Title Ranking

[Suet Seung]

I don't think that was what James intended with what he said. Let me ask you then, the forum is fine the way it is but do you not concur that there could be room for improvement regardless of what you might deem as necessary? Another question, why is it you would think that if someone proposes a change such as being able to have a title it would be because that person think the forum is boring? Why "less fun or interesting?" Why can't his meaning be "to be more fun or interesting" and not anything else? I'm not going any further into this matter since I'm not him obviously. Thank God.

However, I find it interesting how you speak of creativity when it comes to posting and yet I've found nothing different about what you've said than any others who are also against the appeal to bring back custom titles have already brought up. (No offense.) Also, the vibe I'm receiving is that you've a belief where a person is certainly capable to express their individuality through the rhetoric in their posting but to do the same through a customized title would be ridiculous because frankly, you see no purpose where in that is what the name is for.

Perhaps, a name and title are two totally separate things? Or better yet, I want two names then; one where the boys can call me during the day and another for the ladies to call me at night. Honestly, it's just an alternative preference. No need to make it more than what it already is.

The less fun and interesting part is refering to Stawberry's post. I was too lazy to specify who wrote what.

I' have not read the other posts in the previous pages, so I wouldn't know what the others are opposing against the appeal as you say.

If SC never agrees to give you all custom titles, it doesn't mean you can't go to User CP and Give yourself a custom title in your siguature box.

If SC won't change her mind, you might as well change yours or learn to adapt to how it is now.

[Radken]

If SC won't change her mind, you might as well change yours or learn to adapt to how it is now.

What other choice would I've if that was true?

However, you don't have the ability to unlock the title option in the User CP. I need to hear those words from someone who do. I hope you understand.

[James Ko]

I would think their usernames are unique titles all on their own already. Having a title or not does not change your personality or how people see you on the forum. The way you act/post on the forum is unique too. So it all depends on you...not some title.

Just because this forum doesn't have fancy titles, it does not mean it's less fun or interesting. It's what you bring into the forum, not what fancy titles brings.

That is just human nature... some people want something they can't have. Can you image SPCNET take away the Avatar funtion so it would be just names... wouldn't the username be unique enough for people to identify with. Currently we don't ahve custom titles granted to the posters.... if Spcnet does grant this I am sure there is other things posters wants.

I think Radken is just looking for improvement and he is brave enough to suggest some of these ideas. There is no wrong in trying to suggest improvements

[FruityPunch]

I don't need SC's help! I've got my own title now; just below my avatar! Anyway, I feel that Radken's suggestion is a good one, so I don't see why we can't have one. Maybe we can have a title for witty posters (sort of like a posting competition), or those who have reached 1000 posts are allowed to have a title of their own. Other forums do that too. See it as a recognition for the time taken to contribute posts; not as a bait for spam. I don't think spam is a big problem here anyway.

If not, we can have a extra one or two categories for members; Advanced Members for those with more than 5000 posts and Legendary Members for those with more than 10,000 posts. It doesn't matter much to me, coz see; I've got my own title... ...but anyway, just a suggestion. Please don't bash me...

[wkeej]

how's about this suggestion - take away the number of posts? for title, only two - moderators and members.

[James Ko]

how's about this suggestion - take away the number of posts? for title, only two - moderators and members.

That is a good idea but I think you miss another title for SPCNET, she is an administrator.

[FruityPunch]

I think you guys forgot somebody important. The editors.

[James Ko]

I think you guys forgot somebody important. The editors.

nay they don't get any titles because their duties is unrelated to the forum. In the forum they are just members unless they are also a moderator which they will have that title.

If you gave them title, the reviewer would want their titles too and then it will lead right back to members wanting their own unique titles.

[spcnet]

After all, isn't that what it all comes down to really? Not the spamming per se, not what other members might believe is correct, this is ultimately about how you perceive. I could have all the support in the world and most of the people here at the forums to back me up but truth be told, it would hardly matter if you simply disagree… If that is true, it's okay. I only wish that you admitted it sooner so I could’ve move on.

LOL. I thought that was always implicit, that ultimately it comes down to the administrator of the forum, me, in this case, to decide on what is allowed and not allowed at the forum. That doesn't mean I am not open to suggestions or can't be swayed by members' arguments. Isn't that how ALL forums + sites work, that the decision will always lie in the hands of the person who maintains it? My decisions are affected by what I believe of course to be for the well-being of the forum and ALSO by member input.

In this case, I thought it was also obvious that I wasn't swayed and I also don't want to beat a dead horse with my own rationale for not implementing this feature again, at least not any time soon.

[Radken]

Comparing this issue to beating a "dead horse" illustrates your feelings toward addressing this topic so for you to contiue in this quarrel would be pointless. That's made obvious to me now. You don't want to give a proper explanation but rather settle for irrevelant reasons made by other members' input is also apparent.

I don't expect to get much out of this experience. I merely brought up a suggestion and begun to question in return when some considered it as a bad idea. And got even more curious when none could give me a justifiable excuse. I was hoping then that you could maybe give me an honest answer as to why you won't change your mind. But since you wish not to waste your time I guess I can't help but feel a little bit disappointed.

[spcnet]

Comparing this issue to beating a "dead horse" illustrates your feelings toward addressing this topic so for you to contiue in this quarrel would be pointless. That's made obvious to me now. You don't want to give a proper explanation but rather settle for irrevelant reasons made by other members' input is also apparent.

I don't expect to get much out of this experience. I merely brought up a suggestion and begun to question in return when some considered it as a bad idea. And got even more curious when none could give me a justifiable excuse. I was hoping then that you could maybe give me an honest answer as to why you won't change your mind. But since you wish not to waste your time I guess I can't help but feel a little bit disappointed.

It's apparent to me that when I did try to give you an explanation, you only waved it off as an unjustified excuse because you personally don't like or agree with my reasonings. I do find it beating a dead horse when I give an honest reason and a member throws it back to me as being dishonest and half-hearted. I was sincerely trying to answer to your suggestion but the vibes I get back from you is that 1) You disagree with my reasoning (which is perfectly fine) and 2) You think I'm lying or not telling you the whole truth to you in regards as to why we don't want to implement this feature again. Which, btw, I don't have any reason to lie about.

And I did give you an answer to why I feel member titles should not make a comeback already. You disagree but a lot of members also don't feel the same way you do.

I think we had a vote, or some kind of long discussion, about a year ago, and the arguments given by those members who prefer just simple titles like "Junior Member", "Member" and "Senior Member" won the day. The major reasoning being that members spammed a lot more to increase their post count and made the moderating job harder. Most members were happier with the removal of the member titles, so in view of majority rule, we made it simple.

The simpler titles also implies a better view of how we want the forum to be portrayed--that as long as you have something substantial to say, post count/member status should not matter.

..However, there is one major pitfall that I can envision with allowing custom member titles--and that is some members will abuse this option and enter inappropriate titles. It's an extra bit of monitoring work that is then required on the maintenance work that I don't want to have to add on to.

My answer is obviously not good enough for you to deem 'justifiable' so yes, it's a dead horse to me if you think I will give you a different reason.

[jay_z]

I think we had a vote, or some kind of long discussion, about a year ago, and the arguments given by those members who prefer just simple titles like "Junior Member", "Member" and "Senior Member" won the day. The major reasoning being that members spammed a lot more to increase their post count and made the moderating job harder. Most members were happier with the removal of the member titles, so in view of majority rule, we made it simple.

yeah, that was 1.5 year ago. back then too many idiots kept cranking out garbage so that they could get the "UBER-spammer" title with 10,000 posts. the simpler, the better.

i, however, do think reviewers, such as pj, tkl, il_mare, funn lim and others who have written 10+ reviews, should be recognized and deserved the "reviewer" title.

[wkeej]

Hi Radken, frankly, why the need for various titles?

titles may be useful if you are in a very specialized forum, e.g. the star wars forum. in this forum, if you talk about lord of the rings without any relation to star wars, possibly your msg will be deleted or your thread closed. being a very specialized forum, very special knowledge is required. hence a senior will be in a better position to advise a junior. that's why titles may be important there.

but in our forum, it is very general. we tend to be in certain folders.There are some threads which i have never visited before or some forums which i have never posted. i have nothing to contribute.
within a certain folder, if you stay long enough, very likely you will know the others quite well. you can earn a lot of respect even if you post very few. two excellent examples are green destiny in wuxia and han solo in his clinic {of course, han had many posts}. there are also others who do not post often but people await their arrival. is it athena whom the wuxia fans are awaiting for her reading/review of 3rd edition hsds?

hence, to me, while it may not be a bad idea to have various titles in our forum, it is really not necessary in our forum. moreover, as explained by many old birds, they have a hard time controlling the spam. instead of moderators trying to clean up such mess, i will prefer them to contribute to the forum.

Comparing this issue to beating a "dead horse" illustrates your feelings toward addressing this topic so for you to contiue in this quarrel would be pointless. That's made obvious to me now. You don't want to give a proper explanation but rather settle for irrevelant reasons made by other members' input is also apparent.

I don't expect to get much out of this experience. I merely brought up a suggestion and begun to question in return when some considered it as a bad idea. And got even more curious when none could give me a justifiable excuse. I was hoping then that you could maybe give me an honest answer as to why you won't change your mind. But since you wish not to waste your time I guess I can't help but feel a little bit disappointed.

[Guo Xiang]

If they insist...

20 posts --- *insert title*
40 posts --- *insert title*
60 posts --- *insert title*
80 posts --- *insert title*
100 posts --- *insert title*
101 posts --- *insert title*

Shut them up already.

[hyperlink989]

Comparing this issue to beating a "dead horse" illustrates your feelings toward addressing this topic so for you to contiue in this quarrel would be pointless. That's made obvious to me now. You don't want to give a proper explanation but rather settle for irrevelant reasons made by other members' input is also apparent.

I don't expect to get much out of this experience. I merely brought up a suggestion and begun to question in return when some considered it as a bad idea. And got even more curious when none could give me a justifiable excuse. I was hoping then that you could maybe give me an honest answer as to why you won't change your mind. But since you wish not to waste your time I guess I can't help but feel a little bit disappointed.

and changing names would provoke spamming...thats the main point.

I merely brought up a suggestion and begun to question in return when some considered it as a bad idea. And got even more curious when none could give me a justifiable excuse. I was hoping then that you could maybe give me an honest answer as to why you won't change your mind.

you brought up a suggestion and people gave their thoughts about this suggestion...they obviously didnt think it would be a good idea.

people gave you a "justifiable answer" , not an excuse and you would hav probably wont hav accepted the "justifiable answer", but if you still have problems, you could pm the admin and ask for another vote for title rankings.....

EDIT:

That is a good idea but I think you miss another title for SPCNET, she is an administrator

wow i didnt know the admin was a she....it shows how stereotyping affects ppl....

but i think a new poll would b fair....i mean wuts so bad about revoting....we know which title rankings will win ~i hope~

[Radken]

I’ve already responded in my best way possible why I’ve to respectfully disagree with your thoughts. I’ve not threw your explanations meaninglessly away out of spite as you’ve said.

I would indeed appreciate it if you would consider my suggestions a little more seriously before implying it to prolonging a fruitless cause. Even if you might not ever be compel to change your mind on this issue, at least provide a valid reason why. As I can see, this is your only strongest argument so far:

The simpler titles also implies a better view of how we want the forum to be portrayed--that as long as you have something substantial to say, post count/member status should not matter.

“Post count/member status” has nothing to do with my present idea that is to enable the title feature with no member having to put forth any work. As for “simpler titles also implies a better view” goes, can you help me clarify on this? How is this so? More importantly, how’s the likelihood of everyone being able to have their own title would have a negative impact on the forum’s image?

Also, could you comment on if I've made a fair rebuttal and not just wave off one of your explanations here as well?

..However, there is one major pitfall that I can envision with allowing custom member titles--and that is some members will abuse this option and enter inappropriate titles. It's an extra bit of monitoring work that is then required on the maintenance work that I don't want to have to add on to.

There are ten moderators involved with the forums. And if everybody did their part to help with surveilling then there wouldn't be any problem at all...

The horse is not dead. It’s just too parched to go anywhere. I can only sustain it so long with my small bottle of nectar but you’ve a bucket of clear water and dim sum. If you keep offering dim sum instead of water which is what it really needs then yes, the horse will die. It’s also your choice whether or not to help keep it alive.

[Radken]

And I did give you an answer to why I feel member titles should not make a comeback already. You disagree but a lot of members also don't feel the same way you do.

A lot of members add their input when they haven’t even read the entire thread or examine both sides of the argument carefully. They seem persistent not to move beyond the lone fact that titles once contributed to spamming when you and I already acknowledged that it won’t happen again if you just follow along with my suggestion and simply alter the User CP. Spam is not part of why you’re refusing to comply with my request…

Right? If not then maybe I’ve been a dragging a dead horse all this time…

I still stand by with what I said. No one has been able to give me a justifiable excuse. It’s not necessary a bad thing. It‘s just that no one has yet been able to convince me to think otherwise. It also means that members who do not share my view would’ve to try harder than to incessantly point out the already proven false theory that titles equal spamming and spamming is intolerated. Perhaps it was back then but it doesn’t have to be like that anymore. And to continue with this unavailing practice would be to outright spam. Just because it’s less obvious doesn’t mean it’s not there.

*Raises an eyebrow at the crowd and then turns around.*

spcnet, it’s true that a lot of members don’t feel the same way I do. Nevertheless, it doesn’t mean they’re right. Doesn’t mean you’re right and I’m wrong. All it signifies is that the majority sides with you. It has nothing to do with our discussion on if the forum itself is perfectly fine the way it is or my goal of acquiring titles for everyone without also being a burden is attainable. What matters is that I know I’m right about what I say. Can you do the same without having to drag other members into your own opinion as well?

[Guo Xiang]

spcnet, it’s true that a lot of members don’t feel the same way I do. Nevertheless, it doesn’t mean they’re right. Doesn’t mean you’re right and I’m wrong.

Seems to me you are carrying on this conversation/debate simply because you want to be right, and wants spcnet to admit she's wrong from your words here.

If many members doesn't care about the ranking and title, spcnet will not consider collaborating the rank titles in. That's it. I don't see what's so difficult to understand and why you can't accept it. More than enough members had given reasons but you simply refused to accept them. You just want people to agree with you. :|

I see this topic has turned into a senseless debate.

[James Ko]

I respect what Radken is doing. I mean there are lots who wouldn't open their mouth for a cause whether the issue is important or not... and his voice is actually being heard not just by the admin and the moderators but other posters too. All this with out calling names or provoking others to call him names.

So is all good I think.

[wkeej]

Hi Radken

first, allow me to congralute you on your assertiveness and persistence. but, deep in your heart, do you think you are willing to accept an "justifiable excuse". if you aren't willing, infinite reasons will not win you over.

as what many said, your idea is "not necessary a bad thing". i concur. but is it really really necessary? i think you mention that this forum has ten moderators, but they are volunteers. hence, we members should help them too, e.g. in controlling spam, advising poster that it is in the wrong place. the fact that they are moderators mean that they have some interest in our forum. hence, let them contibute in terms of giving ideas/comments instead of zooming here and there to control spam.

maybe, we should give it a try, that afterall we may be wrong that there will be spam. but then isn't prevention better than cure? it's like telling someone, maybe eating over-night curry is fine? so eat it and see if you get a stomach ache. if you get one not to worry because the doctor (moderator) will come to clear up the mess.

I still stand by with what I said. No one has been able to give me a justifiable excuse. It’s not necessary a bad thing.