|
|
Post by vequalsv0plusat on Oct 5, 2004 19:10:56 GMT -5
There appear to be five ranks: 'new member' (0) 'junior member' (50) 'full member' (100) 'senior member' (250) 'god' (500) Should I differentiate between the five (with alternative names for said ranks), or just have us all labeled 'tACA Member'? Eh, since just labeling us all one thing is sorta boring, I vote for the former. But I'd prefer that the rank labels in question not be suggestive of some sort of "forum hierarchy." |
|
|
|
Post by FreeLandofAIM on Oct 6, 2004 6:57:40 GMT -5
I'm all for free speech so swear away, for fuck's sake. ;D
I agree with V, I'm not in favour of rankings, it has the scent of hierachy about it.
This was after all, how Sirs, Barons, Duchessess and queens came about.
'Free speaker' instead?
|
|
Loe
New Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by Loe on Oct 6, 2004 9:34:20 GMT -5
Comrad is a classic.....  |
|
|
|
Post by FreeLandofAIM on Oct 7, 2004 7:47:59 GMT -5
Indeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by claptonpond on Oct 7, 2004 8:04:32 GMT -5
How about 'comrade' in different languages for the five different labels?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sacco & Vanzetti on Oct 7, 2004 11:21:42 GMT -5
I like the diversity of that, but it could still be interpreted as a hierarchy rather than as an indication of mouthiness.  Does anyone else have a view? |
|
|
|
Post by Kropotkonia on Oct 12, 2004 10:54:36 GMT -5
I'm loving S&Vs idea -
"Can we come up with a list of "status" levels with a little humour? Perhaps ranging from Soapbox Diva to Perpetual Spouter? (or some such)"
A touch of humour is always welcome, and no one is going to be offended by those or similar titles. They don't smack of hierarchy; they merely denote where a particular person is at in their career as a forum poster. People do in reality have to start somewhere (eg on a soapbox) before they gain enough experience to be able to move on.
And if none of the titles are degoratory, there should be no problems!
|
|
