Leader title

[Qvait]

I think that it would be a helpful addition if we implement leader titles without having to manually do so. When that happens, there can be greater flexibility when referring to the leader. Here are some examples:

• Chairman/woman
• Chancellor
• Emperor/Empress
• General
• King/Queen
• Premier
• President
• Prime Minister
• Secretary-General
• Tsar

[Frisbeeteria]

greater flexibility

A list of titles to select from is "by definition" less flexible than being able to type in whatever you like. If they want to be "Grand Poohbah" or "Snake Goddess", they can be. Your list would limit that.

[USS Monitor]

Maybe he means make it like the pretitle where you start with a list you can choose from, but then when you reach a certain population, it would change to an editable field.

[Trotterdam]

It is currently common practice to have the @@LEADER@@ field include both title and name. Are you proposing that title and name be split into separate fields? That would require a lot of work to adapt old issues to match, even though it is fairly arbitrary which you use where, and some nations' leaders are known only by title or only by name.

[Quasar Corporations]

It is currently common practice to have the @@LEADER@@ field include both title and name. Are you proposing that title and name be split into separate fields? That would require a lot of work to adapt old issues to match, even though it is fairly arbitrary which you use where, and some nations' leaders are known only by title or only by name.

For example, my nation's leader is known only as "The Grand Emperor".

[The Saint James Islands]

It is currently common practice to have the @@LEADER@@ field include both title and name. Are you proposing that title and name be split into separate fields? That would require a lot of work to adapt old issues to match, even though it is fairly arbitrary which you use where, and some nations' leaders are known only by title or only by name.

And then there are the nations which are run by collective bodies instead of a single person. This proposal wouldn’t work for those nations.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

It is currently common practice to have the @@LEADER@@ field include both title and name. Are you proposing that title and name be split into separate fields? That would require a lot of work to adapt old issues to match, even though it is fairly arbitrary which you use where, and some nations' leaders are known only by title or only by name.

I'm up for the work if technical are up for coding the field in. It'd actually be quite a useful thing, to be able to macro in the leader's title and the leader's name as separate things. For example:

"I'd make a better @@TITLE@@ than you," yells Opposition Leader @@RANDOMNAME@@. "@@LEADER@@, it's not that I don't respect your opinions, but..."

[Qvait]

greater flexibility

A list of titles to select from is "by definition" less flexible than being able to type in whatever you like. If they want to be "Grand Poohbah" or "Snake Goddess", they can be. Your list would limit that.

Maybe he means make it like the pretitle where you start with a list you can choose from, but then when you reach a certain population, it would change to an editable field.

Kinda. I was just providing a list of examples. It can be whatever you want.

It is currently common practice to have the @@LEADER@@ field include both title and name. Are you proposing that title and name be split into separate fields? That would require a lot of work to adapt old issues to match, even though it is fairly arbitrary which you use where, and some nations' leaders are known only by title or only by name.

I see what you're saying. I think that we should have the option to leave some fields blank.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

You already have the option to leave fields blank. When issues hit a blank field, we just use default placeholders. So, for @@LEADER@@ it's just "Leader".

Hmm, one problem this might cause is that sometimes people might see @@TITLE@@ as being an adjective rather than a noun, and that'd make it almost entirely useless for issue writing purposes...

[Drasnia]

You already have the option to leave fields blank. When issues hit a blank field, we just use default placeholders. So, for @@LEADER@@ it's just "Leader".

Hmm, one problem this might cause is that sometimes people might see @@TITLE@@ as being an adjective rather than a noun, and that'd make it almost entirely useless for issue writing purposes...

@@RANDOMNAME_REVERSED@@ is almost entirely useless except for one very specific issue. Doesn't mean it wasn' able to be coded

[Socio Polor]

I like this idea, it'll be useful in a ton of issues.

Edit: now that I think about it, implementing a title macro would be quite difficult because each nations leader is different

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I think @@TITLE@@ would be fine so long as the on-page example on Settings makes it clear that a noun is needed, as it does with the first @@DEMONYM@@.

Actually, the more I think on this idea, the more I like the idea of it.

[Trotterdam]

I'm up for the work if technical are up for coding the field in. It'd actually be quite a useful thing, to be able to macro in the leader's title and the leader's name as separate things. For example:

"I'd make a better @@TITLE@@ than you," yells Opposition Leader @@RANDOMNAME@@. "@@LEADER@@, it's not that I don't respect your opinions, but..."

So what would the default for that be?

"I'd make a better Leader than you," yells Opposition Leader @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Leader, it's not that I don't respect your opinions, but..."

[Leutria]

I'm up for the work if technical are up for coding the field in. It'd actually be quite a useful thing, to be able to macro in the leader's title and the leader's name as separate things. For example:

"I'd make a better @@TITLE@@ than you," yells Opposition Leader @@RANDOMNAME@@. "@@LEADER@@, it's not that I don't respect your opinions, but..."

So what would the default for that be?

"I'd make a better Leader than you," yells Opposition Leader @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Leader, it's not that I don't respect your opinions, but..."

In the example Leader would work. The issue there would be if an issue called for @@TITLE@@ @@LEADER@@.

[Qvait]

I'm up for the work if technical are up for coding the field in. It'd actually be quite a useful thing, to be able to macro in the leader's title and the leader's name as separate things. For example:

"I'd make a better @@TITLE@@ than you," yells Opposition Leader @@RANDOMNAME@@. "@@LEADER@@, it's not that I don't respect your opinions, but..."

So what would the default for that be?

"I'd make a better Leader than you," yells Opposition Leader @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Leader, it's not that I don't respect your opinions, but..."

Well, IMHO I believe that nations should be allowed to choose the leader's title from the beginning.

So what would the default for that be?

"I'd make a better Leader than you," yells Opposition Leader @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Leader, it's not that I don't respect your opinions, but..."

In the example Leader would work. The issue there would be if an issue called for @@TITLE@@ @@LEADER@@.

That will be tricky. Maybe if the leader parameter is not filled, as is the case for newer nations, it could omit the command. I don't know whether coding will permit this.

[Mallorea and Riva]

So what would the default for that be?

"I'd make a better Leader than you," yells Opposition Leader @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Leader, it's not that I don't respect your opinions, but..."

Well, IMHO I believe that nations should be allowed to choose the leader's title from the beginning.

Having unlockables is a part of the experience. If you just get everything right off the bat then what is there to strive for? Additionally it is one less field for new nation spammers to fill with rules-violating content.

[Qvait]

Well, IMHO I believe that nations should be allowed to choose the leader's title from the beginning.

Having unlockables is a part of the experience. If you just get everything right off the bat then what is there to strive for? Additionally it is one less field for new nation spammers to fill with rules-violating content.

I see your point.