MSPeconomist

A number of people have said that the Evangelist title is "dumb" <or fill in whatever negative term you wish>. I don't like it either.

The more ambitious motion of CMK10 to totally revise FT titles has now been defeated.

So, should we think about trying to change only the Evangelist title?

If so, what new title would you suggest for 10,000 posts on FT?

Please discuss.

For the record, FT currently has just over 300 Evangelists. Most have the title below their username, although many moderators do not. AFAIK anyone can request that our CD remove the Evangelist title from their FT account (although this is done manually--it is not a self service item with our current software, nor would it be worth having this optioned programmed for us).

Dieuwer

"FlyerTalk 10K"?
"FlyerTalk Diamond"? (or whatever other precious)

SkiAdcock

No. If titles are going to be changed, then I'd rather see something along the lines of what was proposed in CMK10's motion (which voting has not concluded on btw) re: adding different titles at different post counts, not changing just a single title.

Cheers.

MSPeconomist

OK, but then we'll need to reach agreement on not only the levels but the associated titles. Maybe it's better to try baby steps and at least try to fix one little thing first.

SkiAdcock

Or just let it stay as is & if it's brought up again in the future, revisit it then. I'm not really into the vote something down & then start coming up w/ different ideas 30 seconds later on the same topic (especially when the vote is still open) & traditionally TB hasn't done so.

Cheers.

exilencfc

Personally I would be in favour of this change provided a suitable alternative could be found. I don't like the Evangelist title and for me it has negative, if not offensive, connotations.

SkiAdcock

Yet others like it. I was supportive of the changing titles/post counts that were in the other motion as it impacted more FTers. I can't garner the same energy to change one title that only 300'ish FTers currently have/most FTers don't even see depending on the forum they visit.

Cheers.

CMK10

Whoa whoa whoa. This is absolutely premature. The motion has not, I say again the motion has not been defeated. Rwoman has not voted on the motion and it is currently deadlocked at 4-4. I'm going to RBP this thread to hopefully get it closed.

MSPeconomist

It requires 6 of 9 TB votes to pass a motion. Since votes cannot be changed once they have been caste, the result of the vote on your motion to add and change FT titles has already been announced as having been defeated. The remaining votes do not matter at this point.

In this thread, I simply opened the discussion on something that was one small part of the (informally) defeated motion to attempt to speed the process of determining whether there might be some consensus to make one small related change, namely to change the "stupid" or whatever Evangelist title. Some of the comments in the two previous threads about wholesale changes to the FT title system have suggested the most dissatisfaction with the word Evangelist. Perhaps there will be no sense that people want this to be changed or perhaps it will eventually evolve into being part of a more encompassing motion later. For now, it seems harmless enough to begin a discussion focused on the word "Evangelist" in order to save time if we later do decide to proceed on this.

MSPeconomist

Sorry, but I meant to quote this post in my reply above.

SFO777

Can I assume that Redskins would not be in the running?

Moderator2

CMK10,

Please note that the forum moderators are not intended to be arbiters of "Roberts Rules Of Order", or whatever the FT equivalent is. If there is some sort of alleged violation of the TB's own internal voting and announcement protocols, the TB itself should attempt to self-police, and/or generate a group consensus.

Look forward to additional feedback.

Craig6z/Moderator2

MSPeconomist

For the record, out TB President SkiAdcock accounced in the "voting underway...new post titles" thread in this public TBT forum that CMK10's motion would fail. Note that approval of TB motions requires a 2/3 majority.

According to the time stamp on the post announcing that the motion will fail and the time stamp on my OP starting this thread, the statement to FT members that the motion has failed occurred eleven minutes before I started this thread inviting discussion. I have not disclosed any votes here--except for my own and the reasons in some other TBT threads--or identified any missing votes.

CMK10

Sorry, I miscalculated the majority and that is my error. But we have a protocol where the VP of TalkBoard is supposed to be the one who makes such mention, it's in the role description:

I apologize that I overreacted, however.

MSPeconomist

This time, the TB President rather than the VP announced that the motion *will* fail. I initiated no such announcement. If our VP wants to object that the announcement was posted instead by the President, IMO that's between the two of them.

According to FT time stamps, I started this thread eleven minutes after our President announced that your motion will fail. I did not improperly announce any vote, although I will preserve and defend my right to disclose my own vote and to discuss the reasons for it.