No Thanks New 'Elite' Usergroup

I would consider the separation purely superficial at the moment, no? Though there is a small division yes, such a division is primarily through the small number of perks Premium members have regarding avatars and signatures (superficial by definition) and an extremely dead section that has a whiff of life from time to time. Even in this there are divisions among Premium members - they are not a completely united force (*subtly coughs at constant name colour change debates*). These perk levels would simply act as fun posting incentives - and really, the quality of one's posting should be irrelevant in regard to their usergroup or their post count.

 

...

 

Thanks for the well-articulated post.

I'm just going to make a few points about your ideas. I could argue about usernames colors and asthetics, but I'm not going to do that here because there are so many other, more important points, that you made. And it's about having this become a system that works, not one that's just nice to look at.

I'll try to keep it as short as possible.

You first mention that as a requirement, 2 years of membership is required to achieve the Noble tier. Having that sort of requirement will dissuade potential Nobles because they cannot become a Noble member if they've been on, for let's say, 6 months. The goal is to make it reasonable to achieve Noble status to create more activity in the forums. The same goes for having a 2,000 rep requirement. It can fluctuate greatly and there is heavy variance from member to member.

Noble pins were kind of a given.

I think it would be better to have 200x200 avatars, but if staff disputes it, that's probably a nice size to have.

As long as it doesn't stretch out the sig space too much, I don't see a problem with adding in 5 lines of code.

The major place where members would want to lock their own threads is in The Spam Zone, so taking that away would be kind of pointless.

We don't need another dead section. That was one of the perks that was floating around at first, but if people aren't going to utilize it, then there is no point.

I do like the idea of having beta-testing.

I forgot what the time is for pending usernames for premium (it's been a few years), so is that less time?

The reason why we placed seeing invisible members as a perk was simply because we wanted to put this idea out there and we were struggling with perks. I agree that they have the right to that privacy.

Really, thanks for taking your time out to make this post. It's really appreciated and I will discuss this with Jerome when he's back online.

 

Why shouldn't quality be involved? Is there a reason?

 

...

 

I'll be sure to discuss these with Jerome, because I personally like these perks and you've made a lot of excellent points. c:

 

Aah, yes, I agree there.

I thought he was suggesting that rep shouldn't be a requirement because quality should not be a factor in advancement.

 

Posting here with roughly 7000 rep, 2600 posts, and almost 4 years of membership so I may be biased as I would either already be in this group or pretty close....butttt here's my thoughts:

-Noble is definitely better than Celestial and, I would argue, every other name suggested. The color needs to be something that's not a shade of a color already used so...Rainbow (but I don't think it's possible now?), Goldenrod, or...is there anything left?

-I don't see why the big numbers are such as 2 years, 3000 rep, or 5000 posts are bad. We're not trying to make this easy, are we? Hell, with the lower numbers suggested, I would already be Noble. I wouldn't mind something to work for myself. And also, so what if there's very few active members with posts and rep that high? The suggestion doesn't have to be retroactive or reward certain members instantly (even though it'd only be a handful of members). If the goal is to make the forum more active, then give even those members something to work for. Granting them Nobleship instantly would mean we're motivating a few less members to post more than we could potentially be. I do believe this should with a large requirement. 5000 posts itself may be a bit high, but 3000 or 4000 would be alright to me. If even that's too high, I don't think we should go lower than 2500.

-As for rep, Makaze said he has over 4000 and there are only 16 people higher than him. If rep was the only limit, that's still a very small usergroup (adding several more who have between 4000 rep and what Makaze has) which I think is something we want: a more exclusive group than premium.

-I'm also for a time requirement. We need to be a member for 5 months before getting a name change; we already use time requirements. If someone is posting and getting rep so rapidly that join date is the only thing keeping them from being Noble within a few months of joining than A) that person needs to go outside more and B) maybe we should have an appeal process, for time and/or rep only. That way, someone is actively giving a lot to the forum, but is being stopped by something they can't control. I wouldn't suggest an appeal process, but I'm sure MOST people would reach the time requirement before the post requirement.

-As for the perks, the avatar limit should not be what staff's is. Staff does not get paid for their job, let them have something we don't that isn't classified as work. Seeing invisible members and locking own threads (even editing thread titles) is something that I don't see as a perk. Honestly, if you want a thread locked or title edited, it's not that difficult nor time consuming to get a staff member to do it (once again, we're taking a staff exclusive away from staff). Seeing invisible members is both an invasion of privacy non-staff members shouldn't be allowed and a very lame perk, in my opinion. I like the other ideas, though.

Honestly, I rarely see such a division. And if there is one, it's already there with premium and normal members. Maybe we should just get rid of premiumship as well? I see many prems and normies mingle easily.



One more thing:

No offense. I'm glad you guys are spearheading this as I've been a fan of a new usergroup for ages, but I don't like how you've posted this. It implies that Trigger is the one we have to satisfy with our ideas as if we're throwing suggestions to him and you, not staff/

EDIT: In conclusion, I like something like 2 years, 5000 rep, 4000 posts, but I'd settle for something like 1 year, 3000 rep, and 2500 posts.

 

I agree on all points.

I personally would prefer something that is harder to get even for the veterans because this is arguably already aimed at Premium members, but the staff... We'll see.

 

New usergroup should be called "Avenger" <,<

Having to wait 2 years to be accepted as a "Noble" might get annoying, but I can also see that as a sign of devotion...not sure how I feel on that yet. But as for wanting as high as 5000 posts? As of right now there are only 11 members (you included) that have even 3000 or more, and 5 that do have at least 5000, so that's way too high. 2500 sounds alright to me.

A smaller requirement for rep, if any requirement, would work better I think. Maybe...3000? Though, as I've said, no rep requirement is fine with me. If they've got one for Premium (I don't remember), make it maybe double that.

Agree, keep seeing invisible members for the Staff, they actually need it. I'm iffy on the whole locking and unlocking Spam Zone threads too.

He's simply saying he's telling another member who's been around and has shown devotion to the place about the ideas being thrown around, I think you're nitpicking here a bit :|

1 year, 3000 rep, and 2500 posts sounds fine.

 

Stressing this a bit:

I am enjoying the discussions over here! Though I suggest continued discussion over the mechanics (namely and in my opinion most importantly perk brainstorming for a few reasons, along with post number milestones and the like) of these tiers and the possibility of the usergroup over things such as name colour and the like which can be decided later, though things are looking wonderful so far. I hope things can reach a consensus, as with a consensus it would be generally easier to present to the staff.

It is also recommended, if a poll is to be made in the future, that the major proponents of this system encourage less vocal members to offer their opinions and submit votes. Vocal minorities should not have the only say in decisions, after all.

Also, keep in mind that if there is to be a user group, from what I am understanding, it would be an end goal of the aforementioned perk incentive tiers. The primary existence of these systems would be to increase post activity after all, so I would recommend basing requirements of both milestones and the potential user group on that as well.

One perk in particular that may be beyond the line a tad is the permitting of users to lock their own threads, which has the potential for some abuse. Typically the reasons such powers are reserved are due to the fact that those with the ability to use them have been generally deemed responsible enough. But I personally find some of these other perks very nice - so keep up the brainstorming!

 

I personally feel that in determining post requirements for the theoretical user group (or more appropriately perk milestones), it would be better to determine a limit based on posting incentive rather than exclusivity. Something not extremely high so as to discourage users but nothing too low either (which I personally believe 2500 falls beneath).

 

I'm going to jump in here and make a few points.

2,000 posts is twice as many as Premium currently is. Having that be the requirement makes it more difficult to achieve without making it overkill to achieve.

Going from a requirement of 0 rep for Premium to 1,500 for Noble is fair, I think. Making it higher would make it difficult for users who perhaps aren't as well noticed.

Again, the purpose of this is to create more activity in the boards, not create an exclusive club.

 

Disagree. They are members just like the rest of us, therefore there's no real reason to discuss this off site when we have this thread already here. He doesn't have to 'tell' Trig, he can see it for himself when he visits the thread. It does make it seem like Trig is the mastermind here, when it is really everyone coming together to chime in. Not really a nitpick.

Anyway, this is retorted, I'm outtie. (And by this, I mean that I have nothing more to say currently.)

 

Nonononononononono.

Profile views? Pointless. I know a lot of awesome members but never go to their profiles.

He doesn't have to tell Trig, and you guys don't have to care either if he does, and I don't say this cause I'm buddy-buddies with them (cause I'm not lol).

 

Then what's the point of saying he is going to discuss it with Trig? It seems pointless as there's a thread right here for it, and they are taking the ideas of other members and just discussing them privately. It does seem like he wants us to bow down and kiss the earth around their feet for no reason.

 

I just want to let everyone know that it isn't that Rainshine and I have some kind of superiority complex, it's just that we've been working together with the staff on this. We've been throwing ideas and suggestions back and forth, and they've been relaying their feedback to us.

It really means nothing and I apologize if we come off as '******y'.