Renaming citizenship types

[Veteraan]

I'm somewhat attached to "citizen". It has a nice ring to it and to me it adds to the feeling of belonging somewhere. In real life you usually are automatically a citizen of the country you are born. If you decide for one reason or another to move, you are often asked to put in some effort and achieve certain goals to gain citizenship of your new country. This is a bit like it is in this place. Nobody is born here, but we can become citizens by contributing.

This feeling of belonging, even when this is "just" a place in cyberspace is one of the reasons why I didn't even bother to ask for access to the artifex and civitate groups. The other reason is because it is my personal opinion that citizen, artifex and civitate are what we were awarded citizenship for. My citizen badge is based on a lot of bigger and smaller contributions that were all done in the citizen and artifex branche so to speak, I thought it was enough for the all inclusive citizen title but not for artifex, even when one could argue that that is inconsequential as in the current system I could have switched to artifex, or even civitate at any time. Of course I didn't, not even now because I am attached to "Citizen" and would have gone for it anyway even if I had a choice. Also I believe that one should stick with the badge one started with, as that is what you were judged on in the first place.

Hmm, I might got carried away a bit here. Let's end this post stating that in my view the only thing that would really simplify things is getting rid of civitate and artifex and keep citizen. Renaming the three would be just as confusing as things are now for the casual observer. I don't think in this case there is a pressing case to simplify things though. On the contrary, it would get rid of some tradition that is valued by many and strip this site from some of its quirkiness that is one of the reasons I like to spend time here in the first place.

[Halie Satanus]

Historically - because, in internet terms even having a history is fairly unique.

There have been a number of attempts to change the titles to be linguistically correct but, even in times when there were a considerable number of Latin speakers around, the weight of history always stuck with what we have. 'Civitate' is not just a title, it's the foundation of the curia, even if it's a slight oddity in terms of correct usage.

That said I'm pretty sure 'citizen' was an attempt to make a mockery of the titles Civitate/Artifex which actually backfired because removing the old titles was always met with such firm opposition, and citizen just stuck.

[SonofPeverel]

I know I haven't been active in quite a while but would like to weigh in and say I agree with Halie and Stealth on this one. I have never found the titles to be confusing to anyone who actually wanted to discern their meaning. Also, the tradition and history of TWC is a unique aspect of the community, and diving in and learning what each element is and how it came to be is part of the allure of this place.

With that being said, I do not think changing or adding titles for confusion's sake to be necessary, and change for change's sake is also not appealing from a historical perceptive imo.

[HigoChumbo]

Historically - because, in internet terms even having a history is fairly unique.

There have been a number of attempts to change the titles to be linguistically correct but, even in times when there were a considerable number of Latin speakers around, the weight of history always stuck with what we have. 'Civitate' is not just a title, it's the foundation of the curia, even if it's a slight oddity in terms of correct usage.

That said I'm pretty sure 'citizen' was an attempt to make a mockery of the titles Civitate/Artifex which actually backfired because removing the old titles was always met with such firm opposition, and citizen just stuck.

If civitate was to be kept no matter what, it would still fit the current category of citizen better, leaving room for calling the current civitate, scholaris or whatever. But that would achieve nothing but to create further confussion (renaming one category with the old name of other category), hence the utility of the term "civis", which is essentially the same as civitate but would avoid that issue.

As for having an history, well, that's why we have a History of TW section. You spoke of change for change's sake, well, if we were to keep history for history's sake then we would still have patricians, and senatores and the Consilium de Civitate. Don't think there is a lot of people missing those.



In a time in which the website is steadily bleeding active members, all the quality of life improvements we can implement will help. Otherwise, conservadurism and nostalgia will turn the history of TWC in just that, history. I'd rather have a funcional and lively forum that appeals to the majority of users than a deserted smokers club where a bunch of old farts can share anecdotes of how different things were before 2008. (I probably mixed topics way more trascendental than this one here and got carried away with the sentiment, so feel free to disregard my ramblings )

* (By the way, wasn't referring to you when I said "old farts", after all, we joined just four months apart from each other )

With that being said, I do not think changing or adding titles for confusion's sake to be necessary, and change for change's sake is also not appealing from a historical perceptive imo.

And how many of our (dwindling) member base (all members, not just the couple handful citizens who post here) know or care about all that? Should we have the entire website designed to accomodate the romanticism of the 1% while vast majority of the users who keep TWC from disappearing slowly sail in search of other shores?


So the question is, appealing to who? To the few of us who were here 10 years ago? Or to the majority of users who could potentially keep the website running for 10 more years?

[Halie Satanus]

As for having an history, well, that's why we have a History of TW section. You spoke of change for change's sake, well, if we were to keep history for history's sake then we would still have patricians, and senatores and the Consilium de Civitate. Don't think there is a lot of people missing them.

Removal of Patrician and Senatorii was to remove extra badges, rather short shortsightedly the curia threw out the baby with the bath water and Senatorii came back as 'Moderator Emeritus' (sp), which could just have easily been called Senetorii again. Patricians came back with Ian's reforms but were removed when he reversed them. There have been many ideas to bring back Patricians in different forms since. The CdeC, well that brought about it's own downfall.

In a time in which the website is steadily bleeding active members, all the quality of life improvements we can implement will help. Otherwise, conservadurism will turn the history of TWC in just that, history. I'd rather have a funcional and lively forum that appeals to the majority of users than deserted smokers club where a bunch of old farts can share anecdotes of how different things were before 2008. (I probably mixed topics way more trascendental than this one here and got carried away with the sentiment, so feel free to disregard my ramblings

If TWC is dying then it will die, changing historic legends in the curia will not stop or even slow that end.

* (By the way, wasn't referring to you when I said "old farts", after all, we joined just four months apart from each other

No worries, I've been called far worse.

[Lysimachus]

sounds like change for the sake of change, yeah i'll pass.

[HigoChumbo]

Removal of Patrician and Senatorii was to remove extra badges, rather short shortsightedly the curia threw out the baby with the bath water and Senatorii came back as 'Moderator Emeritus' (sp), which could just have easily been called Senetorii again. Patricians came back with Ian's reforms but were removed when he reversed them. There have been many ideas to bring back Patricians in different forms since. The CdeC, well that brought about it's own downfall.

Actually, the only reason why I have not proposed to altogether get rid of both Artifex and Civitate to keep just one universal badge for citizenship (aka, removing extra badges) is that I imagined that many people would be attached to their titles and that I'd be wasting my time. But if that argument for that previous change was valid for you then, then I guess the same change should be valid here (yet I'm still not going to propose it)

In any case, we are losing track of what initially was my only issue:



I'm not suggesting tu "bath" the names to change for change's sake. I'm suggesting change to get rid of that inconsistence.

There have been many ideas to bring back Patricians in different forms since.

And how welcome have they been?

Last one, still in the Prothalamos: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...tion-Amendment



Change will always be met with resistence. If we changed the title "Civitate" to "Pointless Monkey", 10 years for now people would be as protective of that title as they are now with the old ones.

If TWC is dying then it will die, changing historic legends in the curia will not stop or even slow that end.

Add to that the rejection of the opening of the Curia or the disolution of the Triumvirate, the oversight of modding awards, etc. and you'll get the sentiment. This is merely another drop.

By the way, this hardly the only change I've suggested to improve the website, but not all suggestions are going to be as bombastic as "let's open the curia to everyone and rewrite the constitution"




Anyways, looks like this whole deal is generally not well received, so I'll drop my case and keep working the other, more pressing changes.

[SonofPeverel]

And how many of our (dwindling) member base (all members, not just the couple handful citizens who post here) know or care about all that? Should we have the entire website designed to accomodate the romanticism of the 1% while vast majority of the users who keep TWC from disappearing slowly sail in search of other shores?


So the question is, appealing to who? To the few of us who were here 10 years ago? Or to the majority of users who could potentially keep the website running for 10 more years?

Not trying to be combative, but I fail to see how changing badges around will keep members from disappearing in the search of other shores. Nor do I see how maintaining a sense of history designs the entire website around the leanings of the 1% over the majority of the community.


There was a time when the cdec became overly exclusionary and denied qualified applicants (imo), which I agree, discouraged some members from contributing to the site. It could be argued,loosening the requirements on citizenship in this era was a step in the right direction to keeping the site running another 10 years, and had a positive impact on those outside the citizen rank. I also think there are other areas of focus which could have a similar effect on the general membership, but disagree that changing rank names for the sake of change will accomplish this. As I've stated previously, history is a major appeal on this site and community, and unless it is actively hindering the progress of the site I think traditions should be left in tact.

[PikeStance]

Not to Belabor the point...

Artifex: designed for those who have contributed through modding,
Civitate: designed for those who have contributed through debating and writing.
Citizen: designed for those who have contributed in other ways, or wish to identify with neither or both.

Opifex: To qualify for the award, the nominee must have made exceptional contributions to modding or TW sections of the boards, either by modding or other contributions related to the those sections.
Phalera: To qualify for the award, the nominee must have made exceptional contributions to any section of the boards not covered by Opifex.

There is only two ways a member can contribute; [1] modding or modding related activities, [2] Through activities other than modding. The term citizen is a catchall for anyone who has contributed in both areas, but not exclusively in any so that they identify themselves as one or the other.

If confusing arises it is the fact that the "catchall term" is synonymous with the term "Citizenship." The only change I would entertain would be two have only two badges (Civitate and Artifex) or rename the "citizen" badge to be consistent with other two.

Confusion Issue: When I first joined the site, I notticed the crazy badges (Colliseum de..., Hexagonal.... Tribune, Artifex, etc...) I was like WT... What is all this. I then read up on it and the confusion about the titles was resolved. I think anyone interested in the site, would most definitely acquaint themselves. Moreover, the "uniqueness" of the titles may also generate interest on its own.

[HigoChumbo]

Not trying to be combative, but I fail to see how changing badges around will keep members from disappearing in the search of other shores.

Well, I said I was being influenced by other more trascendental topics unrelated to this when I said all that It would be just one tiny step in an ensemble of broader changes to make the website more clear and accessible.

In any case, don't worry, I appreciate combativity. The more arguments are brought against an idea, the more well-rounded, polished and futureproof that idea will become.

Nor do I see how maintaining a sense of history designs the entire website around the leanings of the 1% over the majority of the community.

It is when the argument gainst an improvement is "it's historical" when in truth the vast majority of the members of TWC either don't know or don't care about the website's history.

but disagree that changing rank names for the sake of change will accomplish this.

Again, it's not change for the sake of change, the main point is not to have "citizen" as a type of "citizen". The rest originated from the fact that a new name would be needed to fix that issue, and I just looked for a few quick possibilites to make categories coherent (as in, not having several latin names meaning exactly the same, or that have no relationship with the category they give name to). I believe those are all valid, reasonable arguments, so hardly change for the sake of change.

As I've stated previously, history is a major appeal on this site and community, and unless it is actively hindering the progress of the site I think traditions should be left in tact.

And I ask again, a major appeal to whom? What percentage of members do you think know or care about the history? (if its a low percentage, this comes to validate my 1% argument). In any case, the most superficial possible change would be just to change the name of the citizen badge category (to civis?) in order to avoid the conflict with "citizen" as a broader group, and that would not change the traditions at all (the uniqueness of the name "citizen" is questionable, and civis means citizen in latin, so it would not be preciselly re-inventing the wheel, and still would solve the name conflict, which was the only initial goal).

If confusing arises it is the fact that the "catchall term" is synonymous with the term "Citizenship." The only change I would entertain would be two have only two badges (Civitate and Artifex) or rename the "citizen" badge to be consistent with other two.

That was my only original intention The other suggested names came from "civis" and "civitate" (and by extension, citizen) meaning exactly the same, which would not be idea, but that's definately a minor issue (save for our latin buffs). Civis, Artifex, and Civitate, while not ideal (again, civis and civitate mean the same, and civitate has no relationship whatsoever with the writing/debate category it describes) it would already be better than the current system. If it were up to me, I'd change the civitate name as well to address that, but I won't get picky over that.

Confusion Issue: When I first joined the site, I notticed the crazy badges (Colliseum de..., Hexagonal.... Tribune, Artifex, etc...) I was like WT... What is all this. I then read up on it and the confusion about the titles was resolved. I think anyone interested in the site, would most definitely acquaint themselves. Moreover, the "uniqueness" of the titles may also generate interest on its own.

And when I first entered the Curia I was absolutelly overwhelmed with the tens of forums, subforums, stickies and latin names, and now I'm starting to manage if only out of repetition alone, but the fact that everyone eventually gets used to everything is not a reason not to try to improve things and make them more accessible. Would have been a much happier citizen if I the Curia had been self-explanatory the first day I came in, instead of letting several months pass until I forced myself to digest the mess the Curia was (and still is, to a lesser extent).

So yes, it takes less than a minute to learn the different types of citizenship, but if the system is improvable, and easily so, why not improve it? One less page to add to the tome text required to understand TWC, I imagine new users or users who just enjoy TWC for what it is and not for what it was 10 years ago would appreciate a more clear way of presenting these things.







* By the way, now that we are at it, out of curiosity, could any latin connaisseur clarify the difference, if any, between civis (citizen) and civitate (ablative singular of cīvitās -latin for citizenry-).

[Frunk]

There are many aspects of this site I have believed for years need to be simplified, and this is not one of them. Whatever term we use - whether it be Citizen, or Civis, or Cool Kid - does not give a clear explanation of what that badge is for.

The point you make in the OP about Citizens effectively appearing as a class of Citizens and thus being confusing, can only be the case if a member knows what Citizenship is first, but somehow still doesn't know the different classes of Citizens. This surely cannot be the case. It can only be a problem for those who already understand Citizenship. Do we have an issue with these semantics? I doubt it.

I know for a fact that the different badges are a source of curiosity of new members, but as has been said, if a member is confused or curious about any of the badges and their meanings, they can and probably would ask the question in a post, or they would go looking for the answer. To go any further is hand-holding if you ask me. New members must take at least some responsibility to educate themselves.

[HigoChumbo]

The point you make in the OP about Citizens effectively appearing as a class of Citizens and thus being confusing, can only be the case if a member knows what Citizenship is first, but somehow still doesn't know the different classes of Citizens. This surely cannot be the case. It can only be a problem for those who already understand Citizenship. Do we have an issue with these semantics? I doubt it.

It's just a clarification change. A member only needs to hover the mouse over any badge to see an explanation of what that is, so lack of knowledge should for the most part be unrelated. Confusing or not, I think we all agree that citizens appearing as a class of citizens is an improvable design. So if changing it would be an unquestionable improvement, why not do it? The arguments brought forward so far are in the lines of:

- it's historical.
- people are attached to their titles.
- it's a hassle.

None of those debunks the change as a superior option and, for me, none of them are weighty enough to prevent the improvement (the first two ones emanate from the usual reaction to change, are subjetive, vary from one user to other and would fade over time, and as for the hassle, well, as curator I would probably take most of the harm myself, since I would have to change the wording everywhere, and still I'd be fine with that).

I know for a fact that the different badges are a source of curiosity of new members, but as has been said, if a member is confused or curious about any of the badges and their meanings, they can and probably would ask the question in a post, or they would go looking for the answer.

And how does that conflict with my suggestion?

To go any further is hand-holding if you ask me. New members must take at least some responsibility to educate themselves.

Replacing a system with an unquestionably improved one which is clearer without sacrificing any functionality is not hand-holding. You are free to suggest the most complicated latin or greek name you can find for each category, just don't name the group with the same name asthe category. That in my humble opinion is called common sense.


By the way, responsability is a term I'd personally keep as unused as possible given that this is a leisure website, particularly if we are talking about members who have not agreed to take on one voluntarily. And specially not when we are bleeding more and more active members every day. It shouldn't be the task of new members to waste time and effort tryng to understand this overcomplicated, opaque, pseudo-elitist alternate society the Curia is right now, it should be the Curia's task to ensure that new members (all members, for that matter), have the best possible experience in this website. We should be at the service of the website and its members, not the other way around.

[PikeStance]

If a change were to made and you wanted to have consistency,... Auctor would suite the current Citizen badge nicely
Google Translate:Reporter, Author, originator, progenitor, Writer, historian
Sort of a catchall and there is no redundant word usage. Then again I can love with how it is now or even just have the two I mentioned above.

The arguments brought forward so far are in the lines of:
1- it's historical.
2- people are attached to their titles.
3- it's a hassle.

None of those debunks the change as a superior option and, for me, none of them are weighty enough to prevent the improvement (the first two ones emanate from the usual reaction to change, are subjetive, vary from one user to other and would fade over time, and as for the hassle, well, as curator I would probably take most of the harm myself, since I would have to change the wording everywhere, and still I'd be fine with that).

edited numbers into the original post

Honestly, it does. People will choose to oppose it for those very reasons. Therefore, if you value your change, then you would need to address them, especially number 2.

[Frunk]

It's just a clarification change. A member only needs to hover the mouse over any badge to see an explanation of what that is, so lack of knowledge should for the most part be unrelated. Confusing or not, I think we all agree that citizens appearing as a class of citizens is an improvable design. So if changing it would be an unquestionable improvement, why not do it? The arguments brought forward so far are in the lines of:

- it's historical.
- people are attached to their titles.
- it's a hassle.

None of those debunks the change as a superior option and, for me, none of them are weighty enough to prevent the improvement (the first two ones emanate from the usual reaction to change, are subjetive, vary from one user to other and would fade over time, and as for the hassle, well, as curator I would probably take most of the harm myself, since I would have to change the wording everywhere, and still I'd be fine with that).

Personally, I do not agree. I do not see the current situation of the sub-category being named the same thing as the category as highly flawed, nor do I see the suggested change as being superior. I see it as pure semantics that most members are either not at all affected by, or are perfectly satisfied with.

Replacing a system with an unquestionably improved one which is clearer without sacrificing any functionality is not hand-holding. You are free to suggest the most complicated latin or greek name you can find for each category, just don't name the group with the same name asthe category. That in my humble opinion is called common sense.

Again, I simply disagree.

By the way, responsability is a term I'd personally keep as unused as possible given that this is a leisure website, particularly if we are talking about members who have not agreed to take on one voluntarily. And specially not when we are bleeding more and more active members every day. It shouldn't be the task of new members to waste time and effort tryng to understand this overcomplicated, opaque, pseudo-elitist alternate society the Curia is right now, it should be the Curia's task to ensure that new members (all members, for that matter), have the best possible experience in this website. We should be at the service of the website and its members, not the other way around.

I decline to respond to this as I feel I could easily venture off topic.

[Halie Satanus]

Is the site bleeding members daily?..

Is it possible things are just evening out as the excess of activity that came with the last release is starting to drift away. The same cycle that has happened after every release and will quite possibly spike higher than ever when Warhammer hits the shelves.

[Veteraan]

I wondered about active members numbers dropping and last year (April) actually asked about this in the Q&A. The thread soon drifted in OT territory, but not before GED, had shared his thoughts on it. Interestingly, the number of active members by now has slightly dropped, although it seems like they are slowly picking up again now Warhammer is not that far from release.

We are still actually up from pre-Atilla numbers of 8,200 or so last fall. I look at that quite a bit though I don't always post about it. I really need to start posting quarterly stats again like I was doing in 2011-2012. Its always on my list and something always takes precedence. Maybe I should farm that out to someone else, its not like its sensitive information or requires admincp access.

Historically for about 6 months before the launch of a new TW game we start building up, and then slowly trickle down to just above the prelaunch number. But the timing of TW game launches also has an impact. The last couple have been late February, which means that when the numbers are trickling down normally they also bump up into spring break and then studying for finals which knocks that number down even more. There is definitely an annual cycle to TWC apart from new game launches so you really have to take 2 years without a launch to even get a feel for what is "normal" around here. Summer vacations, Christmas breaks, all of that plays into the Active Members stat.

There has been no change in how "active" is defined. Its an account login within the last 15 days. The vBulletin default is 30 and we (Simetrical and I) set it at 15 probably 6-7 (right before our first dedicated server) years ago as we thought it would better reflect what traffic is like on TWC and give us a better feel for predicting traffic.

[HigoChumbo]

Honestly, it does. People will choose to oppose it for those very reasons. Therefore, if you value your change, then you would need to address them, especially number 2.

Personally, I do not agree. I do not see the current situation of the sub-category being named the same thing as the category as highly flawed, nor do I see the suggested change as being superior. I see it as pure semantics that most members are either not at all affected by, or are perfectly satisfied with.

Well, if you guys don't see the citizen > citizen thing as a flaw and the removal of it as an objetive improvement, then I don't know how else argue my suggestion. To me the improvement is obvious, I understand the arguments against implementing it (attachment, history, etc), but that does not take away the (imo) fact of it being a better system. If we don't agree even in that simple, clear concept, I doubt trying more ellaborated lines of argumentation is going to have a different effect.

Being emotionally attached to something does not automatically make that something objetively superior. And we are not talking about some ethereal, subjetive issue ("my grandma's carrot pie is the best in the world!"), we are talking of a system whose organization can be objetively analyzed. Saying "there are three types of British in Britain: British, Scottish and Welsh" would be objetively a less clear nomenclature than saying "English, Scottish and Welsh", specially if all three categories are meant to have the same weight. Yes, people could get used to the idea, and even grow fond of the name in some cases, but that does not take away the fact that the nomenclature is unclear and therefore inferior at least in that aspect.

Also, you are seeing things from the perspective of old (current) members, what now is regarded as new by some might be considered tradition in the future (and I wouldn't be surprised if some people immediatly preferred new names to the old), and then, when history was no longer a factor and attachments varied depending on who you asked, then putting both systems side by side would immediatly reveal that one is flawed and the other isn't. (by the way, I never said "highly flawed", I've always been quite specific about considering this a minor detail).



And again, I insist that, if personal attachment (personal meaning it can vary from person to person) is the main argument against it, then there is no better option to solve the doubt than asking those "persons" and see what they think (and I'm not saying this as a challenge, the old system gaining more support is a perfectly feasible outcome).

Is it possible things are just evening out as the excess of activity that came with the last release is starting to drift away. The same cycle that has happened after every release and will quite possibly spike higher than ever when Warhammer hits the shelves.

I believe the activity is normally quite higher right before release, people are hyped and visiting the forum to talk about the game is a way of dealing with the forceful TW abstinence. After release people are mostly just playing the game.

We are two months away (delay included) from which will most likely be the most successful TW game in history and there is barely any activity in the Warhammer forum (two active threads since I last logged yesterday before going to bed. That would be 3 new posts). Activity should be fairly high already.

[Derpy Hooves]

No, for the same reasons as Halie stated.

[Halie Satanus]

I believe the activity is normally quite higher right before release, people are hyped and visiting the forum to talk about the game is a way of dealing with the forceful TW abstinence. After release people are mostly just playing the game.

We are two months away (delay included) from which will most likely be the most successful TW game in history and there is barely any activity in the Warhammer forum (two active threads since I last logged yesterday before going to bed. That would be 3 new posts). Activity should be fairly high already.

That would be a problem for the content team and Hex. I'm sure they've put time into promotion and content that other WH based sites might not have thought of.

[HigoChumbo]

No, for the same reasons as Halie stated.

If those are your reasons (post #2 I'm assuming (so "poor argumentation" and "change for change's sake"), if not, excuse my assumption and disregard this comment), I have to say that after two pages of lenghty explanations I consider both of them unfair. History, personal attachment, convenience of english vs. latin and so on I can understand as reasons against the change, saying that my arguments are lacking and that my only goal is to randomly change names I can't.

That would be a problem for the content team and Hex. I'm sure they've put time into promotion and content that other WH based sites might not have thought of.

I never put the efforts of the Hex and the Content staff into question (save maybe for the modding awards thing, and I lack the knowledge to make a judgement on why that happened), but still, we seem to be losing activity, even when that is a mixture of internal and external factors (CA has a share of the indirect blame there, for instance). Of course Content Staff has the main say on how to deal with that, but if the rest of us can help with minor improvements which add up to a whole, then why not? (that's kind of a rhetorical question, your arguments on why not do it have been properly explained already, and I understand them).

An example, since I've become Curator, I've updated minor, untrascendental details here and there (revised oudated information, fixed some typo in the Constitution, made guides, etc). Do I expect those tiny changes to revitalise the Curia? Not at all. Are those changes improvements, even if minor, and are the affected areas slighty better? I think I can safely say that is unquestionable. So, if they are indeed improvements, what reasons would I have not to carry them out? Should I leave typos in the Constitution because "anyone really interested will pick up the idea pretty quickly"? Should I ignore outdated information because "if a member is confused or curious about some information and its meaning, they can and probably would ask the question in a post, or they would go looking for the answer, going any further is hand-holding and members must take at least some responsibility to educate themselves"? Should I not bother to write guides because curators until now (myself included) have eventually learnt to manage their way around the Curia?


Minor, untrascendental improvements are still improvements. In any case, if your reasons are personal attachment and preservation of history, then I find them perfectly valid, even when I might personally not agree with them (personal attachment is personal, and therefore not applicable to all, or maybe even to the majority of members/citizens, and history can still be preserved despite of change).