I thoroughly agree with you Bummer (I was going to say 'smack on' then wondered if it were appropriate !!)

- those who DEMAND they be called 'Sir' or 'Madam' or 'Mistress' or whatever are often insecure in themselves and NEED that show of "respect" ; the tragedy is that, even when they get it, they don't realise that such respect is given grudgingly and is not in fact genuine.
I would never dream of calling my tops, Misses Christine and Kitty, anything but "Miss" (or "Headmistress as appropriate)
whilst in play but I made it clear on my first visit that I would NEVER call either of them 'Mistress' - it's just something I would not feel comfortable with, in or out of play. This doesn't mean that we have not built up an excellent rapprt, and that I do not respect them for being able to perform their tasks both efficiently and responsibly ; it's just me. 'Master' and 'Mistress' mean something to me and I will never acknowledge anybody as that in my life, even in play.
Some time back when I was a Referees Assessor I watched a young man who was having trouble in controlling his games ; he had found it neccesary to abandon three in less than 6 months for disciplinary reasons (I abandoned just one for that reason in my whole active career of over 30 years). He whined to me that the trouble was that the players "showed him no respect". I pointed out that they might if he stopped demanding it and simply did his job. He was very insecure. I worked with him quite a lot and he later achieved rapid promotion and nowadays officiates at quite high non-league standard, where he is well known, liked and
respected - and I'm proud that he credits me with the turn-around. However, as I taught him, respect must be
earnt - and the same goes for anybody in a senior position to another.
Whether we are into mild CP or heavy BDSM, the demands on one another must come from a mutual respect and trust ; unfortunately all too often a person assumes that, because (s)he has the respect and subservience of one person (their regular partner), everybody else will automatically show that same subservience. Merely because a 'bottom' (sub, slave whatever) is willing to accept the Top's (Master/Mistress, etc.) edicts and instructions without question does not mean that the Top will be able to elicit the same subservience fro anybody they come across at a party - as certain people found out with Zippy at the last meeting !
Take for instance the scenario that Miss C (my 'Headmistress') turned up at Miss Foxxx's next meeting ; upon seeing me she may immediately instruct me to get changed into my school uniform and get ready for a caning and I would (almost certainly) rush to obey. However, the same instruction to me by one of the other Tops present may not get the same reaction ; I don't know them ; I don't know if I can trust them ; do I obey them or what ? Obviously, it may be that I
DO trust them - or someone I know and trust like Mikey/Zippy/Bummer does and vouches for them; that's fine, but if that is not the case, why should I obey ? Merely because thay are the sort of Top that is used to having their word obeyed by their REGULAR partner(s) ? Not good enough, in my book - but please note that this is NOT disrespect, it is caution.
Respect is something that CANNOT be demanded ; it must be earnt. One may show respect for another's position in the first place, but very soon in a relationship the senior party must show sufficient regard for the junior to allow the junior to respect and trust, and the same applies the other way ; in our scene the Top must be able to trust the Bottom to accept the treatment (whether it be CP, bondage, or psychological control) that they have agreed to take, knowing that they wil not 'wimp out' unneccesarily.