On 08/15/2016 11:17 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Now, of course, we've got the "generic" method by which any title > (including the above) can be awarded with the right level of Support. > This came about, in part, with the start of the trend (~2004?) to award > arbitrary Patent Titles via scam proposals, as scam success markers, > which led to lots of one-off titles with no specific qualifications > beyond "we managed a scam", so people started liking unique titles > awarded by spontaneous acclaim. > > The question is: is this "generic" method inspiring enough, or should > there be a small collection of "official" titles in the Rules to give > inspiration/specific targets? For more inspiration, here's a list from > the longest (most titles) version of R1922 that I found after a short > inspection:
It's my opinion that any title intended to be awarded multiple times should be defined, and any title intended to be unique need not be. If a title isn't rule-defined, there's no reason to believe you'll get it if you accomplish its goals - especially if the active players at the time aren't familiar with the last time the title was awarded. If it's rule-defined, it has more potential to be rewarded absent an older player that remembers its conditions. I also think that we don't want to let the conditions for historied (as in multiple winners) titles slip in meaning too much. By not being rule- defined, the conditions may become too constricting to be approachable or too broad to be meaningful. Having enough rule-defined titles should also be a deterrent for having too many unique titles which should, IMO, be truly singular events in order to merit getting their own shelf in the trophy room, as it were.
