New Ranking System?

Please keep in mind that the title of this thread is the New Ranking System, (or lack of one ). Posts are not likely to be moderated if they stick to the topic and aren't seeking to score points against other members, or challenging Moderator decisions in open forum, - as per rules 2, 3, 10, 17 & 18.

..... And yes posts are liable to be removed if they contravene rules.

If a good ranking gets me free meals at one of my favorite restaurants OK, but if it doesn't, who cares.

Although one understands the need for rules and regulations, and I do agree that open warfare between Mods and members is to be discouraged, if for instance a Mod makes a decision to remove or even to Moderate a post as it breaks the rules may i suggest that this fact is put onto the Post so that all can see and the decision making process. We are after all in the main sensible and none of us really want mods acting with disdain to the members no matter what the memebr has said.
You cannot moderate posts if there aren't any . As members will leave if mods are too draconian.

Further to my last post which appears to have been edited before it was finished, I would like to ask, who in their wisdom decides the Rank of Moderator or even Guru.
I have found it a source of amusment that one day a person is a member then he is elevated to Guru or even to Moderator. What happens did mony cross palms or didsomeone have brain implant giving them super intelligence to become a Guru, in the case of Mods do they attend a training course in order to be able to impose the rules and regs.
A source of wonder too me, i think I fell foul of the Mods on two occasions and what i thought I keep to myself, but as with many organisations and in the case of the Mods i find them to be typically hypocritical and suffering from delusions of grandeur when they moderate , instead of being there to ensure fair play and adherence to the rules . being bigoted and non impartial leaves me on occasions to wonder how they managed to gain this electronic Authority.
Must be because of the Old boys network of which I most certainly woulkd never countanance as nepotism is not me.
But the question does still remain who????????? DECIDES!!

KP, this thread is about the Member Ranking system, not forum moderation or moderators.

I don't know if your questions were rhetorical or seeking actual answers. Anyway if it helps, I would point out that the previous "Ranking system" was not based on any secret formula, quality of posts, or related to backhanders, or membership of any secret societies, but simply based on the number of posts and against the background of a little humour, for example with the use of titles like "Guru".

The current or new ranking system does away with that, and just simply differentiates between members (regardless of number of posts) and moderators/administrators, in a simple, clear and enhanced style (format).

I don't want to go down the road of Moderator qualities, because that's a matter for Forum Management, and not the subject of this thread, nor something that I/we want to spend time debating. However, suffice it to say I would like to think that moderator qualities include a degree of maturity, some common sense, reasonable communications skills, an ability to interpret rules, a great deal of patience( ) , a sense of humour, some sensitivity, on occasions a lot of spare time, and contrary to your assertions an ability to remain impartial and with no delusions of grandeur!!

PS. No one has edited or moderated your earlier/first post. Perhaps you pressed the submit button too soon.

While I appreciate Arjays comments, this si the post to discuss Mod qualities we are after all discussing ranking system and in that is a Moderator, which to me is a rank. Now I note that apart from Mod all other seemingly useless titles/ ranks etc will be done away with.
As for the qualities of Moderators well if the Forum management decide then there MUST be a criteria and why not put in writing so that all and sundry can see it. if it is kept a SECRET then there will always be a temptation to challenge as one does not know how or why they were chosen. So sorry to bang the drum, but as a member I am along with everyone else is entitled to know How, Why and what qualities are needed to achieve Mod status. A simple question that MAY need a fuller answer than Forum management decide OK!

Maybe I missed a few qualities in my earlier response, qualities such as an ability to analyse, but common sense covers it all well.

KP, I gave you the answer to your question in my earlier post above. Did you read it?

By the way I see Moderator as a role not a rank!

Let me put a question to you, a rhetorical one, as I don't want an answer:

Would you really expect the owner of the Times newspaper forum to explain or justify to you, a poster on his blog, what criteria he uses when appointing his Moderators, - unless perhaps it was in an advertisement recruiting for one?

I think common sense covers all angles here, both in the questions as well as in the Moderator qualities.

It would seem that the "NO" answer has won the day. I don't really care one way or the other, but it seems most Forums still use a ranking system to show those who have loyalty to the Forum. I guess it's a bit like joining the RAC, you start off with a "Bronze" card and after 10 years you get "Platinum" then after 20 years you get your "Gold" card out of respect for your Loyalty. It seems to me that the majority of people who have a problem with the Ranking System are those who have yet to reach Senior or "Guru" status.

May I thankyou Trubrit for a sensible answer unlike the answere given to me by a Moderator who either couldn't or wouldn't state plainly what is required, while i agree with all sentiments given, yes there is a need for a role to be played to edit the chaos and sometimes dare i say it the pointed attacks on others. However if this is a family forum there has of late been too much of what I would say is not for tender ears at all, so perhaps if commonsense was going to prevail then these comments or even posts need to be regulated firmly. If being a Mod requiores commonsense it allso will require for you to stand and be counted in dealing with posters who do transgress without fear or favour and worrying not about the backlash which some are bound to attempt to deliver.
But enough of my thoughts, and oh yes Arjay I did indeed read your post that is why I asked the question, did you NOT read mine or did you immediately spring to the defence of the indefensible. Commonsense is required by us all including Mods I think here.

Anyone who relies on a ranking system to determine a poster's credibility, especially one based solely on the number of posts, has a serious lack of judgment IMHO.

"With regards to moderators, I look for someone I can trust, and someone who is patient and level headed."

That settles that!