POLICY: VIPs and Titles

"Do you think you should be able to request a variation of your title?"

I've already requested "Clown Prince Of Degredation" and look froward to the PM telling me to get stuffed.

"Nobody except a handful of bitter ex-mods stomping on their sour grapes cares about whether a title says Moderator, Manager, Sheriff or Judge, Jury and Executioner."

Bitter ex-mods have such rights.
Bitter current users, on the other hand, aren't nearly so interesting as we.
And in light of this revelation, I'd like to change my application for a new title "Bitter like a lemon ex-mod and Clown Prince of Degradation".

"Most of the policies that we announce publicly are those that affect the users. We don't always announce when an internal policy is changed. It's internal to the MS, and doesn't really affect much outside of there."

So you're saying that the title rule has been changed and you guys just didn't tell the rest of us? So....since we're allowed to have titles that are somewhat informational and reflect our positions, when does my "Bitter like a mod ex-mod and Clown Prince of Degradation" title application come through?

 

It doesn't really seem like we're getting anywhere on this...

 

So you're saying that the title rule has been changed and you guys just didn't tell the rest of us? So....since we're allowed to have titles that are somewhat informational and reflect our positions, when does my "Bitter like a mod ex-mod and Clown Prince of Degradation" title application come through?

Good point. Note to MS: whenever you decide to change policies about titles and colors, notify us too. At the very least, you should have asked the lot of us if anyone wanted his or her title changed to "Village Idiot Emeritus."

He received approval from teh Head Admin. It is the Head Admin that sets policy. The current Head Admin has every bit of authority to change the policy, grant exemptions, or anything else.

True, but if he's going to grant exceptions, it ought to be for a reason. If he thinks funny titles should be allowed again, that's totally fine, but then make that the official policy and have it apply to everyone. Equal protection under the law and all that rot.

 

Dark_Lady_Jada posted on 5/17/05 3:43pm

---

Nobody except a handful of bitter ex-mods stomping on their sour grapes cares about whether a title says Moderator, Manager, Sheriff or Judge, Jury and Executioner.
[hr][/blockquote]

That's not entirely true. A number of current mods (including myself) have spoken up suggesting that information-only titles are the best way to have them.

Infact, the vote in the MS resulted in a majority vote for information-only. However that vote is now under critisism for having limited options, and some others have changed their mind.

[i] Grow up, get over it and go watch RotS. [/i]

You could say that about any debate in Comms. Moderator promotions for example.

 

"Why are those titles thought up anyway? Aren't they born out of user interaction? Aren't there stories behind them?

Then why can't a regular member have a title borne of a story? I think it would be a lot more fun for regular members to have titles than to read those of mods."

But that would require assigning a title to someone, which is unfair.
We happen to already have a title. Yes, that's kind of unfair, too, but they have a primary purpose which is not "to be funny".
Which leads us back to the titles of VIPs. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing variations in them. However, we would replace one double standard with another: We would limit the requests, otherwise I'm sure some joker would ask for another title every hour. (But then again, maybe we could ban them for harrassement then...)

 

Edit: For those who keep saying this isn't a big deal, look how many people used to care.

Fair enough. But don't all users want colours? Moderation powers? Just because they want them, or care enough to want them, does that mean they should be given these privileges? No. Users are always going to want titles, colours and what not. By forcing informational titles users aren't going to suddenly say "Oh, titles suck. I don't want one". As long as they exist, people are going to want them. You can?t say that only "fun" titles result in users wanting titles for themselves. Titles as a whole concept are what result in users wanting them.

 

By forcing informational titles users aren't going to suddenly say "Oh, titles suck. I don't want one". As long as they exist, people are going to want them. You can?t say that only "fun" titles result in users wanting titles for themselves. Titles as a whole concept are what result in users wanting them.

When the title feature was first introduced, a lot of people did want them. But when it became clear that the titles were only going to be used to explain the role of a VIP/moderator/manager/administrator, people stopped asking for them. (At least that's how it looked to me.)

If you change the rule and start allowing silly titles, then why should it only be VIPs/moderators/managers/administrators who have them?

 

I've been told to come here and defend my e-comrades against an evil and unwarranted attack.

As such, I shall post my opinion without reading a single other post.

Thus and therefore, I cannot be contaminated by other's wrongness of belief - and I shall remain pure and unsullied.

And now: THE OPINION

Anything that differentiates between Mod and Member,(that is not an explicit help or guide to the general usership), should be and must be banned.

The Moderators are there to serve - not to lord over.

Moderatorship is a task and a pain - not a cool special features member group.

UKS


P.S If this was the other way round, I would support the moderators view - As we are corrupt and evil.

P.P.S I want as a title "OT Member - Corrupt Ex AC Permie AND The greatest user never to become a Mod who isn't named Jim or Rhett"

 

If you change the rule and start allowing silly titles, then why should it only be VIPs/moderators/managers/administrators who have them?

Because even if they are "silly" titles, they do their job. They have a purpose and they fulfil that purpose. They tell us which forum a given moderator moderates. It doesn't matter if they have the word "Sheriff", "Magistrate" or whatever else in the title. Since each of the titles has a forum acronym attached to it, it fulfils the purpose of telling users what it needs to tell them. Regular users don't need titles because they don't have information to give to other users. They're not in position whereby they need to have some vital information on display for others to see. Whereas moderators, they need that information because it's there for every user to see. It's there to help them. And even if they are silly, the titles still do help. They still have purpose, and they still fulfil that given purpose.

With regular users, there would be no purpose to have titles. Hence the reason they don't have them at the present. Silly or not, there?s no need for users to have them. So if the rule was changed to allow silly titles, it would still effect regular users in the same manner.

 

They have a purpose and they fulfil that purpose.

That is most certainly open to debate.

 

But that would require assigning a title to someone, which is unfair.
We happen to already have a title. Yes, that's kind of unfair, too, but they have a primary purpose which is not "to be funny".
Which leads us back to the titles of VIPs. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing variations in them. However, we would replace one double standard with another: We would limit the requests, otherwise I'm sure some joker would ask for another title every hour. (But then again, maybe we could ban them for harrassement then...)

We wouldn't have to worry about double standards of any sort if we stuck with information-only titles. Or got rid of them altogether.

Regular users don't need titles because they don't have information to give to other users.

But that information can be found in forum headers and in profiles, so titles are really superfluous.

With regular users, there would be no purpose to have titles. Hence the reason they don't have them at the present.

You don't think users would enjoy having titles? As far as I can tell, the only argument for mods having "fun" titles is they make things more enjoyable for the regular members somehow. Wouldn't being able to have your own title work better in that regard? Wouldn't mods fostering a spirit of fun and community work better in that regard?

Amazing.

 

But that information can be found in forum headers and in profiles, so titles are really superfluous.

That's a separate issue. I totally agree that forum headers do that respective job, but as a separate entity, "fun" titles do still fulfil their job. They tell users what they need to know, to put it simply.

You don't think users would enjoy having titles? As far as I can tell, the only argument for mods having "fun" titles is they make things more enjoyable for the regular members somehow. Wouldn't being able to have your own title work better in that regard? Wouldn't mods fostering a spirit of fun and community work better in that regard?

You're missing the point. What job on these forums do regular users have? None. So basically, that translates to the fact that they don't need titles. Now, say for instance a moderator comes along, and changes his title from "3SA Manager" to "3SA Magistrate". One would assume that most people would still be able to figure out what this moderator does. In other words, it does its job (irrelevant of the fact whether this job being done is redundant since headers also do it). I'm sure you'll agree with that much, yes? So moderators have a use (however redundant it is) for titles, and regular users don't. Moderators can add a little bit of fun into their title, and still let it do its job (once again, however redundant that may be). Since regular users don't have a use for titles, why should they be given any, even if for fun? Moderators are hardly using the fun element on it's own. The information is topped off with at most an extra word. It's hardly going destroy the spirit of users to see a moderator with an extra word like "Magistrate" in his or her title. If moderators were going around with purely fun titles like "Dark Lord of the Sith", I'd totally agree and say that titles should be informational only. But since this isn't the case, we're bickering about such a trivial thing that when put into perspective has little to no effect on users.

 

You're missing the point. What job on these forums do regular users have? None.

Except, you know, to post stuff. Without members, there'd be no forums.

Amazing.

 

GriffZ posted on 5/17/05 4:13pm

---

Two, if you do not want to actually discuss this issue, no one is forcing you to. [face_happy]


[hr][/blockquote]

It is exactly that attitude that makes "regular" users not want to come in here and contribute to discussions in Comms.

 

Your attitude doesn't help much either you know.

 

I don't see how GriffZ's comment would turn away people. He's just saying if don't want to join the discussion, nobody is forcing you to.

 

I'm too tired to read a lot of this right now.

But in regards to mods names being in headers and we should get rid of all titles because they are in a header. Well what happens if you see a mod in a different forum than they moderate? THere is no way to tell which forum they mod short of A) asking or B) looking at forum after forum until you find the fora that they mod.

 

I really do think titles should stay. Information-only or fun-and-information, I think they're useful. EV makes a good point.

 

"It is exactly that attitude that makes "regular" users not want to come in here and contribute to discussions in Comms"

Except you didn't discuss the issue, as GriffZ pointed out. You came in, said it was stupid and flamed some people. You added absolutely nothing to the discussion.

 

Except, you know, to post stuff. Without members, there'd be no forums.

And what, just because users post here they need titles? They don't have a job here. They come here because they want to. There's no need for them to have titles. That was my point. Regular users have NO need for titles.

 

And people don't want to come into Comms and find every time they post something someone feels the intent need to comment on it.

Point - this discussion is moot. And it has mostly consisted of ex-mods and friends whining about a few current mods who have fun titles. Until Sapes decides that the fun titles don't serve a purpose, they are staying. All the discussion, point making, attacks on other users, saying you don't have to post here if you don't want to will not change that fact.

 

I couldn't agree more.

Having "fun" titles doesn't take away the job that they do (however redundant that job is). I'd understand the point of this discussion if certain moderators were going around with merely fun titles that didn't provide the information possibly needed by users. That obviously isn't the case. I'm sure everyone will agree that "fun" titles do their job (however redundant). So why are we going around in circles over something so trivial?

 

They're going around in circles because some people think that the mods in question are flaunting their ability to have titles over the users who don't.

I said it before, I think, and I don't see why it's a big deal. The titles do serve a purpose; they inform people when a mod is posting in Forum A that they're actually a mod in Forum B or C or D. It's especially helpful for newbies to get to know who's from which forum the first few times they see mods post in different places.

 

"And people don't want to come into Comms and find every time they post something someone feels the intent need to comment on it. "

1. You speak for the peopel now? I think not.
2. People don't want what they say commented upon? WTH are they posting on a message board?

 

And people don't want to come into Comms and find every time they post something someone feels the intent need to comment on it.


What the hell are you talking about?