Printable View
JP, my name is Anthony, and you probably know me from IRC. Anyway my suggestion is to increase the minimum number of posts required to be a senior member to 250. This is not to exclude anyone, but to help recognize the actual Senior Members here on antionline. Many members are hurrying up and making a lot of useless posts(FreeAgent) so that they can have senior member status, and this has to stop. Please read this and thank you.
Though such a change would cause me to lose my "Senior" status.... I think it is probably a good idea.
I have never liked that one can be seen to have "status" on boards simply becuase of the number of posts.
Many discussion forums are like that....
250 is just as easy to hit, id have to suggest it being 400 post ...
im not a senior member yet, but im a little more then half way there and i dont feel as if ive even come close to deserve the status of senior member...
so if JP does read this.. id suggest it to be 400 ..
_NetSyN_
I agree. In my opinion it should be bumped up to a higher number. I'm pretty close to becoming a senior member, and I don't feel i deserve it. My knowledge of computers is growing daily but compared to some members here, my computer knowledge pales in comparison...
Well, I'd suggest using amount of time as a member. Personally, I've been reading AntiOnline.com for over 2 years now (if you check the old mail bags you'll find a letter from me, Scott Coull), and I obviously don't post if I don't have something meaningful to add to the post, which means I don't post very often. I don't think it is fair to say that a number of posts is the way to determine Senior Membership.
Also, I don't want to sound like I'm lusting after it, cause it doesn't really mean anything to me, but it just doesn't make sense that the number of posts determines seniority.
Anyway, that is just my suggestion.
Regards,
Wizeman
I have already recieved negative antipoints on this, but keep in mind. Im not a bitch. I am not trying to exclude anyone. I would gladly give up my senior member status, I do not post for a status, I post to learn and help.
I don't think it should go on post...maybe antipoint instead or prehaps JP can choose some people to be senior members & the rest of us just be members
Do I think a members seniority should be based on posts?
No.
Do I think the number of posts to become a senior members should increase?
No.
Do I have any suggestions?
Yes, I do.
***********************
******Suggestion********
***********************
Although I do not believe that a members seniority is determined by posts and that the number of posts to become a senior member should not change... I do have an idea.
I believe that a member should apply for senior membership when they (can't be sexist, now can we?) feels worthy. That's right, just as one would apply for a credit card, so should they for senior membership.
***********************
*******Example1********
***********************
Lets say that our hypothetical user, (Gee)Iam(Stupid), just happens to have enough posts to become a senior member. In our surrent situation, he would be granted instant membership into the senior club and all of its status privilages. Under my proposed system, the hypothetical user would have to apply to the -=[Senior Membership Approval Committee]=-, who would then take a look at what our user has posted (note: this would take some time... almost like applying for college!), and determine whether or not (Gee)Iam(Stupid) is worthy enough to become a coveted Senior Member. This approval would have be done by a generally unbiased committee of members. As mentioned previously, this would take a while.
***********************
**End Example 1*********
***********************
I agree with "psychosquee" post. One slite modification. Raise the post limit on member status. Then let JP an some of the level-headed ubiased old timers decide on senior status. If this would involve to much work. Then stick with uping the points and posts for this status. I may take longer, but I'm more interested in the quality than the quantity of the posts.
:D
I say we bump it up to about a thousand. :D Well, true, it's difficult to have any sort of system in place that evaluates people... Now if we all came with a User.Worthyness variable, it might be possible, but we don't...
The idea of a board of approval is nice, but I'm not sure how that would be executed well. If not that, I would prefer an equation using mixed post-amount and registered-time. Exactly what that is... <shrug> Remember, the whole 'member level' stuff is pretty much built-in board options, it's not like a super feature-rich framework is necessarily in place.
Is there even any additional advantage to being a senior member than the word senior appearing below your handle?
sorry guy's but i believe it isn't really important the status of a member.important is for me : somebody writes a good posts, hints,links or comments or start a interesting thread.
it' doesn't matter which status he/she has...(junior member,member,senior.. or jp :) )
i'm a junior member and i try to give good comments,hints,links if i'm interested in that topic.respect for all the guys(sonic,remote_access...and all the other)they are post a lot but i haven't the time .
in my opionon: i joined the ao to learn sth about security,networking and privacy..
the member part is nice ..but not really important!!!
have a good weekend,
cheers
ps:that was number 15 and need only 15 more :rolleyes: to become a member
Then why did you give me negative antipoints?
My thoughts:
Option 1: psychosquee's post, an a damn good idea, too.
Option 2: keep it how it is
Option 3: Have more then three statuses and have it so that time at AO and number of AntiPoints recieved play a part. For example, a person with over 200 posts and 200 AntiPoints might qualify for "Valued Member" or something like that. Someone with -400 might qualify as intensely disliked. The variety of names you could have is endless and could be very descriptive.
Well, personally, I'm against antipoints having much bearing in the matter. I still feel that APs are just a rule-of-thumb for people to use guaging reputations/seniority, and that over-reliance on them will lead to popularity contests, rather than sincere discussion.
The main problem with the approval-board idea would be that it would invite a sort of clique to form... It is difficult to make sure that the person is judged on their contributions to the community, rather than possible personal frictions or ideological disagreements.
While there seem to be quite a few people that contribute to the whole of the site for security posts, answer questions, etc.. (I like to think I fit in that category), the AP system and the IRC really is based on who you know, who values your opinion, and whether or not you get "op" status on IRC. Example: I like to think I've contributed to AO quite a bit for various things yet I barely get a handful of sentences out of the "more senior" members that have op status on the IRC room. Do I care if I'm an op? No. Do I care that some people think that having such status is some sort of "I'm better than thou"? Yes...it's high-schoolish and doesn't do anything for the community. There *are* cliques on here, whether admitted or not, and all I can do, as well as others no doubt, is continue to contribute to the masses for computer security, answer questions, and other things...
Disclaimer: I'll probably get negative points for this but hey, it's my opinion and it's how I've seen things since I've gotten here. Some things never change.
I think it should be a combination of factors (bare in mind, my forte is building mountains out of mole hills ..... take a big breath before diving in and double check there is air in the tank!)
1)# of posts: I think number of posts is important to show active participation....how will anyone know you are looking through the view-finder????? Just being logged in doesn't mean you aren't squatting. I also think that numbe should be high to discourage the fledgling doofus. (Perhaps also a requirement of a minimum of 1 tutorial + 1 security related post or somthing????)
2) I think "time in" should be a factor. Easily measured by the database from time joined to current post. I think a minimum 2 months of active participation should be required for "membership" and 4 months of active participation should be required for senior membership. That'll get people sticking around.....uhhh....(thinking on that one)....maybe.
This will discourage posts of "Okay" made for the sake of stacking the deck.
3) The "application" idea is a good one but that would just make work for people and the folks applying would be all impatient and some insecure people wouldn't apply and ..... but!.... there could be an online quiz about AO that someone who'd been cruising the site would know...questions about navigation, services, changes, members. That way it could be automated and not have to be babysat. When a person reached the rq'd number of posts and had been a member the rq'd amt of time then the system would drop them a PM with a link to the quiz. The quiz would have to be dynamic drawing from it's own indexing database as changes to the site occur. I would also have it sitting on a virtual link with a script that moved that link around so that it couldn't be accessed from the same URL more than once.
These things together would give meaning to "Senior Member" and yet be measurable and attainable by everyone. :hippy:
:D Not that I really have any complaints about the current system....
To tell you the truth i care nothing about number of posts:
"junoir member, member, senior" I don't care what you are; I will just give respect based off pure SMARTS. Title's mean nothing. For those of you who are so in to this "Title thing" more power to you i guess.
Hell i never look at someones member status anyways;
All i look at is the great wealth of knowlege put in to the posts.
In short "should we bump up the number of post for status?"
I think we should just do away with the member status and only show time in AO
i have heard alot of great ideas so far .. some that i personally agree with are ..
1) make the # of posts be 400
2) require a tutorial be written by the person..(one isnt that hard really)
i also think maybe posts that are in general chitchat not really involving computers maybe shouldnt count..
im not trying to discriminate against anyone ,but i just think senior membership should be based on how helpfull people are, and not just how many times they throw out pointless comments..of course i also realize its hard to judge a persons usefullness with an automated system.
i just thought of something...maybe we could have add a system where you could vote for people you think deserve senior membership..something like anti-points..but a seperate pool and if a person has helpfull advice or whatever you can make a "recomendation " and with a certain amount of recomendations and with the other criteria talked about already, (# of posts etc) you can become a senior member..and just to avoid abuse of the system maybe a person can only make a certain amount of recomendations a week or whatever.. i dont know .. it was just a thought..im curious though what other people think about this
The amount of posts should definitely be raised IMO. I am a member of several other boards and they all have levels of around 400 posts to become "Senior" or whatever they call it..
While it doesn't stop ppl from posting two word replies or banal drivel with every post...it's normally only the small minority that will take advantage of it in that way. A combination of post amounts and AP should be enuff for most of us to see if the person posting is worth listening to .
Going with a complicated system for advancement would probably lead to too many problems...besides...whats the big deal with being a "Senior Member"? It's not like there are monetary benefits or anything like that .
If I were asked for my opinion, raise the amount of posts necessary and leave it at that.
just my 100 pesos worth..
I agree that the current way to achieve Sr member status is misleading to some of our jr members. Perhaps it should be reserved for members who have the knowledge and desire to help out Jr members with thier various issues. I agree with Terr also when he says antipoints should not be a factor. This points are earned as much for our social interaction as they are for knowledge. We should discover a way to track the most helpful members and then reward them in a public post by JP into Sr member status.
Vorlin, you are right. There are ops, im naming no names to prevent retaliation, who abuse their power. Also they never seem to say a word concerning computers or helping answer questions. One of these ops is the reason that freeOn left antionline. I like freeOn, and the way he was treated was wrong. Of course there are good ops too, but the bad ones ruin it for everyone. Being a senior member doesnt mean you can talk **** on everyone else, because some of us dont want to put up with your **** Quad. whoops, I promised not to mention names, oh well :) Im not afraid of retaliation after all.Quote:
Originally posted by Vorlin
While there seem to be quite a few people that contribute to the whole of the site for security posts, answer questions, etc.. (I like to think I fit in that category), the AP system and the IRC really is based on who you know, who values your opinion, and whether or not you get "op" status on IRC. Example: I like to think I've contributed to AO quite a bit for various things yet I barely get a handful of sentences out of the "more senior" members that have op status on the IRC room. Do I care if I'm an op? No. Do I care that some people think that having such status is some sort of "I'm better than thou"? Yes...it's high-schoolish and doesn't do anything for the community. There *are* cliques on here, whether admitted or not, and all I can do, as well as others no doubt, is continue to contribute to the masses for computer security, answer questions, and other things...
Disclaimer: I'll probably get negative points for this but hey, it's my opinion and it's how I've seen things since I've gotten here. Some things never change.
Quote:
Originally posted by ThePreacher
One of these ops is the reason that freeOn left antionline. I like freeOn, and the way he was treated was wrong.
What??? when did FreeOn leave AO? I was on IRC with him the other day? PM me the details please Preacher.(and don't spare the gory details ;))
It might be best to do a combination of other senior members, antipoints, number of posts, positive contribution to ao's other members and whatever else jp suggests.
Personally this junior/regular/valued/senior stuff might or might not have a bearing on advice given from members. What about a split rating based on some of all the suggestions posted here.
JP - what about a "hot button" to help you calculate the VALUE of antipoints such as, at the bottom or top of each post a member could click on "did this post help?" or something to that effect.
;)
good idea gold eagle..
[the did this post help] or possibly [this post rocks] and [this sucks!!] buttons for instant antipoints..
But isn't that basically what the APs are supposed to be for? :confused:Quote:
Originally posted by the_JinX
good idea gold eagle..
[the did this post help] or possibly [this post rocks] and [this sucks!!] buttons for instant antipoints..
All these arcane schemes for calculating Sr member status just sounds like a lot more work for JP to do (like he isn't doin enuff already).
Hey, we got to keep the guy busy - what if he might get bored or something! :)
To add my pennys worth how about this:-
1. Newbie, this is what you get when you first join AO
2. Junior Member, next step up from newbie, 100posts needed
3. Member, 200 posts needed
4. AO Addict, 275 posts
5. Senior Member, 350 posts
Seems a fair sliding scale, would mean more commitment to AO to get a 'tag' below your name.
:)
the_g_nee: I think your idea is really good, when it comes to post-amount. This is the best one I've heard so far (in that aspect), and it would definitely not be hard to rescript the board according to those standards.
How about this
(Just a suggestion, and your maths and C++ might need to be up to scratch in order to understand it, but):
if (posts < 100)
{
status.Text="Junior Member";
}
else
{
if (posts < 200)
{
status.Text="Member";
}
else
{
if (posts > 350 && AntiPoints > 100 && MembershipDurationDays < 365)
{
status.Text="AntiOnline Addict";
}
else
{
status.Text="Senior Member";
}
}
}
Or something to that effect, maybe with different values for membership duration or antipoints.
Here is my suggestion regarding the Member status system.
0-100 posts.
Remain a junior member whereby you are judged by your antipoints level only, that way you can get more respect as you 'climb the ladder'!
100-250 posts
Member status is gained and upon reaching 250 posts you become a senior member, easy so far.
250+
However when you become a Senior Member you cannot become an AntiOnline addict until you reach a certain antipoint level, say over 4 or 5 green dots, I am not sure how many actual points this involves as Ive never been above 20 or so and at the moment I have -74 or something crazy.
Thta way you cant just reach 250 posts after post whoring your way to the top and become an addict as you havent helped out enough to gain the status, just an idea not sure if it would work but felt Id add my bit!
Greetings All:
I want to thank everyone for their suggestions in this thread. Below is our new member structure, based only on the number of posts a user has made (which is the point of the member status to begin with).
AntiOnline Newbie (Minimum Posts: 0)
AntiOnline Jr. Member (Minimum Posts: 75)
AntiOnline Member (Minimum Posts: 175)
AntiOnline Addict (Minimum Posts: 275)
At this level, a user can use the AO Addicts Forum
AntiOnline Senior Member (Minimum Posts: 400)
(this is based off of a suggested structure made by the_g_nee)
It may take a while for the database to update everyone's title, so you may see some old titles hanging around for a bit. They'll all move over once the database has time to finish.