User Titles and Post Counts (again)

[Artemician]

There are a 101 threads out there which ask about why discussion about User titles is forbidden, and they are usually swiftly answered.

But this thread is not about that.

In one recent thread, someone mooted a very sensible suggestion, which I reproduce here.


If titles are a problem, why not dispense with them altogether, or let everyone take a custom title and not just moderators? Custom titles would allow a degree of fun customization that takes a lot less space than most avatars or signatures.

If everyone can set a unique user title, then it would indeed make life a lot more fun for everyone here. Why can't it be the case? Frankly, I see no reason why not.

People can no longer judge people based on post count or title. There will be no discussion on user titles at all. Period. The percieved relevance of that post count will be completely eliminated, as it now will not matter, at all.

It will not be difficult to implement the necessary code. If Location and Hobby codes are already in practise, Title Codes could very easily be adapted from the existing code.

Could someone enlighten me why this is not the case?

[[Insert Neat Username Here]]

Wow. This is a good idea.

However, on second thought, it makes it harder for newcomers to separate mods from other posters, which could be a problem.

[Castaras]

There's the slight problem with the server overload issues...I think Rawhide said something about him sorting out all the major issues before foxussing on the fluffy bits...while Custom titles would be cool, I think the logic of custom titles are a minor "perk" for the mods and their hard work.

Or something.

*shrugs* They'd be cool to have, but I'm not sure it's practical.

@v Hehe. And I got simu edited. :smalltongue:

[banjo1985]

Moderators could still have the big blue signs underneath their names :smallsmile: Gahh simu'd by the piemancer!

I think this is a good idea to be honest. Though I don't think it's a big issue anyway, I don't know too many people that pay much attention to post counts.

[Neftren]

Sounds like a good idea, but by the way Banjo, post counts are usually built into almost every forum's code anyway.

[Amiria]

A good idea, moderators and award-winners should still be easily identificable with different colors. But I don't expect it to happen.

One of the best features of the old board software (YaBB) was that you could change your user name at will. I miss that feature. I used to be Amiria, then with the additions of Mistress of Counterspelling or Countess of Misspelling. At the time of the software change I was simply Amiria again. I requested the addition of Countess of Mispelling in that stickied thread ... but now after more than a year I'm quite tired of it. So yeah, I'd really like more customizable name/title feature.

[Neftren]

What really annoyed me, is that I've been on GiantITP for well over a year and a half, but I never registered until after the YaBB board swap. I did 90% of my reading on Sneak's computer, on his account. The other 10% was at home on a guest account, which didn't let me post.

I also didn't really think about my username at the time, since GiantITP wasn't very high on my list of sites. Now I kinda regret it, since this is now my favorite site, and I'd much rather have 'The Old Coyote' as my username instead of 'Neftren'. Even if I couldn't get my username changed, it'd at least let me change my title to The Old Coyote and be slightly better.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Moderators could still have the big blue signs underneath their names.
And that catches attention far more than the custom title to begin with.

No, finding the Moderators and Administrators will be no more difficult regardless of the titles.

[Catch]

I'm all for this idea, myself. I've run and been part of several forums where users could make their own title, though I haven't used vBulletin before this incarnation of the Playground. It's fun and it doesn't hurt anyone, as far as my experience is concerned, though I certainly understand if this falls under the "features that would make the server cry."

More than it already does, at least.

[Ego Slayer]

Personally, I'm not sure the idea is terribly appealing. Maybe because I don't think it's important, and would be a poor use of time to be fiddling around with board code when there are many more useful features I would like to see enabled again.

[Castaras]

Personally, I'm not sure the idea is terribly appealing. Maybe because I don't think it's important, and would be a poor use of time to be fiddling around with board code when there are many more useful features I would like to see enabled again.

That's kinda the point I was making. The Admin are probably not going to implement fluff until the core programming and server is okay.

[[Insert Neat Username Here]]

I forgot about the blue signs:smallredface:
I'm all for it, now.

[Vonriel]

For now, it's a rather useless feature, and also detracts from the specialness of mod-titles and the reward for winning a contest, or so I believe.

I suppose once all the disabled or tweaked features are reinstated, then it would be worth thinking about. But that seems like it'll be a long way off.

[Tor the Fallen]

Numbers. Everyone should be assigned a number. Take away the sigs and all that nonsense, and just hand out numbers. Tiny, tiny numbers.

[Artemician]

So the current general consensus is that:

1) Having custom titles would be interesting.

but

2) It's not really terribly important right now.

I can see where that's coming from.

But as to the: Core programming comes first: What IS core programming, per se? After all, no new features are being added, it's just that old features were disabled to conserve bandwidth. How does making a new category similiar to Location/Hobby codes (which already exist, and are in place) suck bandwidth? If a line of text really were so dangerous, why is the current code for location still in effect?

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Y'know, I was under the impression custom titles were built into the software. No special programming necessary. Just hit a switch in the administrator control panel.

But I could be wrong.

[Charity]

You wanna know what I think...
Well I'll tell you anyhow...
Yeah you I know, you knew that.

I reckon the Giant is fond of the whole forum member level thing. It appeals to his D&D psyche. He hates the idea of inequality amongst the posters on the one hand but likes the leveling dynamic on the other...
Which is why we end up with this rather D&Desk tacked on solution.
It's there but you mustn't talk about it... it reminds me (fondly) of
http://www.moviemaze.de/celebs/0179/main02.jpg.
I am not sitting in judgement here, it's just the impression I get.

[StickMan]

I'm in favor of the idea but only if its something that the staff can do with out downing the site or great difficulty.

I think it would be a good way to totally get rid of the whole post count status that we are not generally fond of. Cause its not like I'm going to go and click to see how many post any given person has. I don't think that there is anyway around that with the current system your status still has some importance, even if it is not supposed to.

I would put it up to a forum wide vote if the mods can do it to see what the population of the playground thinks.


(Always wanted to be Missile Mage in The Playground:smallwink: )

[Jasdoif]

Y'know, I was under the impression custom titles were built into the software. No special programming necessary. Just hit a switch in the administrator control panel.

But I could be wrong.This is a vB3 board, right? You go into the usergroup setting in the admin control panel, you set "Can Use Custom Title" to yes. There ya go.

Whether it's a good idea to allow for everyone tends to be another matter entirely. Having many user titles change frequently, which tends to happen when anyone can change theirs on a large board, is disconcerting. Also, "X in the Playground" is a nice unifying element here on these boards. Even during April Fools :smalltongue:

[Ego Slayer]

Also, "X in the Playground" is a nice unifying element here on these boards. Even during April Fools :smalltongue:
Yeah, if you can't enable custom titles with the "... In the Playground" tag, I wouldn't want them at all. I assume that would require playing with the code...

Also, I think the whole "Pixie-Titan" thing is nice, anyway. I like being a Firbolg.

[Samiam303]

Plus, not to insult the maturity level of anyone here but with a board this large it would be really hard to keep tabs on what people were using as their titles.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

I reckon the Giant is fond of the whole forum member level thing. It appeals to his D&D psyche. He hates the idea of inequality amongst the posters on the one hand but likes the leveling dynamic on the other...
Which is why we end up with this rather D&Desk tacked on solution.
It's there but you mustn't talk about it...
That's my take on the situation as well.


Plus, not to insult the maturity level of anyone here but with a board this large it would be really hard to keep tabs on what people were using as their titles.
No more so than on keeps track of signatures or individual posts. If someone uses an inappropriate title, you can always report it.

[StickMan]

Also, I think the whole "Pixie-Titan" thing is nice, anyway. I like being a Firbolg.

Then if they had custom titles you could just make your self a Firbolg, and if we had custom titles then you don't have to stop posting just before the next title level, like you do now:smallwink:.

[Catch]

Also, I think the whole "Pixie-Titan" thing is nice, anyway. I like being a Firbolg.

You can have both. Most forums that allow users custom titles have a default title hierarchy, and allow users to make their own title after accruing a certain number of posts, usually 500 or 1000.

[Ego Slayer]

^: Then we'd just have people asking at what rank they can make a custom title. >.<


Then if they had custom titles you could just make your self a Firbolg, and if we had custom titles then you don't have to stop posting just before the next title level, like you do now:smallwink:.
I meant more that I liked the friendly-like ranking we have.

[GnomeNinja]

Maybe at, like, 20,000 posts or so, you could request a custom title.

[StickMan]

I meant more that I liked the friendly-like ranking we have.

I think that is an issue for people it's still a Ranking system and people on this board do judge things based off it even if they are not supposed to. I do hate that on forums it can be scary, people do for some reason often base if your worth listening to based on how many posts you have. You don't see it on this forum as much because of the rule not to talk about it.

When it comes down to it I'm not worried about this to much. If Rich and/or the board staff think this may be a good idea and if they want to open it up to real discussion I think that would be great idea. If they want to keep things as is I think that is fine as well. I think allowing people to make there own _____ in the playground would be fun and perhaps get rid of post count stereotyping, but I don't think its going to shake the forum.

At this point I would love to see what the mods/admins have to say about it. I do kind of wonder if the fact they have let us go on this long about it does say something about the validity of the idea, but that is pure speculation.

[Samiam303]

Maybe at, like, 20,000 posts or so, you could request a custom title.

That would make a WAY WORSE problem with spamming to raise post count, I'm thinking.

[Raiser Blade]

Maybe at, like, 20,000 posts or so, you could request a custom title.

If i had 20,000 posts i wouldn't care about a custom title.

[Tormsskull]

Honestly, I don't think the forum admin care about our input on this issue. And its not like a "We hate you shut up and go away" kind of thing, its more a "This is how the Giant or whoever prefers the website to look, so that's how it is."

[Freederick]

Frankly, I hate the idea. There's already enough vanity cruft in the sigs, which thankfully one can turn off in the prefs. We don't need lame vanity plates creeping into the user titles. The current titles are fine, and keying them to number of contributions is informative. Let's keep them this way--if you want to express your ineffable personality for all the world to see and admire, do it in the sig. :smallannoyed:

[Neftren]

Let me point out that a lot of us who play d20 games post Current Homebrew Projects, d20 Characters, Avatar credits and more. Although I would like to see a new line under the title that could give credit to a person for their avatar... instead of taking up space in my sig. I'm going avatar-less right now, since I'm about 4 characters away from exceeding my sig's 1000 character limit.

[Catch]

Frankly, I hate the idea. There's already enough vanity cruft in the sigs, which thankfully one can turn off in the prefs. We don't need lame vanity plates creeping into the user titles. The current titles are fine, and keying them to number of contributions is informative. Let's keep them this way--if you want to express your ineffable personality for all the world to see and admire, do it in the sig. :smallannoyed:

Avatars are incredibly vain too. Users should not be able to flagrantly self-aggrandize with ridiculous graphics or any of this "creative expression" nonsense. I refuse to suffer these images, as individuality is incredibly offensive to me. Furthermore, I find the concept of usernames to be equally detestable. How dare someone else force me to recognize them as an individual! As if their personal moniker matters to me! Pauh!

Numbers! We must all have numbers! Anything else is balderdash and poppycock! :smallmad:

[Charity]

http://www.fanboy.com/images/prisoner-the-movie.jpg

[Nerd-o-rama]

Numbers! We must all have numbers! Anything else is balderdash and poppycock! :smallmad:
Screw numbers. Anonymous is Legion.

[Hell Puppi]

I would like the be Possible Dangerous Fluffy Thing in the Playground:smallbiggrin:

Let's do it!

[Hakola]

...Possible Dangerous Fluffy Thing in the Playground


For some reason I found that really really intimidating.:smalleek:

(Probably because I know that I would poke it :smallamused: )

[Hell Puppi]

ExactlY!:smallbiggrin:

[SurlySeraph]

Avatars are incredibly vain too. Users should not be able to flagrantly self-aggrandize with ridiculous graphics or any of this "creative expression" nonsense. I refuse to suffer these images, as individuality is incredibly offensive to me. Furthermore, I find the concept of usernames to be equally detestable. How dare someone else force me to recognize them as an individual! As if their personal moniker matters to me! Pauh!

Numbers! We must all have numbers! Anything else is balderdash and poppycock! :smallmad:

This is a logical suggestion. However, most organisms with carbon-based brains encounter memory difficulties when attempting to remember past posts associated with a specific string of numbers. I recommend keeping usernames so as to provide greater convenience and hence greater posting efficiency for the fleshy members of this forum.

On a more serious note, I'd rather keep the current title system. Frankly, being able to roughly judge someone's number of post counts is sometimes useful. When I first joined, I asked the Barbarians and Orcs when I didn't understand discussions, rather than asking the other Pixies, since I knew they would know more than I did. Besides, I like how the increases in the "size" of your name as your post count increases reflect the name of the site.

[StickMan]

See now I wish the mods would say something at this point. Not going to ever happen, may be one day, sure why not, any of these would be fine. Its odd that this has gone on for so long with out anything. At this point we can go back and forth all day on why we want it and why we don't. I think the best thing to do is wait for a mod to say something on this issue, then we can move on from there.

Until then my vote is for custom titles. If the forum staff would like to hear more about then I'll be the first one to go full out with reasons why we should change.

[XiaoTie]

Screw numbers. Anonymous is Legion.

I see what you did there

[Shhalahr Windrider]

On a more serious note, I'd rather keep the current title system. Frankly, being able to roughly judge someone's number of post counts is sometimes useful. When I first joined, I asked the Barbarians and Orcs when I didn't understand discussions, rather than asking the other Pixies, since I knew they would know more than I did.
If there's something you really need to ask someone who you know is a veteran and isn't a moderator, you'll still be able to check their postcount on their profile page. I would think such a situation would be sufficiently rare that having to do that shouldn't be too much of an inconvenience.

In any case, rank doesn't indicate knowledge. Many pixies are long-time lurkers or have the majority of their posts on Silly Message Board Games or the Town. So they already know how the boards work, but you wouldn't be able to judge that from their post counts. Likewise, you could have a long-time veteran that posts a lot but never had to deal with whatever aspect of the board you need to know about.

As far as non-board questions: How would post count even reflect applicable knowledge in those cases?


Besides, I like how the increases in the "size" of your name as your post count increases reflect the name of the site.
As long as any implementation automatically adds the "in the Playground" suffix, we'll still have a reflection in name.

But, as it is, the highest rank, Titan, is an Outsider rather than a Giant, so I don't think there's gonna be any significant change if one person chooses a "Rank" that is not a Giant. :smallwink:

[Raistlin1040]

I wouldn't mind, but it's not really our decision. I'd be happy if it was implemented, but it's probably not going to happen.

[Artemician]

I wouldn't mind, but it's not really our decision. I'd be happy if it was implemented, but it's probably not going to happen.

It doesn't stop us from trying, though.

Fighting to make somewhere a better place has never hurt anyone.

[Jack Squat]

Fighting to make somewhere a better place has never hurt anyone.

Except the people who are in the way of making said place better.

[Artemician]

Except the people who are in the way of making said place better.

There's noone in they way in this case, except maybe Number-advocates, or Post-Count elitists.

So far, noone has pointed out a single reason why it should not happen, and many people have voiced their support for it.

[Neftren]

Actually a few have voiced against it, although I find their lack of faith disturbingI have found no convincing argument against it, that would not take 10-20 minutes of coding to rectify.

Besides, the mods have changed some of the stuff we asked for in the past, I don't see why this is so unreasonable...

[Charity]

It's the giants call
It's the giants site
and it's unlikely to change IMO

crack on though folk, I for one couldn't give two hoots about it since they took my bugbear rank away, I'm looking at you Rawhide...

[Dallas-Dakota]

I think the current post-title thingy is good, very handy sometimes.

But I think we should ad : Status:(insert status here) below the join date and above the location.

[Zherog]

But I think we should ad : Status:(insert status here) below the join date and above the location.

You mean online/offline type status? If so, it's at the bottom of the user's post - bottom left corner, next to the "report post" icon.

[Illiterate Scribe]

Screw numbers. Anonymous is Legion.

I'm all in favour of turning GiantITP into OOTSchan, anyway. Forced anonymous, sage-ing, and /f30/.

[Catch]

I'm all in favour of turning GiantITP into OOTSchan, anyway. Forced anonymous, sage-ing, and /f30/.

Right, we could take one of the most civil and polite communities on the internets and smash it with giant hammers until it resembles one of the worst, if not the worst.

Do not want.

[Illiterate Scribe]

Right, we could take one of the most civil and polite communities on the internets and smash it with giant hammers until it resembles one of the worst, if not the worst.

Do not want.

Such is nihilism. :smallwink:

[bluewind95]

Custom titles seem like a nice idea.

If people changing them too often is a problem, it could be done via requests. Though honestly, I think that would cause a lot more trouble than just letting people go wild with them. I used to go to a board that had that system and it was quite a bit of work for the mods to keep up with the requests and then you had the "OH NOEZ! U TOOK MORE THAN 1 MINUTE TO DO MIINE!! DO MIIIINEEEE!!!111!!:smallfurious: ".

I don't think that the titles would use a lot of bandwidth... but I'm not so sure about the page-loading to do it. Then again, changing one's avatar does that already.

I dunno. But I think it'd be a neat thing to have.

[Bookman]

I'm thinking probably it's just way to big of a coding task. Many of you may not remember but last year when we switched to this forum we had to wait about a MONTH for them to strip down the code to add avvies the current size options. Many of these folks have lives and there's a system already in place so why should they take time to take the code and totally rework it when it's never been an option and not really an attractive one now.

[Illiterate Scribe]

From my experience of vBulletin, it's normally just a radio button stating 'enable/disable custom passwords'. I think it's that the admins have only just stabilised the site, and so are a bit worried about changing anything.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

You mean online/offline type status? If so, it's at the bottom of the user's post - bottom left corner, next to the "report post" icon.

Or maybe his suggestion was to turn it into a dating site. :smalltongue:

[Charity]

Or maybe his suggestion was to turn it into a dating site. :smalltongue:

So who have you got your eye on eh?
They must be a beauty.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

If people changing them too often is a problem, it could be done via requests.
Don't see why it would be a problem.


I'm thinking probably it's just way to big of a coding task.
Nah. Even if it weren't a matter of flipping a switch on the administrator control panel, it's a type of thing that could be added by a moderately-experienced programmer in less than 10 minutes.


Many of you may not remember but last year when we switched to this forum we had to wait about a MONTH for them to strip down the code to add avvies the current size options.
Nah, there wasn't any stripping down for most of the things. They're part of the software package. It's just there was a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff that needed to be taken care of before they were activated.


Many of these folks have lives and there's a system already in place so why should they take time to take the code and totally rework it when it's never been an option and not really an attractive one now.
I find it more attractive than having to put up with the inevitable monthly "What's the Post Ranks Mean?" thread. But then, I hang out on Board Issues quite a bit, so it does get rather repetitive for me. If you don't come here often, it may not be as much of a problem for you. :smalltongue:


So who have you got your eye on eh?
They must be a beauty.
Eye? Which one?

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

So who have you got your eye on eh?

Different eye for different purpose.

- Disintegrate for popcorn thieves

- Antimagic for flying ninjas

- Charm for moderators

etc.

:smallamused:


They must be a beauty.


Beauty is in the eyes of the beholders. :smallwink:

[Charity]

Eye? Which one?

Are beholders monogamous?

[North]

Are beholders monogamous?

Well they tend to be monocled?

[vegetalss4]

i think we are on an tangent.
Back to topic. I agree with every one here, Even those who disagree.
Serius through i think it would be cool, but i also think we should wait until an mod says something

[Dallas-Dakota]

On topic please:smalltongue:

But as in status :(fill here in what you want).
Something like the location thingy they did.

[Artemician]

i think we are on an tangent.
Back to topic. I agree with every one here, Even those who disagree.
Serius through i think it would be cool, but i also think we should wait until an mod says something

They don't seem to want to say anything, though. :smallfrown:


On topic please:smalltongue:

But as in status :(fill here in what you want).
Something like the location thingy they did.

Agreed. It would be exactly the same, except that the default string would have to be a suffix instead of a prefix. The code would remain exactly the same.

[Machete]

I like the ranking system. A lot.

Not because ~YAY WATCH ME SPAM AND BE AWESOMEGOD IN PLAYGROUND~ but because I like to homebrew.

When I homebrew and get feedback I can tell whose words to add more weight to and who to possibly disregard.

Sure, usernames are helpful, Legolas666's scathing remark about the chaotic leaning races I create being overpowered and the lawful ones being balanced without mentioning law or chaos won't have much weight in comparison to say Solo saying that certain ones have potential for abuse and then explaining possible changes, but seeing "Pixie" or "Barbarian" next to Legolas6662007 makes the deliberation time shorter.

[Artemician]

I like the ranking system. A lot.

Not because ~YAY WATCH ME SPAM AND BE AWESOMEGOD IN PLAYGROUND~ but because I like to homebrew.

When I homebrew and get feedback I can tell whose words to add more weight to and who to possibly disregard.

Sure, usernames are helpful, Legolas666's scathing remark about the chaotic leaning races I create being overpowered and the lawful ones being balanced without mentioning law or chaos won't have much weight in comparison to say Solo saying that certain ones have potential for abuse and then explaining possible changes, but seeing "Pixie" or "Barbarian" next to Legolas6662007 makes the deliberation time shorter.

But.. you're not supposed to discriminate against people based on their post count.

We try to treat all posters as equal, the ones that just started posting and the ones that have been here since the dawn of time have equal importance.

[StickMan]

But.. you're not supposed to discriminate against people based on their post count.

High five to Artemician.

I've seen high rank members who give terrible advice. My rank here is OK but I hope you don't judge what I say based on that, some times I will post on a homebrew and miss some thing and give horrid advice. Rank has nothing to do with knowledge of the game. Your best to look out for the people who give good advice like Solo and try to remember them. I have no clue what rank Solo is but I've seen his posts and they are always good (well when it comes to homebrew). I'm in a game with the guy right now and I'm not judging how well I think he is going to play based on the fact that I think he is a great at analysis of homebrew stuff.

[Ego Slayer]

I'm going to say that rank does hold some weight. Shows how much you've become part of the community, and that you probably have some level of respect because, well... if you were an asshat with rude/unhelpful things to say you wouldn't have lasted long. Personally, browsing other forums, when seeing posters of higher rank, I can safely make the assumption that they are respectable, nice people because they've lasted thus far as part of the community.

[Brickwall]

I'm going to say that rank does hold some weight. Shows how much you've become part of the community, and that you probably have some level of respect because, well... if you were an asshat with rude/unhelpful things to say you wouldn't have lasted long. Personally, browsing other forums, when seeing posters of higher rank, I can safely make the assumption that they are respectable, nice people because they've lasted thus far as part of the community.

And at this point, I will laugh because I have something like the 3rd or 4th highest post count on the boards. :smallamused:

But this does have truth to it in cases besides me. When I see a Pixie with a post that doesn't look intelligent at first glance, I pretty much ignore it. It takes RANK before people pay attention when you say stupid things. :smallbiggrin:

[Ego Slayer]

And at this point, I will laugh because I have something like the 3rd or 4th highest post count on the boards. :smallamused:
No. No dear... last time I checked it went Dhavaer, PhoeKun, Amotis, myself... :smallamused:

Regardless, point made. :smallwink:


It takes RANK before people pay attention when you say stupid things.:smallbiggrin:
So very true.

[Artemician]

But this does have truth to it in cases besides me. When I see a Pixie with a post that doesn't look intelligent at first glance, I pretty much ignore it. It takes RANK before people pay attention when you say stupid things. :smallbiggrin:

So very true.


Regardless of your personal opinion, on these boards, you're not supposed to discriminate against people by post count. This is clearly stated under the forum rules.

Plus, crap is still crap regardless of who says it. Whether it is a Pixie or a Furbolg doesn't make a difference as to the content of the post. Conversely, if a well-thought out and reasoned post is made, it doesn't matter as to whether it comes from the mouth of a newcomer or an old-bie as well, it's still a good-quality post.

Quantity of Posts has no bearing on Quality.

[Brickwall]

Regardless of your personal opinion, on these boards, you're not supposed to discriminate against people by post count. This is clearly stated under the forum rules.

Plus, crap is still crap regardless of who says it. Whether it is a Pixie or a Furbolg doesn't make a difference as to the content of the post. Conversely, if a well-thought out and reasoned post is made, it doesn't matter as to whether it comes from the mouth of a newcomer or an old-bie as well, it's still a good-quality post.

Quantity of Posts has no bearing on Quality.

:smallsigh:

'nother youngun misinterpreting what I'm saying...

How many high rank posters do you see with low quality posts? Very few.

Now do a study of low-rank posters.

Well, look at that, the majority of them have no idea how to integrate themselves here. Bad spelling, things that are clearly racist/religious/political/etc. Did that surprise you? Well, if you'd been around here long, patroling the forums nearly every day, you'd know this.

So high rankers tend to have a basis for being worthy of attention. And when there are thousands of members here, you can't respect them all (unless you're one of those crazy people who respects humans as a whole). If a newbie says something smart, okay, fine, I'll pay attention. But they often don't. And if I see someone say "I have a crush on X" and they're a Pixie...yeah, what?

Rank matters. What counts as "discrimination", anyway? I never say "STFU stupid n00b", or anything like that. But if someone with only 2 posts says something about another forumite, I probably won't pay attention. It just makes sense.

Ego: Huh, thought Firbolg was for, like, 5,000. Oh well. Guess that puts me in 6th or 7th then. Doesn't at all invalidate my point, though. Plus...isn't Dhavaer dead or something?:smallconfused:

[Artemician]

:smallsigh:

'nother youngun misinterpreting what I'm saying...

How many high rank posters do you see with low quality posts? Very few.

Now do a study of low-rank posters.
<snip>

Rank matters. What counts as "discrimination", anyway? I never say "STFU stupid n00b", or anything like that. But if someone with only 2 posts says something about another forumite, I probably won't pay attention. It just makes sense.


Rank? High-rank? Low rank? Spelled out very clearly in the forum rules, is that there's no such thing as rank. You're supposed to treat everyone in the same way, regardless of their post count. Treat people you're familiar with different, sure (eg: You've discussed a lot with a particular poster, or you know him/her from real life, etc etc), but just looking at a person's post count and drawing conclusions as to the quality of their posts, that's a no-no.


Well, look at that, the majority of them have no idea how to integrate themselves here. Bad spelling, things that are clearly racist/religious/political/etc. Did that surprise you? Well, if you'd been around here long, patroling the forums nearly every day, you'd know this.

So high rankers tend to have a basis for being worthy of attention. And when there are thousands of members here, you can't respect them all (unless you're one of those crazy people who respects humans as a whole). If a newbie says something smart, okay, fine, I'll pay attention. But they often don't. And if I see someone say "I have a crush on X" and they're a Pixie...yeah, what?

Personally, I find that many people who have been here a long time don't really say much smarter things than people who have just started. But it doesn't matter. If a person who has 5000 posts to his name says: "I have a crush on X", I'll ignore it just the same way I'd ignore it as if a person with 4 posts said it. :smallsmile:

=A stink from any age would smell just as foul.=

[Ego Slayer]

Regardless of your personal opinion, on these boards, you're not supposed to discriminate against people by post count. This is clearly stated under the forum rules.
There's a difference between discriminating and being rude about it , and being personally cautious.


Plus...isn't Dhavaer dead or something?
*giggles* No, he's still alive. :smallbiggrin:

[Artemician]

There's a difference between discriminating and being rude about it , and being personally cautious.

Let's put this statement in a real-life concept.

Lets say.. we have an employer who doesn't like people who are of a certain skin colour as he feels that those people have a higher tendency of being unproductive employees

Now, the employer isn't rude about it, he doesn't go out and insult job applicants who have that skin colour, calling them idiots, or anything. He simply refuses to hire them. He's entitled to it, after all, he's being personally cautious.

Discrimination, whether overt or not, is still discrimination, which is not allowed under board rules.

[Brickwall]

Let's put this statement in a real-life concept.

Lets say.. we have an employer who doesn't like people who are of a certain skin colour as he feels that those people have a higher tendency of being unproductive employees

Now, the employer isn't rude about it, he doesn't go out and insult job applicants who have that skin colour, calling them idiots, or anything. He simply refuses to hire them. He's entitled to it, after all, he's being personally cautious.

Discrimination, whether overt or not, is still discrimination, which is not allowed under board rules.

A poor comparison, but I should have expected that from someone with your post count. :smalltongue:

Really, a better comparison would be age or experience. Would a person who ran a research facility hire a 28-year old with a doctorate or a 22-year old with a Bachelor's? Even if the 28-year old doesn't have as good personal skills and has a southern accent in Maine? I'd bet he'd hire the older guy. And otherwise more respect the older guy's opinions.

Post count isn't everything, but it has importance to a degree. I mean, what, most of the mods have a lower postcount than me, but I still respect them. And if I recognize someone's name well, regardless of their postcount, I'll probably read their post. But if I see that Random007 has a high post count, yet I've never seen him before, I'll have some way of knowing that they've been here a while an I just never noticed them. That's happened before, you know.

[Ego Slayer]

Let's put this statement in a real-life concept.
How 'bout this... You have an employer who often suspects that all new employees are going to be unproductive until they prove themselves otherwise.

[Om]

How many high rank posters do you see with low quality posts? Very few.You'd be surprised.

Honestly I didn't care about custom titles but your post has convinced me otherwise. If some people actually think that the number of posts is an indicator as to the quality of the poster then we really need to scrap this ranking system. The idea that your posts somehow have more inherent merit than what I, or everyone else aside from "six or seven" other posters, say is a disgustingly elitist attitude. That is something that I would expect the Admins to take every step to combat.

[Tom_Violence]

You'd be surprised.

Honestly I didn't care about custom titles but your post has convinced me otherwise. If some people actually think that the number of posts is an indicator as to the quality of the poster then we really need to scrap this ranking system. The idea that your posts somehow have more inherent merit than what I, or everyone else aside from "six or seven" other posters, say is a disgustingly elitist attitude. That is something that I would expect the Admins to take every step to combat.

I couldn't agree more. I've seen plenty of people with high 'ranks' put out bad posts, in every sense. For me, someone's rank doesn't make me think either way about them, with the strong exception of someone with a high rank who has only joined very recently - that always gets the flags up. But that is a reflection above and beyond merely how many times someone has posted.

A good memory of names works far better than a ranking system, it seems to me.

As for the employer analogy, how about this: you've an employer who assumes that most new employees will produce low quality work, until they produce a sufficiently high quantity of work. Does anyone else spot the glaringly-obvious problem there? Someone who churns out posts at an alarming rate is unlikely to have carefully crafted each one.

[Sisqui]

How 'bout this... You have an employer who often suspects that all new employees are going to be unproductive until they prove themselves otherwise.

To whom? Do people really think there is some imaginary standard of quality that can only be reached by repetitive posting? The quality of the posts depends almost wholly on the quality of the mind behind it- and that has nothing at all to do with how long a poster has been here or how frequently they've posted.

And who gets to determine the "quality" of a post? Whose standards would be used? A post of no real value to one person may be exactly the kind of thing another person is looking for. Seems Orwellian to me. :smallconfused:

[Ego Slayer]

And who gets to determine the "quality" of a post? Whose standards would be used? A post of no real value to one person may be exactly the kind of thing another person is looking for. Seems Orwellian to me. :smallconfused:
Excuse me? I am clearly speaking for myself, not for anyone else. We all have different views of what quality is, and what I consider quality may be different from you, but that does not make the opinion any less valid. There are clearly plenty of people out there who have good things to say, but this is the Internet... y'know... where there's a rude person around every corner, and 14-year old girls are 45-year old men? It's like a major city street.

No, really, there are a lot of people here who haven't posted a lot, but are very interesting, nice people, but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to take what people say with a grain of salt.

Anyway, I hereby back out of this discussion, because I've clearly forgotten that this is the Internet, where one is always wrong.

[Sisqui]

Excuse me? I am clearly speaking for myself, not for anyone else. We all have different views of what quality is, and what I consider quality may be different from you, but that does not make the opinion any less valid. There are clearly plenty of people out there who have good things to say, but this is the Internet... y'know... where there's a rude person around every corner, and 14-year old girls are 45-year old men? It's like a major city street.



I was referring to the hypothetical situation you proposed, not to you personally :smalleek: . I thought the bolding explained that. I do think everyone has an opinion as to the quality of particular posts. And, since those opinions vary from individual to individual, the "quality" of a post is going to depend on the person doing the evaluating.


but that does not make the opinion any less valid
Of course it doesn't. That is what I just said :smallconfused: My issue was with the idea that a poster has to "prove themselves" worthy. Worthy to whom? And by what standard?

[StickMan]

It takes RANK before people pay attention when you say stupid things. :smallbiggrin:

Maybe I should ask to have my rank reduced then cause some times I do wish people ignored my stupid posts. And lets face it I say a lot of stupid things. Hey at least I'm well meaning.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Now do a study of low-rank posters.

Well, look at that, the majority of them have no idea how to integrate themselves here. Bad spelling, things that are clearly racist/religious/political/etc. Did that surprise you? Well, if you'd been around here long, patroling the forums nearly every day, you'd know this.
Hm. Wonder where you're getting your numbers. I've always been amazed at the number of Pixies and Dwarfs around here. Giant in the Playground is rapidly growing to the extend that some days it seems that the majority of posters period are Pixies and Dwarfs, and I certainly wouldn't be able to handle a board if the majority of posters had such a poor track record.


Really, a better comparison would be age or experience. Would a person who ran a research facility hire a 28-year old with a doctorate or a 22-year old with a Bachelor's? Even if the 28-year old doesn't have as good personal skills and has a southern accent in Maine? I'd bet he'd hire the older guy. And otherwise more respect the older guy's opinions.
Okay, say the "Doctor" got his PhD from some online diploma mill and has done Jack Squat worthwhile research? The title proves nothing. Only the quality of the work does that.

[Brickwall]

Okay, say the "Doctor" got his PhD from some online diploma mill and has done Jack Squat worthwhile research? The title proves nothing. Only the quality of the work does that.

Then we can say the "graduate" did the same thing. Still an age gap.

Anyway, I got Om to flame me. When I get someone to flame me, my work here is done. Byes. :smallbiggrin:

[Rawhide]

The Hairy Modfather: Alright, that's quite enough of that. You're all going round and round in circles and the topic is getting far too heated.