Membership Titles

[behzad]

Love those ideas.

[handrawn]

the number of members that really qualify will be small, perhaps no more than half a dozen - one of them, Gary P, already has his own title

honestly I think it should just be done that way... give the big beasts their own unique label, decided by the forum admin/mods in cosultation with the member in question when it is thought someone qualifies, maybe consult the membership too

any other labelling system might might fun, but is going to be meaningful? I'm a high poster of 11.5 years, I only know certain parts of the program well and a great chunk of it not at all

I don't see an 'automatic' labelling system being of any more use than a like button

[pauland]

I would say the people deserving of respect don't really need titles to get that respect and the people who want titles generally don't deserve them.

That's not a snipe at people with existing titles, I'd expect anyone with a specific role to have some way of being differentiated, but does anyone really need some titled elite?

I consider this suggestion to be divisive rather than inclusive.

Give people respect for what they post, not make them wait 10,000 posts to get fake respect from a meaningless title.

[wizard509]

well said haindrawn. much of this I agree with.

[The Alien]

Outside of a few select titles for special persons on the forum (like admins, mods, Gary etc.) the titles mean very little. Join date in combination with post count already gives an indication about who's new or not. Outside of that, the title should not have any influence on the content of discussion and therefore putting more effort into making "special" titles only detracts from the actual discussion IMO.
As if people are going to (or should) view other people's arguments in different light just because they have a different title "Oh this guy has a Super-Duper Member title so surely whatever he says is better than the New Member!"
It creates an unofficial hierarchy that can backfire with regards to overall quality. Plus, it can add confusion about the meaning of the title. "This person is a Super moderator, but what's the difference between that and a Moderator?"
In short, the way it is now is fine with me. Just my opinion of course.

[handrawn]

we have super moderators - they have wider brief/privileges[aka 'power'] than 'plain' mods

[The Alien]

I know. My point is that from the perspective of a (somewhat) new member it can be confusing.

[handrawn]

I belong to quite a few forums, some of which have hierarchical labelling.. but I take so little notice of it I would have to go and check to recall what those labels actually are.. other than the obvious defining mods/admin

I really do feel a 'long service medal' system to be facile; labels should mean something specific if they are there at all

personally I think 'moderator' and 'super moderator' to be self explanitory, but I guess that depends on your background, and your perception of the meaning of 'super' in this context

[RKissane]

I basically just look at the members post total for people I don't normally see post. Sometimes I look at the join date. Very seldom do I look at the titles.

Based on the age of our members it is getting to the point where the titles would be something along the lines of:

Old Fart
Really Old fart
Older than dirt.



Ray