New Ranking System?

[BangkokButcher]

I can't remember why the rebirth took place.

That was because the old forum software that was being used ('cutecast' I think it was called) became outdated and the developers of it stopped updating the code, so as time went on it became a redundant script.

[trubrit]

I can't remember why the rebirth took place.

That was because the old forum software that was being used ('cutecast' I think it was called) became outdated and the developers of it stopped updating the code, so as time went on it became a redundant script.

I think it also coincided with change of webmasters from Jeab to Lee , but I may be wrong . It was a long time ago .

[Glyn]

No-s are looking good.

What a load of crap, ranking peoples' knowledge, experience and expertise, based on the amount of dribble they post, I actually think the ranking system has a negative impact on the forum, because so much of the content can only be about forumites upping their posts and in-turn their status, most of what is posted has no relevance, offers no sound advise, and wastes most readers time as they search through to find the little information that they could find useful. I think date of joining should also go out the window, but the number of posts should stay, that's an excellent indication of the type of individual we are dealing with, keyboard warriors, hermits and computer nerds, no thanks I'll get my information somewhere else.

[trubrit]

No-s are looking good.

What a load of crap, ranking peoples' knowledge, experience and expertise, based on the amount of dribble they post, I actually think the ranking system has a negative impact on the forum, because so much of the content can only be about forumites upping their posts and in-turn their status, most of what is posted has no relevance, offers no sound advise, and wastes most readers time as they search through to find the little information that they could find useful. I think date of joining should also go out the window, but the number of posts should stay, that's an excellent indication of the type of individual we are dealing with, keyboard warriors, hermits and computer nerds, no thanks I'll get my information somewhere else.

Can't make my mind up . Was that a yes or no ?

[Marlowe]

Ideally, members should be able to rate the posts/posters, like many blogs/fora do now; i.e., did you find this useful?

If of course you feel like clicking. New visitors would quickly see who are the useful, interesting, valuable posters, and vice versa.

Otherwise, I tend to agree with Glyn, with many members or "gurus" typing in nonsense, or "I agree", or having personal arguments, or slagging someone off, often a serious contributor.

IMO, that's not what this forum was created for...FWIW.

(I gather there are many other fora out there to just chat or see your name and words in print. And to build up your post count.)

[beer monkey]

(I gather there are many other fora out there to just chat or see your name and words in print. And to build up your post count.)

What a Great PI you would make....But have you ever smoked a camel..?

Mod Note *******Some text removed******

[Marlowe]

QED.

[Khun Paul]

Thankyou polehawk for your succinct summary of my situation, yes you are right, I was talking to myself and in fact so were many others, but yes I did cause a small mistake but as that goes that is history and I even got the date of my initial membership wrong, is that so bad and does it really make a difference in the big scheme of things NO not at all. , I still maintain the only label you want to show is member, anything else is pure nonsense, as has been mentioned prior to this post even Gurus spout rubbish which considering the title they should not. One has moved on since those heady days and the more one posts or not, the more one comes to realise that there are many whose total life is spent thinking up pure c*** to post , and there are those who attempt to put a more reasonable and informative view forward but so often the c*** wins. Thats is why I am being more selective in my replies and informative where I can in assisting members reather than deriding them for past mistakes. If you want to keep the title Guru one should be just that if not drop it I say.

[trubrit]

Come on lads have a bit of feeling for this old guys heart. I can't take any more of this hilarity , its doing my head in
On the avatar subject.Arjay has just written quote" I conclude a little bit of common sense and sensitivity should prevail. that should apply to posts as well as avatars " Then I look on here and find that BM who is still at the top of prolific posters on this forum and is also himself a moderator on another one, has just been moderated for using provocative text

[beer monkey]

Yes Confusing...and funny at the same time, a bit of text was removed from my post(Ohh how Very Provocative it was too,.....And I note sense of humour is still absent at times) and another 2 posts deleted....but other bitch-fight posts snide comments + name calling stay's....


I dare say a fair chance of this post disappearing too...

[arjay]

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.

[NOLA]

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

[Khun Paul]

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.

[Khun Paul]

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!!

[arjay]

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.

[jackspratt]

Some seeds of wisdom, which unfortunately I feel will fall on fallow ground.

The "achieving" of guru status was decided purely on the number of posts one submitted ie it was a quantitative benchmark, rather than qualitative. If you had stuck to a single UM identity KP, you would probably have achieved the lofty title.

As far as Mods are concerned (and I am speaking in the general sense, because I have no idea what Lee's criteria are to appoint a Mod), they are generally level headed and sensible people who will keep the forum, its members, and their posts in line with the stated Forum rules, and the requirements of the Forum owner.

While we may not always agree, as far as I am aware no-one has been compulsorily conscripted into joining, or remaining a member of UM.

ps RJ has intervened, but I have invested too much time in typing this to delete it. And perhaps the view of an "ordinary" (albeit "guru" ) member (some will no doubt say very ordinary) is worth considering.

[Khun Paul]

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!

[trubrit]

As a member since the days before we had moderators, I am perhaps in a good position to answer you KP .When it was apparent that we indeed needed someone to , shall we say, police the postings, as increasingly we were getting new members that obviously couldn't ,or perhaps , wouldn't, use common sense in their submissions, on , what is after all , a very open, family orientated public forum , we did have a nucleus of members that displayed by their contributions that they were aware of what is,and wasn't acceptable. A few of these were prepared to devote their time and energy to maintaining the forum for the benefit of all its members .So in answer to your question" What qualities are needed?"
I would answer, " Just plain common sense" A quality that if every one who posted displayed, would make the moderators instantly redundant . :-"

[arjay]

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.

[Aardvark]

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.