like you" (I don't really count you online only guys as my "friends" sry) then sure, you arguably do need five people who like you to get a title, but let's face it, it's incredibly difficult to be an active member for more than a couple of months and not have five people who like you. It's not like it's a difficult social barrier to reach - even shotty managed it.

Therefore, the 5 nths serve as a process to make sure the title itself is good for the person. 5 people does not a popularity contest make.

My point isn't that it's a popularity contest, my point is that the bar doesn't serve it's purpose of being a "community" gift or the purpose of vetting out bad titles and creates an extra hoop to jump through.Titles are not special at all and anyone who simply says to 5 people "yo post that you want me to have a title" can get one. It's better to skip the worthless "community step" altogether and simply let Psyche decide whether the title breaks the rules or not and give people the titles they want.

[Psyche]

your point isn't true, though

[mastina]

Not 1 person on site has a title given to them by non-friends. Sorry.

Maybe nowadays but I distinctly recall that when I got Unabridged it was nominated by people who overall weren't rather fond of me, for instance.

[Accountant]

anyone who simply says to 5 people "yo post that you want me to have a title" can get one

psyche will reject

[PJ.]

your point isn't true, though

Who doesn't have a title that wants one? I'm pretty sure no one that has tried to get a title has been refused one.

Are there bad titles? Yes, plenty.

Are there titles that are inaccurate? Yes, plenty.

Has the process of voting been basically just a cess pool of drama and shitposting? Yes, for at least 10 years.

Therefore, the vetting process is both not working as intended, and only serves as an inefficient and pointless barrier between wanting a title and getting one.

@accountant, that's simply not true. As long as you don't say it explicitly in this thread or petition it in GD, it's fair game and always has been.

[Accountant]

psyche will reject the title if it's bad, and if it's good then there's nothing wrong with it.

[PJ.]

That's assuming that the title fairy is perfect, and if they were, why include the vetting at all?

[Nexus]

the best april fools jokes are the ones that don't happen on april fools

[Nexus]

ffs psyche get your head out of your ass.

[PJ.]

Best April fools jokes are usually actually jokes.

[Davsto]

That's assuming that the title fairy is perfect, and if they were, why include the vetting at all?

So the title fairy doesn't have to wade through every single silly suggestion, they only have to consider the ones decent enough to get 5 nths.

[PJ.]

But any suggestion can get 5, easily, as it's not a high bar. That's by your own admission.

[Psyche]

ffs psyche get your head out of your ass.

um, fuck you?

[LicketyQuickety]

ffs psyche get your head out of your ass.

um, fuck you?

Did you know every time you say "fuck you" to someone a demon gets his wings?

[Psyche]

your point isn't true, though

Who doesn't have a title that wants one? I'm pretty sure no one that has tried to get a title has been refused one.

You're demonstrably wrong, unless your concept of "tried" means they worked to become valued members who wanted titles. Over twenty people without titles have over the last 24 hours demonstrated a desire to get one. Odds are that around a quarter of them has a title by 2018, if that. And that's just one point of evidence that your claim is bullshit.

Are there bad titles? Yes, plenty.

Are there titles that are inaccurate? Yes, plenty.

So? That doesn't mean the vetting process doesn't work; it just means it doesn't work perfectly. Most titles are good and accurate.

All

the titles that

I've

signed off on have been good and accurate. How does letting people pick their own titles serve this purpose anyway?

Has the process of voting been basically just a cess pool of drama and shitposting? Yes, for at least 10 years.

No it hasn't. Drama's been pretty rare. In this thread, you've been the locus of literally all two instances of it.

Therefore, the vetting process is both not working as intended, and only serves as an inefficient and pointless barrier between wanting a title and getting one.

Even if your points were true, this conclusion wouldn't follow. It's bad reasoning through and through.

[Davsto]

But any suggestion can get 5, easily, as it's not a high bar. That's by your own admission.

Not what I said - I said that "having five people which like you" isn't a high bar. I believe that the nthing process goes further than that as people don't just nth any title for a user they like, they nom a decent title. I'm saying that your "five people which like you" doesn't actually stop people getting titles and isn't a high bar in that regard, while actually getting a title with 5 nths is, while not a high bar, also isn't such a low bar it is worth ignoring.

It weeds out a lot of the bad-to-mediocre suggestions (especially if a single user has many suggestions, the nthing process generally narrows it to just 1 or 2), and generates discussion which helps Psyche decide rather than him just deciding blind.

[PJ.]

Look at the other title fairy threads then get back to me psyche.

And using a 24 hour period of trolling to disprove a legitimate point is disingenuine.

[Accountant]

The inclusion of Chevre to rail against the fake change was a really smart move in dispelling the fears of an April Fool's prank.

[McMenno]

did people actually think this was real? that's pathetic. maybe it was because it was vonflare that suggested it being an april fools' prank first?

anyway if this turned out to

not

be an april fools' prank, I would change my title back, and I'm sure lots of others would too.

but seriously, did people really think

psyche

of all people would implement this change? right around april fools' too? c'mon.

[LicketyQuickety]

April Fools.

[Firebringer]

Title fairy April fools was a lot better than the other April fools joke.

[PJ.]

Title fairy April fools was a lot better than the other April fools joke.

[Psyche]

I can come up with lots of strong reasons to let people pick their own titles. But they aren't "lots of titles are bad and/or inaccurate" or "anyone who wants a title can get one" aren't them. Because those points are either red herrings or flat-out wrong.

For example, a better argument would focus on how niche the title system is relative to the broader community, especially compared to a new one that could plausibly be enjoyed by basically everyone. There will be fewer users as happy with their titles as, say, I am with mine, but the

overall

benefit generated by the new system could plausibly be higher than that of the old one. Instead of a few users who are extremely happy with their titles, you have many users who are moderately happy with their titles. In fact, you could go further and point out that users with titles from the old system will still have them after implementation of the new one, further maximizing community benefit. And so on. An argument of this form acknowledges the merits of the old system, but manages to delineate in a clear, comparative manner how the a new system could outweigh those.

Your argument overstates the weaknesses and ignores the nuances of the old system and doesn't even begin to argue the merits of the new one. Furthermore, it makes broad, obviously controversial propositional claims like "everyone who wants a title gets one" and take for granted that everyone else will accept them because you're "pretty sure". It reads more as a rant than an actual attempt to convince other people that what they believe about titles is wrong.

[SleepyKrew]

The 5 nths thing is silly but it'd also be silly to not set an arbitrary number somewhere imo