User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 9:32:14 AM EDT
[#1]
Good idea, but it would lead to too many posts for silliness and waste bandwidth.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 9:34:09 AM EDT
[#2]
I like it.
First Lieutenant sounds alot better than Senior Member or Member. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 9:37:34 AM EDT
[#3]
Wrong service, 7.
0-25 - Seaman 26-99 - Petty Officer 3rd 100-199 - Petty Officer 2nd 200-299 - Petty Officer 1st 300-399 - Chief P.O. 400-499 - Senior Chief 500-599 - Master Chief 600-699 - Ensign 700-849 - LT J.G. 850-999 - LT 1000-1499 - LT. Commander 1500-1999 - Commander 2000-2499 - Captain 2500-2999 - Commodore 3000-3999 - Rear Admiral 4000-5999 - Vice Admiral 6000-9999 - Admiral 10000+ - Fleet Admiral CB |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 9:39:51 AM EDT
[#4]
Maybe each year raise the # of posts by 50%, so we eventually won't have a 1000 Generals. [:D]
Claybuster, exactly. I'd opt for the Navy rank, maybe even have Air Force and Marine rank too. It would probably lead to a few wasted posts, but we have lots of that now. It shouldn't change much and the real people know, rank means NOTHING. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 9:42:32 AM EDT
[#5]
Everyone of those titles, from bottom to top have been earned by dedicated hard working men and women. Lets not trivialize them by tacking them on people who may have never served a day in uniform.
Besides, I've been a Private, Private First Class, Lance Corporal(that's a cool sounding rank for being so low on the totum pole) Corporal and Second Lieutenant. When I reach 1,000 posts I want to hertofore be known as [b]ASS MASTER SUPREME[/b] or [b]ONE WHO NEEDS TO GET A LIFE[/b] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 9:49:47 AM EDT
[#6]
Let people choose which System they want when they join or those who are already members choose in their profile.
0-25 - Recruit 26-99 - Private 100-199 - Corpral 200-299 - Sergeant 300-349 - Staff Sergeant 350-399 - Sgt First Class 400-449 - Master Sergeant 450-499 - Sergeant Major 500-999 - Second Lieutenant 1000-1499 - First Lieutenant 1500-1999 - Captain 2000-2999 - Major 3000-3999 - Lieutenant Colonel 4000-4999 - Colonel 5000-5999 - Brigadier General 6000-6999 - Major General 7000-7999 - Lieutenant General 8000-9999 - General 10000+ - Commander In Chief |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 10:09:29 AM EDT
[#7]
I LIKE IT!!!!!!!
Of course, Major Sgtar15 or Lt Commander Sgtar15 sounds kind of funny. sgtar15 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 10:38:27 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: Everyone of those titles, from bottom to top have been earned by dedicated hard working men and women. Lets not trivialize them by tacking them on people who may have never served a day in uniform. Besides, I've been a Private, Private First Class, Lance Corporal(that's a cool sounding rank for being so low on the totum pole) Corporal and Second Lieutenant. When I reach 1,000 posts I want to hertofore be known as [b]ASS MASTER SUPREME[/b] or [b]ONE WHO NEEDS TO GET A LIFE[/b] Of course you are correct. While we are at it, lets make sure everyone on TV and in the movies remove their rank. They did not earn it either. [rolleyes] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 10:42:31 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: 0-25 - Seaman Isn't the Naval Acadamy basketball team known as the dribbling seamen? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 10:50:35 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: Wrong service, 7. 0-25 - Seaman 26-99 - Petty Officer 3rd 100-199 - Petty Officer 2nd 200-299 - Petty Officer 1st 300-399 - Chief P.O. 400-499 - Senior Chief 500-599 - Master Chief 600-699 - Ensign 700-849 - LT J.G. 850-999 - LT 1000-1499 - LT. Commander 1500-1999 - Commander 2000-2499 - Captain 2500-2999 - Commodore 3000-3999 - Rear Admiral 4000-5999 - Vice Admiral 6000-9999 - Admiral 10000+ - Fleet Admiral CB I agree. Except one addition. If you become a member you automatically become/start as an Ensign. Moderators are WO1, WO2, WO3, and CWO Oh and the Admiral ranks should be reserved to Staff members. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 11:07:24 AM EDT
[#11]
WHOA!WAIT!!TIME OUT!!!
I understand the rank system (and it is kinda "rank" now that I think of it), but I have a visceral problem with ranking an Ensign above a Master Chief.I've worked for several Senior and Master Chiefs who ate Ensigns for breakfast. If the count is supposed to be a reflection of a persons "experience" with the board, then let's stick to the enlisted ranks--They're the one's that are usually closer to the M16/M4. The higher up you go, the farther you get away from the rifle. Flame suit on! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 11:52:07 AM EDT
[#12]
The whole point of ranking by post count is kinda gay... IMHO...
It's not like it's well earned... SOOOOOO... perhaps you guys should think of other possible ways to handle rankings... Ideas from the Goat: 1) User Votes Per User - Other board members rate you on a scale of 1-10 for your quality of posts and value to the site. Based on overall count as well as percentage of 8-10 (some secret formula!) will decide your "title." (Only users with XXX amount of posts or time on the boards can vote. This removes the people who try to pad their "title" by using multiple account or spam!) 2) User Votes Per Post - Posts are allowed to be rated (or we use the "en fuego" posts as the measuring stick) for quality. When a kick ass post goes up and you feel it should stand out, you rank it 1-3 and the post then shows up with some signal (stars? rifles?) that it's a post not to be missed. Once a set number of people vote on it, it goes into the "title" formula and also shows up with the mentioned graphic highlight. 3) Member Panel! - Members get to make up your titles and have fun abusing you!!! MUHAHAHAHAHAHA... ok this one's a joke... so bite me! In all fairness, votes from members/staff require no limits (min posts/time) and are weighted more heavily (perhaps count as 2 or 3 votes)... then these votes simple translate into titles. The titles themselves would not be military rank... but could be something along the lines of respect/knowledge while keeping them fun... "Plinker" "Shooter" "Sniper" "Marksman" "Top Gun" blah blah blah whatever... you get the point... ]=) |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 11:55:49 AM EDT
[#13]
How 'bout 10K+ = Major pain in the ass?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 1:29:46 PM EDT
[#14]
How about we just forget the "Ranking" system, and we can all be equals. The ranking system will only incite a competitive atmosphere, where we will be bombarded with usless posts, just to build "Post Count".
Rich |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 1:35:43 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: The whole point of ranking by post count is kinda gay... IMHO... It's not like it's well earned... SOOOOOO... perhaps you guys should think of other possible ways to handle rankings... Ideas from the Goat: 1) User Votes Per User - Other board members rate you on a scale of 1-10 for your quality of posts and value to the site. Based on overall count as well as percentage of 8-10 (some secret formula!) will decide your "title." (Only users with XXX amount of posts or time on the boards can vote. This removes the people who try to pad their "title" by using multiple account or spam!) I would go for that. I wonder how that would effect people like Imbroglio ? [;)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 1:36:19 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: The whole point of ranking by post count is kinda gay... IMHO... It's not like it's well earned... SOOOOOO... perhaps you guys should think of other possible ways to handle rankings... Ideas from the Goat: 1) User Votes Per User - Other board members rate you on a scale of 1-10 for your quality of posts and value to the site. Based on overall count as well as percentage of 8-10 (some secret formula!) will decide your "title." (Only users with XXX amount of posts or time on the boards can vote. This removes the people who try to pad their "title" by using multiple account or spam!) 2) User Votes Per Post - Posts are allowed to be rated (or we use the "en fuego" posts as the measuring stick) for quality. When a kick ass post goes up and you feel it should stand out, you rank it 1-3 and the post then shows up with some signal (stars? rifles?) that it's a post not to be missed. Once a set number of people vote on it, it goes into the "title" formula and also shows up with the mentioned graphic highlight. 3) Member Panel! - Members get to make up your titles and have fun abusing you!!! MUHAHAHAHAHAHA... ok this one's a joke... so bite me! In all fairness, votes from members/staff require no limits (min posts/time) and are weighted more heavily (perhaps count as 2 or 3 votes)... then these votes simple translate into titles. The titles themselves would not be military rank... but could be something along the lines of respect/knowledge while keeping them fun... "Plinker" "Shooter" "Sniper" "Marksman" "Top Gun" blah blah blah whatever... you get the point... ]=) |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 1:41:42 PM EDT
[#17]
The competitive atmosphere could be changed somewhat by making members combatants i.e. (E1-E7) and only contributing board members (i.e. send money to help foot the bills that the board incurrs.) can be NCOs.
Ryan |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 1:49:55 PM EDT
[#18]
let people pick a title to put below the log on name...that could be alot of fun![:)][:)][:)][:)] Yes, it could get out of hand...but hey...it will still be fun![:)]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 2:03:38 PM EDT
[#19]
In this forum, the high posters are admittedly doing most of the work.
In the military, the privates do most of the work. Perhaps we should do this backwards, everybody starts out as a general. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 2:28:14 PM EDT
[#20]
0-25 - Passer-by
26-99 - Occasional Browser 100-199 - Frequent Browser 200-299 - Browser 300-399 - Poster 400-499 - Contributor 500-599 - Frequent Contributor 600-699 - Senior Contributor 700-849 - Spammer 850-999 - Frequent Spammer 1000-1499 - Annoying Spammer 1500-1999 - Unemployed 2000-2499 - Unemployed, no prospects 2500-2999 - Unemployed, no life 3000-3999 - Unemployed, no prospects, no life, no wife/GF/BF/hubby/partner 4000-5999 - Spam-Master Plus 6000-9999 - Meridius Dweebius Spamicus Maximus 10000+ - General Discussion Whore That should about cover it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 2:30:03 PM EDT
[#21]
10,000+ posts = "Lifer"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 2:34:57 PM EDT
[#22]
sfoo - Almost choked when I read your post. Truly LMAO!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 2:35:51 PM EDT
[#23]
How many here are actually members? I mean paid to the board, get email members?
The rest of us are users. so two catagories User or Member Users under 500 posts and less than 1 year are "User". Users over 500 posts AND more than 1 year are "Senior Users" Members under 500 posts are "Member" (or AR14 Member" and those over 500 posts are "Senior Member".(or AR15 Senior Member). Hey Goatboy! Happy Birthday BTW. No_Expert |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 2:40:47 PM EDT
[#24]
it will create "post envy"...hmmmmm? I noticed it when the number of posts was taken away....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 2:43:26 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: The whole point of ranking by post count is kinda gay... IMHO... Agreed. Ideas from the Goat: 1) User Votes Per User - Other board members rate you on a scale of 1-10 for your quality of posts and value to the site. Based on overall count as well as percentage of 8-10 (some secret formula!) will decide your "title." (Only users with XXX amount of posts or time on the boards can vote. This removes the people who try to pad their "title" by using multiple account or spam!) 2) User Votes Per Post - Posts are allowed to be rated (or we use the "en fuego" posts as the measuring stick) for quality. When a kick ass post goes up and you feel it should stand out, you rank it 1-3 and the post then shows up with some signal (stars? rifles?) that it's a post not to be missed. Once a set number of people vote on it, it goes into the "title" formula and also shows up with the mentioned graphic highlight. IMHO, even more gay. Since when did AR15.com become a popularity contest? "oh that NSFJojo is SOOOOO dreamy! He got a 10 in his last post! That Imbroglio character has the cooties, I think I'll give him a 1." [b] QUOTE 3) Member Panel! - Members get to make up your titles and have fun abusing you!!! MUHAHAHAHAHAHA... ok this one's a joke... so bite me! [/b] I like it! It would make it feel a bit more personal. Kind of like college/high school buddies and old nicknames you hated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 2:48:44 PM EDT
[#26]
Perhaps the best thing to do would be to use a formula that acounts for the quantity and quality of the posts. Remember the user rating system that used to exist? This way annoying spammers who post lots of junk would have a low rank due to low rating, whereas people who post good stuff occasionally would advance fairly quickly. Maybe the best thing is to multiply the user rating (1-5) by the number of posts. Then use sfoo's ratings.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 2:58:42 PM EDT
[#27]
The best bet would be to split post counts depending on which forum. IE, I have about 550 posts in General Discussion, where I contribute very little, and about 10 posts in other forums where I contribute even less. Dunno if that's possible or not, but would be funny to see the division on the 3000+ post folks.
Of course, I'm all for pick your own title with approval of an overseeing board here (once you pay some $$ and actually sign up to be a member unlike me, in which case you suck and shouldn't get a cool title under your name). Yes I'm in a silly mood today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 4:38:45 PM EDT
[#28]
If you MUST have some sort of post quantity rating system, make it based on # of posts in Certain forums. Mainly the ones that have something to do with AR-15's, or at least, guns.
getting rating points based on posts about which movie star you'd most like to bone, or what's the best video game are not worthy of rating points. And I think Military Ranks should be avoided. We are probably already labeled as Gun loving "Radicals". I don't want an association with a "Paramilitary" Group... Use stars, little magazines, bullet Icons, whatever. Skip the military designations.... Rich |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 4:46:33 PM EDT
[#29]
[size=5][i] "If it ain't broke .........
............don't FIX IT !" [/I][/SIZE=5] [img]http://www.ar15.com/members/albums/SGB%2FIs%2520Too%2520%2D%2520Is%2520Not%2Egif[/img] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 4:55:40 PM EDT
[#30]
Well ... not really ...
What happened with good old Lance Corporals... and Gunnery Sargeants...? Well...? Ted... Semper Fi... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 5:12:47 PM EDT
[#31]
Fellas....sounds like some of you got WAYYYYY too much time on your hands!
[:D] . |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
