THE PACK Message Boards

yayness! good. *checks posts to see if it's working*

Shadowblaze wrote:yayness! good. *checks posts to see if it's working*

Its working. I checked.


I have the feeling you're going to post like crazy just to get Legendary again.

Figarou wrote:I have the feeling you're going to post like crazy just to get Legendary again.

I know I am!


Just 5 more posts and I'll boot Blade-of-the-Moon off the top 10 list ^_^

-- Vilkacis

Sweet! I just noticed, wow.

Are we not having custom names? I thought it would be fun.

outwarddoodles wrote:Sweet! I just noticed, wow.

Are we not having custom names? I thought it would be fun.

Well, I guess after 1000 posts. Sure, why not.

Or 900. Somewhere around there.

Figarou wrote:ok, new ranking is in place.

*looks at his own title*

I now feel old.

Aki wrote:

Figarou wrote:ok, new ranking is in place.

*looks at his own title*

I now feel old.

And you look old. Your new title will be "old timer"

No wait..........."old fart"

how about "K9er 49er"

I'll be a legend again in no time!

OK, this could take awhile. But, think of all the fun along the way...

I think the new scale works.

True as it may be that, eventually, (once "The Pack" has been around for a year or more) the regulars will all be far above the top end of the scale, I don't think that is a problem. I mean...seriously...once you get up to the 1,000 post range, the count after that would really become insignificant. ...by then, EVERYONE will know you... What more would you want? Being known by name by hundreds and (in the future) thousands of other pack members around the world would be equally significant...regardless if you are the one with 1,001 or 5,582 posts...

Vuldari wrote:I think the new scale works.

True as it may be that, eventually, (once "The Pack" has been around for a year or more) the regulars will all be far above the top end of the scale, I don't think that is a problem. I mean...seriously...once you get up to the 1,000 post range, the count after that would really become insignificant. ...by then, EVERYONE will know you... What more would you want? Being known by name by hundreds and (in the future) thousands of other pack members around the world would be equally significant...regardless if you are the one with 1,001 or 5,582 posts...

Its not the post count that got me well known. Its the duckie tossing!!

Figarou wrote:Its not the post count that got me well known. Its the duckie tossing!!

My point exactly...

By the time you have posted that many messages, people will know you by the things you've SAID with all of those posts...not by thier number...

...though you could get people to remember you with just a single post, in that respect.

In a way...I both like and Dis-like the ranking system (as a Whole), for on the one hand, it helps new members feel like they are really part of the club when they go up a rank...but on the other hand...it sort of puts a priority on "Quantaty" vs "Quality" of posts...which is sort of counter-productive.

The more I think about it...most of the ranks really should remain at lower , more easily accessable levels for the sake of NEW members. It really does not make sense to me to seperate the "veterans" of the forum by rank, praising those who post an average of 8-15 posts per day over those who are satisfied with speaking thier mind in just two or three.

For those who are really proud of thier Post count (for whatever reason) a higher rank/title is really not neccesary. Thier post number is clearly displayed below their name, for all to see.


Therefore...I propose that the top of the scale be placed at such a point where it becomes plain and obvious that the member is no longer a "NEWBIE" ...after that, we are all Equal members of THE PACK.

Just where that Rank-Cap would be, I'm not sure though. 300?....500?...800?... ONE THOUSAND seems a bit high to me.


(...or maybe I'm just feeling the sting of my EGO being deflated...seeing that I am no longer "LEGENDARY" any more... )

Vuldari wrote:
(...or maybe I'm just feeling the sting of my EGO being deflated...seeing that I am no longer "LEGENDARY" any more... )

you're not far from it.

Vuldari wrote:...but on the other hand...it sort of puts a priority on "Quantaty" vs "Quality" of posts...which is sort of counter-productive.

At the moment, quantity is the only thing we have to measure by. If we want to measure by quality, it's possible, but would require modifying phpBB. What we would do in that case is implement a scale (perhaps 1-5) where every member can rank a post. Any given member will have rank according to the ranks of their posts. But that would be a pain for several reasons. First, I don't know if such a mod already exists, or if we would have to create one. Second, we would have to explain how it works to every newcomer. And Third, that kind of system should probably be done from the beginning. I doubt any of us want to go back through every post and rerate them, so it's probably a bit late for that now.

I agree that quantity is probably not the best focus, but certainly it is some indication?

Vuldari wrote:Therefore...I propose that the top of the scale be placed at such a point where it becomes plain and obvious that the member is no longer a "NEWBIE" ...after that, we are all Equal members of THE PACK.

Just where that Rank-Cap would be, I'm not sure though. 300?....500?...800?... ONE THOUSAND seems a bit high to me.

It seems to me that was why we appended to the old scale instead of stretching it out. It only takes 50 posts (similar to before) to be labeled 'Pack Member,' at which point I would argue that it's plain and obvious that the member is no longer a newbie and an equal member of The Pack.

My complaint with the top of the scale being too low is that it would leave me with nothing to look forward to as far as ranks go. I mean, I know that's not a very good reason, but earning a new rank is a cheap thrill that I enjoy.

On the other hand, I can see your point. I have been to forums where the posts necessary to get a decent rank were discouragingly high. And I have to admit, that didn't contribute to my desire to participate.

However, in this case, I think the scale is graduated nicely. Those who are new gain ranks quite rapidly (just as they did under the old system), giving them incintive to continue posting. Then, by the time they reach Pack Member, they are probably in the habit of coming here to post. It's the first big milestone.

I don't think the top of the scale should be shortened below 800. I mean, I have only been here for 2 1/2 months, and I am half-way to Legendary already. I have to admit when I got up to Legendary on the old scale, it felt good... but only for a couple minutes. Then I realized there was nothing coming after, and that a Legendary rank was really quite worthless, so I felt kind of cheated.

I do see your point, however; the old system didn't distinguish between old members, it only pointed out those that hadn't participated much. And I can see the advantages of that.

-- Vilkacis

Vilkacis wrote:

Vuldari wrote:...but on the other hand...it sort of puts a priority on "Quantaty" vs "Quality" of posts...which is sort of counter-productive.

At the moment, quantity is the only thing we have to measure by. If we want to measure by quality, it's possible, but would require modifying phpBB. What we would do in that case is implement a scale (perhaps 1-5) where every member can rank a post. Any given member will have rank according to the ranks of their posts. But that would be a pain for several reasons. First, I don't know if such a mod already exists, or if we would have to create one. Second, we would have to explain how it works to every newcomer. And Third, that kind of system should probably be done from the beginning. I doubt any of us want to go back through every post and rerate them, so it's probably a bit late for that now.

I agree that quantity is probably not the best focus, but certainly it is some indication?

NO, NO, NO, NO, no...

That is definately NOT a good idea. I don't think we should give ourselves reasons to start judging each other like that. It would only create tension and bad feelings between those who get rated highly and those who don't.

What I was saying was that providing rewards for high post numbers gives many members an excuse to spam the boards with hundreds of short, meaningless posts whenever the whim strikes them,rather than wait untill they have something of significance to say. (...that is not to say that I think random silliness should be "banned" or anything. The boards would not be as fun without it...I'm just saying, there IS such a thing as "too much of a good thing"...)

Vilkacis wrote:

Vuldari wrote:Therefore...I propose that the top of the scale be placed at such a point where it becomes plain and obvious that the member is no longer a "NEWBIE" ...after that, we are all Equal members of THE PACK.

Just where that Rank-Cap would be, I'm not sure though. 300?....500?...800?... ONE THOUSAND seems a bit high to me.

It seems to me that was why we appended to the old scale instead of stretching it out. It only takes 50 posts (similar to before) to be labeled 'Pack Member,' at which point I would argue that it's plain and obvious that the member is no longer a newbie and an equal member of The Pack.

My complaint with the top of the scale being too low is that it would leave me with nothing to look forward to as far as ranks go. I mean, I know that's not a very good reason, but earning a new rank is a cheap thrill that I enjoy.

On the other hand, I can see your point. I have been to forums where the posts necessary to get a decent rank were discouragingly high. And I have to admit, that didn't contribute to my desire to participate.

However, in this case, I think the scale is graduated nicely. Those who are new gain ranks quite rapidly (just as they did under the old system), giving them incintive to continue posting. Then, by the time they reach Pack Member, they are probably in the habit of coming here to post. It's the first big milestone.

I don't think the top of the scale should be shortened below 800. I mean, I have only been here for 2 1/2 months, and I am half-way to Legendary already. I have to admit when I got up to Legendary on the old scale, it felt good... but only for a couple minutes. Then I realized there was nothing coming after, and that a Legendary rank was really quite worthless, so I felt kind of cheated.

I do see your point, however; the old system didn't distinguish between old members, it only pointed out those that hadn't participated much. And I can see the advantages of that.

-- Vilkacis

I can definately understand the desire to have new ranks to look forward to...but I just don't like the idea of seperating the Veterans like that.

If a rank was set as high as 5,000, for example, I doubt I , or other more respected and less chatty Pack Members, would ever reach it...while new members (who have not even registered here yet) may have a habit of using 5-posts to say what others would say it just one and get there in 8-months or less, quickly outranking the older, but more post-efficient Members.

I only see this as a problem because of my own vanity really. I would feel compelled to secure my status here, (as many others may as well), and the only way to do so would be to start posting a dozen nonsense posts every day in addition to the thoughtful ones to ramp up oup post numbers and catch up with the chatty "new guys".

If I post only one or two messages every day from this point on, I don't want to appear to be a "low-ranking" Pack Member at this time next year.

That is why I proposed a resonably low rank-cap. I think it should be at least possible for NON-CHATTY Pack Members to reach the higher ranks before the Film is released.


...and on the other Paw...part of me feels that we should not have Any ranks at all, as I feel it is just not a good idea to give anyone a reason to feel they are "better" than anyone else.


Honestly...somehow, now I feel amost "concieted" knowing that I am less than 100 posts away from being called "LEGENDARY" again. I mean, really...how does being a blabbermouth make me worth calling a "LEGEND"? ...and for some reason, the title "Pack Elder" sounds more desireable and respectable than "Renowned" to me. Go figure...


It really does not matter that much to me in the long run. It WORKS as it is right now.

...I'm just saying what I feel.

~Vuldari

Vuldari wrote:NO, NO, NO, NO, no...

That is definately NOT a good idea. I don't think we should give ourselves reasons to start judging each other like that. It would only create tension and bad feelings between those who get rated highly and those who don't.

Heh, I agree. Rating by quality is not a very good idea (not in a small group, like ours). However, the programmer in me likes to think about how such a thing could be implemented.

Vuldari wrote:What I was saying was that providing rewards for high post numbers gives many members an excuse to spam the boards with hundreds of short, meaningless posts whenever the whim strikes them,rather than wait untill they have something of significance to say.

I can certainly see what you're saying. My only point would be that we have hundreds of short, meaningless posts anyway under the old system. I'm not sure that will change or get any worse because of the new system.

Vuldari wrote:I can definately understand the desire to have new ranks to look forward to...but I just don't like the idea of seperating the Veterans like that.

If a rank was set as high as 5,000, for example, I doubt I , or other more respected and less chatty Pack Members, would ever reach it...while new members (who have not even registered here yet) may have a habit of using 5-posts to say what others would say it just one and get there in 8-months or less, quickly outranking the older, but more post-efficient Members.

I have to agree there. You and I, and a few others, tend to have rather long and (usually) thoughtful posts, and usually try to avoid posting only a simple sentence or two, unless appropriate. And I have to admit that I do find myself annoyed that there are those who put almost no thought into their posts, don't care about spelling or grammar or typos, or post up a storm of off-topic silliness, getting high post-counts in the process.

I do find that kind of behavior rather irritating at times, but that seems like the exception rather than the rule. Surely those who gain a reputation for long and thoughtful posts will keep it, and those who act silly all the time will not be heeded when they have something serious to say.

The more we discuss this, the more I come to agree that, perhaps, a lower boundary is appropriate, or maybe even the old system.

(And I'm sure Figarou just wants us to make up our minds already! Heh)

-- Vilkacis

Vilkacis wrote:
I have to agree there. You and I, and a few others, tend to have rather long and (usually) thoughtful posts, and usually try to avoid posting only a simple sentence or two, unless appropriate. And I have to admit that I do find myself annoyed that there are those who put almost no thought into their posts, don't care about spelling or grammar or typos, or post up a storm of off-topic silliness, getting high post-counts in the process.

I find those long posts annoying. I'm like.... when I see them. I like to read short ones thats right at the point.

Vilkacis wrote:
(And I'm sure Figarou just wants us to make up our minds already! Heh)

-- Vilkacis

You got that right, buster!!

Vilkacis wrote:The more we discuss this, the more I come to agree that, perhaps, a lower boundary is appropriate, or maybe even the old system.

(And I'm sure Figarou just wants us to make up our minds already! Heh)

I wrote:It really does not matter that much to me in the long run. It WORKS as it is right now.

...I'm just saying what I feel.

Again, I'm just saying what is on my mind. The current system in place is satisfactory. ...it is definately more reasonable and appropriate than the old "50=Legendary" Scale.

~Vudari

Vuldari wrote:The current system in place is satisfactory. ...it is definately more reasonable and appropriate than the old "50=Legendary" Scale.

Well, let's leave it at that, then.


-- Vilkacis

Vuldari wrote:...and for some reason, the title "Pack Elder" sounds more desireable and respectable than "Renowned" to me. Go figure...

I agree, now that I think of it. Renowned seems to imply younger to me, and I think it fits more logically after Pack Leader. Then Pack Elder, then Legendary would make sense.

Do you think you could just swap those two around, Figarou? Swap Renowned and Pack Elder?

-- Vilkacis

Vilkacis wrote:
Do you think you could just swap those two around, Figarou? Swap Renowned and Pack Elder?

-- Vilkacis

Sure..I'll get right on it.

Just Bitten 5
First Change 10
Dealing with the Change 20
Junior Pack Member 30
Pack Member 50
Senior Pack Member 100
Pack Leader 200
Renowned 350
Pack Elder 550
Legendary 800


Ok, current ranking in place.

Ah, I think you accidentally swapped the images, too.

EDIT: Okay, I see it's fixed now.

Thank you

-- Vilkacis

Vilkacis wrote:Ah, I think you accidentally swapped the images, too.

Oops.... I forgot to switch them around. Its fixed now.

Thanks

-- Vilkacis

Vilkacis wrote:

Vuldari wrote:...and for some reason, the title "Pack Elder" sounds more desireable and respectable than "Renowned" to me. Go figure...

I agree, now that I think of it. Renowned seems to imply younger to me, and I think it fits more logically after Pack Leader. Then Pack Elder, then Legendary would make sense.

Do you think you could just swap those two around, Figarou? Swap Renowned and Pack Elder?

-- Vilkacis

Fountain of youth, young again!



Eh, won't take long to get back to Elder.