Being both a logical statement and one requiring coding work, however...
As Tumberboy said to me when I made a quip about the ungodly scale of bridge interiors:
"it would take a lot of work to change that now"
To which I replied:
"It wouldn't have if they had gone about it more carefully the first time"
Though I'm concerned that no user account of some kind is required to cast votes through off-site methods. I can take a laptop to 5 different coffee shops and cast 5 different, anonymous votes if I'm so inclined. So not sure my having voted is at all helpful?
I'm not sure how Survey Monkey guards against that, if it logs MAC addresses. I'm showing 23 results so far.
It's push polling anyway. So it's more about force of opinion that pure scientific accuracy.
At least a dozen vice admirals at any time, mining rocks on an asteroid for a small slice of profit; such is the lengths we will go to avoid paperwork at the desk job.
(Not that captains would be doing that, either, just sayin' :p)
Voted for Captain; always been a proponent of that. If it's too late to overhaul the whole thing, the least they can do is let us pick our own designation, not unlike the matching titles. I've always found it amusing that it stops at Vice Admiral, of all ranks—it's as if they got there and realized, oh man, we can't have thousands of full-fledged Admirals running around, but it's too late to go back to Captain ... let's just ... stop here, at Vice Admiral, before we make it worse!
Rank should just be a display name (separate from titles) unlocked at different levels, so the players can decide what they want to display. That display name could be tied with the [Rank] dialogue tag so players can be referred to this rank accordingly in missions.
I voted, Captains, we should all be Captains. Commodores, Fleet Captains, Admirals, Generals, all that mess should be reserved for mission-giving NPCs, and mission giving NPCs should be streamlined to a maximum of ten per faction (instead of the 15+ per faction we have now).