Member Ranks

Margaret · Post by **Margaret** » Thu August 28th, 2008, 7:14 pm

I always thought the ranks were fun, especially as I starting moving up in status. But I never realized it was based on the number of posts - I always thought people moved up in rank based on how long they had been members, since I seemed to go up a notch in rank about once a month.

I'd love to have ranks again. I like the idea about getting to pick from a larger range of professions. But I think, above all, whatever system is adopted should be easy for the moderators to manage. First and foremost, this forum is for discussion and information about historical fiction, and I wouldn't want any system to be adopted that might take too much of the moderators' valuable time away from that central purpose.

I think it's a great idea to have a special designation for published authors of historical fiction.

Julianne Douglas · Post by **Julianne Douglas** » Thu August 28th, 2008, 7:59 pm

Should I admit that I don't really see the point of the entire "rank determined by number of postings" thing? I never understood why it mattered how many posts one had made. One participant could make only occasional, but very pertinent and thought-provoking posts; another could post multiple times a day yet never really say anything noteworthy. As someone has pointed out, a member's number of posts is displayed in the upper right hand corner anyway for those who need that information.

I agree with MLE--there should be a broader choice of labels, all for fun. It would be neat to see what labels people choose and why.

tsjmom · Post by **tsjmom** » Thu August 28th, 2008, 8:04 pm

Wow, I'm shocked that grown adults are even having this discussion, especially the part where you had to be voted in on the previous forum to attain a certain rank. Are you serious about that? If so, I'm actually kind of offended by that behavior, and it's really not something I'm interested in being part of. Sorry to be so blunt, but it sounds VERY junior high at best.

I was a merchant (but I've always wanted to be a French duchess

), but it was just a fun thing. There's nothing to be gained by it (like a discount on some forums). I think a "title" attained at various number of posts is the fair thing. Yes, some may abuse it, but in the end I think it's the best choice. Just like in our justice system, don't punish the good guys to prevent the bad guys from doing something. Just my $.02.

boswellbaxter · Post by **boswellbaxter** » Thu August 28th, 2008, 8:08 pm

The previous Historical Forum was strictly based on number of posts--no voting.

MLE (Emily Cotton) · Post by **MLE (Emily Cotton)** » Thu August 28th, 2008, 8:09 pm

[quote=""tsjmom""]Wow, I'm shocked that grown adults are even having this discussion, especially the part where you had to be voted in on the previous forum to attain a certain rank. Are you serious about that? If so, I'm actually kind of offended by that behavior, and it's really not something I'm interested in being part of. Sorry to be so blunt, but it sounds VERY junior high at best.[/quote]
We never voted anybody's rank on the original forum. the designation just changed automatically when you went past a certain number of posts.

tsjmom · Post by **tsjmom** » Thu August 28th, 2008, 8:32 pm

[quote=""Susan""]FYI, here’s what we do with ranks.

Based upon number of posts
New at Court: 0 – 99 posts
Lady in Waiting / Squire: 100 – 499 posts
Knight / Dame: 500 – 999 posts
Baron / Baroness: 1000 posts

Nominated and Voted
Grand Duke/Grand Duchess: 5-star posters awarded for the quality of their postings and their knowledge about royalty, can nominate and vote to advance other posters
Duke/Duchess: 5-star posters awarded for the quality of their postings and their knowledge about royalty
Earl/Countess: 3-star posters awarded for the quality of their postings and their knowledge about royalty

Appointed ranks
Empress: site administrator
Crown Prince/Princess: moderators

Other
In the Tower: On probation because of offenses[/quote]

This is to what I was referring. Please accept my apologies for not reading thru this thread in its entirety and putting the onus of such a backward idea on our previous forum. My confidence in HFOnline is restored

michellemoran · Post by **michellemoran** » Thu August 28th, 2008, 8:42 pm

Julianne,

It's all just for fun. No point really

Tracking the number of posts is just one way of having the titles automatically change... there's no other significance behind it.

Divia · Post by **Divia** » Thu August 28th, 2008, 8:52 pm

We could all have our own titles. We did this a MB where I was admin. We let people choose whatever they wanted, as long as it wasnt dirty

If we do that...no one had better take my cool title.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Thu August 28th, 2008, 9:32 pm

[quote=""tsjmom""]This is to what I was referring. Please accept my apologies for not reading thru this thread in its entirety and putting the onus of such a backward idea on our previous forum. My confidence in HFOnline is restored

[/quote]

Please read my posts on the voting in their entirety also. (I think I've explained it twice...at least.) I never said posters had to be voted on to go to a higher rank. It is an option in addition to using the number of posts for ranking and it is not backward at all. To be honest, I don't really care whether rankings are used or not used, but I offered the voting idea as a possibility because it works quite well in the forum I moderate.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Thu August 28th, 2008, 9:35 pm

[quote=""Divia""]We could all have our own titles. We did this a MB where I was admin. We let people choose whatever they wanted, as long as it wasnt dirty

If we do that...no one had better take my cool title.

[/quote]

I do like this idea, but is this problematic for administrators as they would have to enter each person's title? Divia, was this a problem at all when you were an adminstrator?