no longer inner circle

[Phil Bloom]

I am back to Major Player. Has the classifications of "what we are" been bumped up. I see people with over a 1000 posts "downgraded" to trustee.

[Chris Hurd]

It's just a pointless title with no real meaning (such as mine, for instance). We'll probably do away with such classifications completely very soon.

[Bill Davis]

Dear Mr. Hurd...

It has come to our attention that you've been publically using the term "COOT" to describe yourself.

According to our bylaws, article 3 section 5a Subparagraph 9 no one under the age of 60 is allowed to use the term "coot" unless that status is conferred upon them by a minimum of three officially qualified neighborhood LOUTS under the age of 13.

(an exception is made for anyone who wears their pants more than four inches above their natural beltline, a practice in which our "associates" in your home community report that you DO NOT participate.

Please cease and desist your use of this term immediately.

Sincerely.

The Grey Panthers.

[Mike Teutsch]

Hum, pointless, not to sure about that? But, maybe the names should be changed to something based on each persons level of addiction or conviction? You know, like:

Arrested (Just signed on)

Booked and Printed (verified by the warden)

Convicted and sentenced (hooked and staying)

1-2 year sentence/etc. (based on post volume)

Prison Lawyer (based on value of contribution to the good of the forum)

Lifer! (would not leave if the warden left the door open)


And just make the wranglers Guards!

:)

Just a thought form a new Trustee, well maybe a lifer! According to Bill, I'll qualify for "COOT" in about 8 months.

Mike

[Bill Ravens]

..or just plain "older n' dirt"

[Phil Bloom]

personally I think it should be...

from newbie to old hands:

Getting loads of work
Thinning out a little
Is my phone on?
On here so much I don't have time for work!!


:-)

[Mike Teutsch]

Originally Posted by Bill Ravens

..or just plain "older n' dirt"

Hey, I resemble that! EEERRR!

Mike

[Jesse Bekas]

I like the idea of doing away with the member titles.

1 - Aren't we trying to get away from recognizing people by status here?

2 - I would hate to see people feel more inclined to post just to achieve a higher status.

[Chris Hurd]

Fully agreed, Jesse. I'm thinking about putting the location right below the user name. Although I still want to identify our sponsors and manufacturer's representatives because it's important to know who and what they are when they're posting.

[Meryem Ersoz]

i don't hate the titles, mostly because they are somewhat useful when scanning the classifieds, to get a whiff of who the seller is. just a whiff....

i don't think anyone posts just to run up their title, do they? to run their mouth, yes, guilty party right here! but that's different, simply a pathology....

[Bill Ravens]

WHAT!!!????

You mean people post things here that are of dubious value?

[Boyd Ostroff]

Originally Posted by Meryem Ersoz

i don't hate the titles, mostly because they are somewhat useful when scanning the classifieds, to get a whiff of who the seller is.

I think the post counts would tell you more about that, and I don't believe Chris is proposing to elimate those, just the titles.

[Mike Teutsch]

Originally Posted by Meryem Ersoz

i don't hate the titles, mostly because they are somewhat useful when scanning the classifieds, to get a whiff of who the seller is. just a whiff....

i don't think anyone posts just to run up their title, do they? to run their mouth, yes, guilty party right here! but that's different, simply a pathology....

I have seen some who post just to run up their numbers and I think I saw a guy who put up about 30 posts in two days or less. Chris shut him down if I remember right! That was never my intention in being here. I peruse the posts many times a day looking to learn and to help those I can, as I can do that right now being retired. I have helped many people here, and enjoy doing it. I have also been wrong many times, but that too is a learning experiance for me and others, and there is always someone to put me in my place, be it Chris, Boyd, or whomever. I don't mind it at all, and everyone learns.

I was asked, by Chris, if I wanted to be a wrangler while at NAB last year. Foolish man! I said I don't have enough knowledege in any area to be of any help. I don't lie about my qualifications. Besides, not be a Wrangler, I can express my views and not worry about representing this fine community. If I were a Wrangler, I would have to change the way I post and what I post. I would be a caretaker and not just a participant. Chris can kick me off at any time and no one will know I'm gone. He seems to be pissed at me right now, I think I know why, but not sure, but he has not kicked me off yet. I may still get back into his good graces. Just hope I'm not kicked off!

I do disagree with removing the titles under the names. As long as they are penned by Chris and the forum, I think they are very appropriate. I do not like the way other forums do it with everybody naming themselves, i.e. maddog---video fornicator--and all the other crap that people will use. I have not asked how people get their their own designations, but maybe I should be Old Fogy!

Think of it this way, what if you took off the number of posts that each person has, it is the same thing! Then a post from a person who has contributed 10 times would carry the weight of Boyd Ostroff, with over 8,000 posts and a thousand times more knowledge than me. We are currently have a little differance of words on another post, but hehe, I'm just having fun and provoking some thought. Not trying to do anything else! :) :)

Anyway, just an Old Fogy expressing his confused thoughts. Oh and remember, give to the Alzheimer's Association!

Mike

[Jesse Redman]

When I first got here I found the titles to be a tool. Not an absolute, but it quickly gave me an indication of the level of participation of the person giving their comments. Maybe just the number of posts would serve the same purpose but "categorization" gave me a simple way to understand something about the background of the person providing an answer to someone's (or my) question.

Although I've begun to recognize the regulars and those that speak from years of experience, it took me a while to know them by name. Quickly looking at their "title", allowed me to grasp their participation in this forum.

Maybe only the top 10% or 20% should have titles, or drop the titles below "Trustee".

[Jesse Bekas]

Originally Posted by Jesse Redman

When I first got here I found the titles to be a tool. Not an absolute, but it quickly gave me an indication of the level of participation of the person giving their comments. Maybe just the number of posts would serve the same purpose but "categorization" gave me a simple way to understand something about the background of the person providing an answer to someone's (or my) question.

Although I've begun to recognize the regulars and those that speak from years of experience, it took me a while to know them by name. Quickly looking at their "title", allowed me to grasp their participation in this forum.

Maybe only the top 10% or 20% should have titles, or drop the titles below "Trustee".

I understand the usefulness of the member titles and post counts, however, they may be misleading in guiding you to decide whose posts deserve more reverence.

For all everyone knows, my 500 posts are 250 questions and 250 thank you's in the Vegas forum.

So I think, here, content should be king.

My suggestion would be to leave the members' join dates up as a sign of involvement. It's simply a less quantitative sign of status than post counts and member titles.

Chris, I fully agree that company affiliations should be put under the members names who need them.