For or Against Titles and Ranks?

Post Reply New Topic

Remove them! Who needs them, anyway what if some people just prefer to read about others opinions and ideas? Their is no need for the titles, and besides most Aspies don't like titles anyway.......why does Alex? Isn't he AS? He's the one that put them on here..........

Personally, I believe rankings are the natural order of things to begin with. Nietzsche explained the need for hierarchy in any community in Beyond Good and Evil. I think the titles and ranks should go further to indicate the dichotomy between master and slave morality. Those who have a low daily posting average after a few months of membership demonstrate low attachment to the community, and one can infer a weaker will from this. I would like to see a hall of fame and a hall of shame added to WrongPlanet.net. Of course, administrators, developers, and moderators are at the top of the pecking order, and vanquished members form the bottom of the totem pole.

Trust me they are all birds (allthough a pheonix isn't real obviously, except there is a breed of chicken called that) plus some dinosaurs. As for rankings go they don't bother me either way.

I trust you! Mmmm dinosaurs... Won't just as many people want them to come back if they're gone, anyway? I'm used to them so it would be a change for them to just suddenly disappear.

Congratulations.

That is the stupidest and most generlised thing i've ever heard in my life.

Now that I'm hurtling toward 1000 at break neck speed, and I never thought I'd hit it, I'm gonna whore here too.

I like the ranking system. I haven't just posted a bunch of crap (at least I don't think so!), but it has encouraged me to post. Besides, it makes me feel all homey and belonging. It also helps me figure out whether I should know someone or not!

I find topics such as this, when dealing with ranking systems on online communities, kinda ridiculous if you ask me. It's just a harmless gimmick, so what's the big deal?

Maybe in your mind, but most posters here really couldn't give two-hoots about it. All they are concerned about is the content of the thread that interests them, that is all.

The pea guy, this wasnt some idea that Ante just decided out of the blue. There was a background of accusations of post-whoring at the time and Ante came up with an idea that he thought might be a solution. This bickering isnt happening so much now so there isnt so much need to debate the titles and ranks. That is why it might seem ridiculous to you now.

It is an idea that i happen to agree with. I dont know how much online communities you have seen but there is regularly elitism over number of posts and newbs. Luckily this site isnt very elitist with number of posts so it isnt such a big deal here yet.

Custom titles rule. But the amount of posts you have to make to be allowed to use them sucks.

I know you're playing devil's advocate, but how about this: "rubbish" posts are posts that aren't contributing to the topic, to the point where they make little sense. Personally, I am very annoyed when I see one-word replies, for instance, and they clog up the forum.

Anyways, I am new on here but not new to forums. I have seen some small incidences of post-whoring in some places, but generally speaking most people are intelligent enough to realise ranks are nothing more than decoration. I think WP is a place with intelligent posters, personally, and I haven't seen any rubbish posts as yet.

Okay, going back into "lurk" mode

Does anyone have a complete catalogue of all the ranks that go with the post count? It baffles me a little. Ranking "Velociraptor" above "Deinonychus" is like placing "cheetah" above "lion".