Originally Posted by
Sir Adrian
Originally Posted by
Genius of the Restoration
Originally Posted by
Sir Adrian
quite frankly people joining staff for the user titles has already been debunked (bar a few cases)
So, not debunked then...
The phrase exceptions which confirm the rule comes to mind.
You have known cases where people admit that they were swayed by it, but you instead conclude that it's actually a rule against these people who have spoken out and defend this argument with a tired phrase. What sort of logic is this? I don't even understand how you're applying the phrase here. You've used it as a way to counter anything factual in the face of limited data, which is just daft eg.
Topic: Are Australians racist?
Genius: 'I have evidence that at least some Australians aren't racist.'
Sir Adrian: 'The exception proves the rule. Therefore, Australians are racist.'
This idea that people contribute to get the titles hasn't been debunked despite your insistence that it has.
Originally Posted by
Sir Adrian
Kindly read the OP. Joining staff or becoming a citizen/LM will still be the only ways to make them permanent.
What am I missing? They will be permanent. They will only be removed if a person does something naughty. Funnily enough, that's how they get removed from a citizen at the moment too. So it's the same form of permanency, only with different thresholds and removal methods.
Originally Posted by
Squid
That's all well and good except it overlooks one thing, if want of a user title prevents at least one person from joining or staying than whatever benefit you've gained per your post as been wiped out.
This is a false dichotomy because there are additional options to the one you've presented. An alternative point of view, and the one that I think most people here are arguing for, is that it's an incentive for people to contribute more and contribute better on the site. It's not as simple as saying that if one person gets shirty then the site has lost, because there might also be people who contribute more in the hope of receiving the privilege.
Originally Posted by
Squid
You are trying to tell us that you do not think a single person joined this site, likely because they thought it would be interesting, but then stopped because it didn't have this feature or because it had that limitation or whatever. That's a head in sand attitude. Those users likely never complained about it, they just leave, and we are poorer both monetarily and contribution wise for every user we lose.
It's not about whether a single person has stopped because they didn't have a custom user title and using that as proof that we'd be better off if everyone had them. It's about commodifying the benefit of keeping that member (who I'd argue was only marginally interested in the site if that was their tipping point) versus the benefit of encouraging contribution from members who desire the title (who I'd argue would already be more invested in the site if this was their tipping point).
I think it's a close call. People who know more about internet behaviour and attracting members and incentivising contribution would be better placed to talk on this than me but I think there is a case for both sides.