Talk:Position/@comment-26484417-20151218170739/@comment-26484417-20151219215727

Er, I'm unsure how to react to this kind of comment. Indeed, I do have problem with the term itself... it happens to be the explicit point of my original comment.

Anyway, in case there is anyone else who is unsure about the reason, it's that "Fishermen" is the plural form of "Fisherman" (same in Korean). If the "Fisherman" position was called anything else, it would be perfectly acceptable, albeit somewhat questionable, to call another position by the plural form of this word. However, when the position called "Fisherman" already exists, it makes no sense to call a different position "Fishermen". There is literally no reasonable justification for this decision, so I hope there is no need to elaborate anymore...

My guess is that SIU really wanted to call the ultimate position "Fisherman", but the concept of the ultimate position didn't come up until some time after the original positions were introduced. Which means that the name was already taken by the time it came up, and SIU apparently discarded the option to come up with an alternative name...