Ban the thread title "What would you do?"

[nn]

On second thought we need forum grammar, spelling, & editing police.

[limatunes]

Originally Posted by nn

On second thought we need forum grammar, spelling, & editing police.

We already do.. His name is QKShooter..lol

We try not to edit titles too much because some people can get REALLY touchy about their precious thread titles, but if it's too confusing we'll do a little change here and there.

[ronwill]

You can plan and think what you may do in a situation but, until it actually happens, you can never be sure of what you would really do. The military and law enforcement agencies put their members through rigorous training scenarios to try and prepare them for differing situations. While this helps it still doesn't guarantee an outcome.

[Kerbouchard]

Originally Posted by ronwill

You can plan and think what you may do in a situation but, until it actually happens, you can never be sure of what you would really do. The military and law enforcement agencies put their members through rigorous training scenarios to try and prepare them for differing situations. While this helps it still doesn't guarantee an outcome.

Huh?

[deadeye72]

Originally Posted by Kerbouchard

Huh?

Exactly my thought. What the?

[farronwolf]

I think what Ron was trying to say, is that even though police or military have been trained to respond to certain events. Their training does not always ensure that their actions will result in the outcome intended. IE, Leo's being killed with their own guns, or them being shot because they failed to see something that was developing or whatever. You can never be totally prepared for what is happening all the time. So the what would you do scenario isn't really all that great, because even though you train for something or go over it in your head, the actual event may not be what you trained for.

Correct me if I am wrong.

[limatunes]

Originally Posted by farronwolf

I think what Ron was trying to say, is that even though police or military have been trained to respond to certain events. Their training does not always ensure that their actions will result in the outcome intended. IE, Leo's being killed with their own guns, or them being shot because they failed to see something that was developing or whatever. You can never be totally prepared for what is happening all the time. So the what would you do scenario isn't really all that great, because even though you train for something or go over it in your head, the actual event may not be what you trained for.

Correct me if I am wrong.

I agree with your assessment, it just doesn't fit with the thread. I think that's where the confusion is coming from.

This is a thread discussing the use of the phrase, "What would you do?" as a sole thread title and the post seems a little lost in all the gibberish.

[ronwill]

Sorry, I guess I should have began with "I agree the term should be used a little less because....". My apologies for any misunderstanding.

[Tony Montana]

Well I was one of 'those people' who started a thread with "what would you do"..... Sorry about that. If the mods want to edit the title by all means go ahead

[DaveH]

Originally Posted by exactlymypoint

....Put a descriptive title in that helps the readers know what it is about before they click. ....
Need help
Comments
Advice please
....

I don't know about a "ban", but I agree that it would be common courtesy to use a title that "helps the readers know what it is about."

I'm getting to where I just skip those post when the site is running slow.

Speaking of running slow, having better titles might help the site speed when the number of folk logged in is high. Every time we click on a vague title it has to tie up some resources. If everyone is clicking on a number of non-descriptive title and then hitting the return button it would likely contribute to the slow down getting to something we are actually interested in.