BillsWatch Posted August 21, 2009 Posted August 21, 2009 I like this, but would add one thing, only posts that are quoted count - to discourage inane posts just to increase post count Nonsense. Many of inane posts are quoted - like this one! The inane quoting feeds the trolls and prevents those who are trying to put people on ignore from ignoring.
BillsWatch Posted August 21, 2009 Posted August 21, 2009 I'm leaning towards: 0 On Probation 50 UDFA 100 Practice Squad 250 Rookie 500 RFA 1500 Veteran 7500 All Pro 15000 Hall of Famer Please differentiate between no posts and some who has posted. 0 Visitor 1 On Probation
Dan Posted August 21, 2009 Posted August 21, 2009 I definitely like the inability for new members to start a new thread for a bit. 25 posts?, but 50 wouldn't be so bad. I'd also suggest allowing all members to see when a poster is on probation or whatever cautionary action the moderators may have taken. It would be nice to realize someone is about to be banned for posting crap. I'd also be in favor of a moniker for posters that repeatedly fabricate sources in feeble attempts to scoop everyone with information they don't have. That way new posters could know Soprano was really clueless, for ex. The suggested rankings seem fine. However, I'd say spread the post counts out more (or add a few more categories) I'd suggest keeping the top 2 or 3 rankings to the top 10% of current post counts (more or less). my 2cent
Sisyphean Bills Posted August 21, 2009 Posted August 21, 2009 "Diaper dandy" goes in there somewhere...
The Dean Posted August 21, 2009 Posted August 21, 2009 "Diaper dandy" goes in there somewhere... If it were a college hoop board, it would.
cfbillsfan Posted August 21, 2009 Posted August 21, 2009 they can stay the same, but I would argue the post counts need to change drastically. and although we have not taken advantage of it, with increased ranking could come with "more privileges". What those would be - I don't know. I'm not sure post count is SOOO important. Anyone can pad their post count. I don't post a lot, but I have been a member since 04, a LOT longer than many others on the board. Though I chose not to post a lot, I sign on every day, read near every article and follow the message board. I like the thoughts and opinions MOST of the time. This site is great for a long off season, when I am starved for Bills news. I consider myself to be a member in good standing. I would hate to lose priveliges just because I do not feel compelled to post all the time. I do post and I feel at times I may even contribute. I have also started threads, normally because I am looking for specific information and I know this is the BEST site to get it. Anyways, I think the date a person became a member should also be taken into account. Post count should not be the end all be all. GO BILLS!
evilbuffalobob Posted August 21, 2009 Posted August 21, 2009 The best threads get the most replies. There should be an algorythm to take that into account (total # of replies to each thread).
kegtapr Posted August 21, 2009 Posted August 21, 2009 The best threads get the most replies. There should be an algorythm to take that into account (total # of replies to each thread). That may be true, but not in the way you meant it.
cfbillsfan Posted August 21, 2009 Posted August 21, 2009 Of course, I have my personal bias but what about basing it on longevity? Being able to remember ICE, Alaska Darin and Todd have to be worth more than posting " " a 1000 times. Agreed! Who was the guy who stopped posting because he came in one day and said 'he did a really bad thing' or did 'something he regretted' of SOMETHING like that!?!?! Everyone jumped his crap like he diddled his sister or something, the guy got all bent out of shape and totally VANISHED. I think I mentioned this guy in my first post ever. But, now his name escapes me....anyone?
Dibs Posted August 21, 2009 Posted August 21, 2009 I'm leaning towards: 0 On Probation 50 UDFA 100 Practice Squad 250 Rookie 500 RFA 1500 Veteran 7500 All Pro 15000 Hall of Famer Hi all I haven't been posting much lately(waaaay too busy with work) but I have been lurking on occasion. (I hope some here have missed me ) Personally I agree with an expanded system......but I believe there should be 2 post counts. One for the main page of TSW.....and another for all other forums(Off the Wall, PPP, etc).
The Dean Posted August 21, 2009 Posted August 21, 2009 I'm not sure post count is SOOO important. Anyone can pad their post count. Anyways, I think the date a person became a member should also be taken into account. Post count should not be the end all be all. GO BILLS! Post counts aren't really important, at all, IMO. Yes, you can tell who is an active member, and that can tell you something, but how much really? I think of these titles as a nicety, and not something that's a big deal. As you can see, many of us old-timers with high post counts, choose to have our own titles, anyway. And I also agree that longevity is very important. Of course, that info is already in the area below the avatar. But lurkers don't help the board, to tell the truth. If you aren't posting you aren't really contributing to the community, IMO. That doesn't mean you have to post like a mad man, like some of us. And this is a great place to come to get updates and information. But if you aren't contributing to the give and take, at least a little bit, what good is it to the rest of the community? (BTW, I should have used "one" instead of "you", as I wasn't suggesting you don't contribute.) Hi all I haven't been posting much lately(waaaay too busy with work) but I have been lurking on occasion. (I hope some here have missed me ) Personally I agree with an expanded system......but I believe there should be 2 post counts. One for the main page of TSW.....and another for all other forums(Off the Wall, PPP, etc). Great idea! Maybe only TSW posts should count.
BobDVA Posted August 21, 2009 Posted August 21, 2009 Unlike most that really have nothing to say here, I do not post often. However, I do realize that many here only attach credibility to those that post often, regardless of content. Therefore, I post now so that when I do have something to say it will be seen as credible to those stat mongers.
Delete This Account Posted August 21, 2009 Posted August 21, 2009 Unlike most that really have nothing to say here, I do not post often. However, I do realize that many here only attach credibility to those that post often, regardless of content. Therefore, I post now so that when I do have something to say it will be seen as credible to those stat mongers. i think you need to provide a link for that, otherwise i question your credibility ... j (approaching 500 posts) w. i keed, i keed. ADD: and there it is 500. i'm a stat monger.
The Dean Posted August 21, 2009 Posted August 21, 2009 i think you need to provide a link for that, otherwise i question your credibility ... j (approaching 500 posts) w. i keed, i keed. ADD: and there it is 500. i'm a stat monger. And that one was #500. Congrats?
Acantha Posted August 21, 2009 Posted August 21, 2009 Great idea! Maybe only TSW posts should count. Man, if you got rid of all non-TSW posts, I bet ICE would go back into the lead for highest post count.
Booster4324 Posted August 21, 2009 Posted August 21, 2009 i think you need to provide a link for that, otherwise i question your credibility ... j (approaching 500 posts) w. i keed, i keed. ADD: and there it is 500. i'm a stat monger. Congrats on your quick edit.
JinVA Posted August 21, 2009 Posted August 21, 2009 I think its pretty simple. 0-5000 F-Tard 5001-12000 Stojan 12001-??? Ice
justnzane Posted August 21, 2009 Posted August 21, 2009 Well, if you are looking to discourage people from reaching 50,000 posts, that should do it. well you are getting close to Farve level
The Dean Posted August 21, 2009 Posted August 21, 2009 well you are getting close to Farve level Which Favre level? That was so long ago.
DC Tom Posted August 21, 2009 Posted August 21, 2009 The best threads get the most replies. There should be an algorythm to take that into account (total # of replies to each thread). The current leader for number of replies is the criminally insipid "Last Post Wins" thread. You want to rethink your idea, maybe?
Recommended Posts