My Negative Title

[JointStrikeFighter]

Good thing this thread isn't about you then

[Broomstick]

My assertion is merely that it should be far harder to have a title removed than to get one,

Agreed - I think our difference of opinion is in how high to set the bar.

So, yes, I would personally want darthdavid to behave in a fashion well above and beyond the acceptable standard for Senators before his title is removed.

In other words, he has to be better than the most respected members of SD.net? I don't find that fair. Better than average, yes, certainly, but I feel it would be unfair to set the bar so high in this matter I couldn't get over it myself. That is where our stances differ.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

I don't think it makes Darth David look spineless at all. Just reading your posts in this thread, I find you to be very unapproachable. No wonder people with negative titles don't pm you more often--they could just ask Marina for unwavering support if they wanted that kind of tongue-lashing.

The interesting thing about this claims is that I've actually produced a very large number of threads in the Senate uncritically proposing ideas or requests that people have PMed me or discussed elsewhere and wanted a Senator to support and present in the Senate for them. And in response I have often been extensively flamed and defended those ideas at a loss of reputation directed entirely against me, even though from start to finish I was merely trying to represent their views. Had Darth David asked me personally I would have gotten a poll in the Senate started to have his title removed even though I would have voted against it; I am not in the business of denying cloture, so to speak.

And I'll add here that I'll continue to field other peoples' ideas, even anonymously, despite the flak I take for it, if you wish to send such requests to me. There are plenty of people who know that I respond helpfully in PMs already and I'd only hope more come to realize this.

Looking back through the senate, I see that you are correct and much more open and fair than I have given you credit for. I wrote what I did because I was still feeling the sting from your first response to Darth David, and, now that I see and recall your tendency to promote any idea to the senate that you believe merits discussion, I feel like a bit of a jackass for that last comment. Sorry for that.

[fgalkin]

My assertion is merely that it should be far harder to have a title removed than to get one, which is also why anything I may or may not have done in the past is irrelevant; I am holding darthdavid to a standard higher than myself--and I openly admit I am--because he already has a title. You may disagree with that rationale, but it's ultimately a subjective belief on how reversing punishment should be handled; to me it's something that happens only when a person has made contributions far more extensive than would be expected for any respected member, that's all. You should have to go "above and beyond" normal expectations, IMO, to have a title removed. So, yes, I would personally want darthdavid to behave in a fashion well above and beyond the acceptable standard for Senators before his title is removed.

Is that, however, anything other than a subjective opinion which will influence only my voting? Absolutely not, and I am quite pleased there is a divergence of opinion on the issue amongst Senators, as it means the Senate is properly representative of a wide range of views and beliefs.

It seems to me that the issue under discussion is really the nature of using negative titles as punishment. If the purpose of the title is to brand the member for a transgression in perpetuity, pour encourager les autres, then it should be extremely difficult, if not outright impossible, to remove a title.

If, on the other hand, the purpose of the title is to encourage the poster in question to improve, then the title should be there only for as long as it is needed. If the member is no longer doing what got him titled in the first place, he no longer deserves the title.

In essence, this is the eternal debate on the nature of the justice system- punishment vs rehabilitation.

Marina seems to be in the first camp, holding them to a drastically (even nearly impossible, I would say) standard before a title can be removed. Personally, I believe that we should try to rehabilitate our grotty members- there have been success stories to prove that it is possible- DEATH and Chitoryu12, to name a few.

Or like every other transgression, ask an admin, and present your case.

This gets a bit annoying when said posters have no problems asking priviliges like one note titles, and name changes to rush forward...but the removal of a title and presenting a case of why they do not deserve said title anymore, people need to be drama whores and plead their case to the public.

To summarize what I've said in the Senate, an admin cannot unilaterally overturn the results of a title poll, only Mike can. Removal of negative custom titles should be the prerogative of the organ that gives them out, they are not the same as general custom titles or name changes.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[chitoryu12]

I have to chime in to agree with fgalkin. Exactly what is the point of confining someone to have a title that disparages them and gives newcomers the wrong impression of them? I've seen a few times when someone with a VI title has had the response "Wow, you really are the Village Idiot" and generally had his words treated as worth much less than they would have been given had he not been given a title, whether or not he still fell into the category of Village Idiot.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Interestingly enough darthdavid's title removal is the only one since becoming active in the Senate that I've actually opposed, I saw enough improvement in the other users whose titles have been removed in that period that I didn't think it was necessary to maintain their titles, I simply Did Not Have Enough Data, nor did I find darthdavid's posting record to contain enough data, to really make a determination, so my default is to recommend further effort, that's all.

[Lord Relvenous]

I know this has been brought up, Duchess, but I'm still confused as to your logic here. He was titled "Pathetic Attention Whore", which seems to indicate spamming, "me too!" posts, or nonsensical threads solely for recognition. When looking through his posting record, did you see examples of these? I personally did not, but our views could easily diverge. Supposing you also did not see blatant evidence of continued attention whoring (demonstrating a change from the behavior that earned the title), what is the benefit of the title?

[Havok]

Well, as Hotfoot posted in the Senate, he was actually titled for faking suicide as an April Fools joke. He didn't really have a history of spam that I am aware of. So your point may not really be accurate to the situation. On the other hand, Duchesess's isn't really either since his behavior was fine before and after the sole incident. Really the only improvement he can show from this, is that he learned what and what does not cross the line when it comes to humor. That really isn't something that is going to come through in many of the forums of the board.