Changing "veteran" Requirements
#1
Posted 22 December 2007 - 03:44 PM
This should really be amended, in my opinion, as it's unfair for those members. Maybe having a requirement of 1200 posts OR being on the forums for a year qualifies as a veteran (or something along those lines).
Feel free to throw out modifications, ideas, comments, etc.
#2
Posted 22 December 2007 - 03:59 PM
#3
Posted 22 December 2007 - 04:40 PM
#4
Posted 22 December 2007 - 09:16 PM
#5
Posted 22 December 2007 - 10:17 PM
for example
time spent on board----------post count needed
<12 months----------------------------1500
12 months-------------------------------1250
2 years-----------------------------------1000
3 years------------------------------------750
you get the idea
dates to be taken from the join date of a person's first account
#6
Posted 23 December 2007 - 02:40 AM
I think that's a fair call on GL's part.
#7
Posted 23 December 2007 - 03:06 AM
#8
Posted 23 December 2007 - 07:16 AM
#9
Posted 23 December 2007 - 07:30 PM
#10
Posted 23 December 2007 - 08:26 PM
#12
Posted 23 December 2007 - 09:54 PM
#13
Posted 24 December 2007 - 07:00 AM
#14
Posted 24 December 2007 - 11:45 AM
Water Dude, on Dec 24 2007, 05:00 AM, said:
I was going to say that but, for some reason I decided not to.
I don't really think this needs to be changed just because your friends aren't qualified, GL.
#16
Posted 24 December 2007 - 01:32 PM
I have to go even further and say "Veteran" gives a false impression, and should be renamed "Senior Member" (thanks PS) because there are members here with the "Veteran" status do not act as veterans x.x
I suggest decreasing the required post count to 1000, leave the process as automated. That way, everyone knows exactly the requirements and don't feel leftout because they aren't part of this group (which mind you, isn't that "superior" to your group non-vets).
#17
Posted 24 December 2007 - 09:16 PM
Lowering the requirement to 1200 is what I'd go for, as well as a possible renaming of the Veteran status itself ("Senior Member" sounds a little too plain/underwhelming).
Oh, and yes Max, I do remember our conversation. I'd like to talk some more about it if possible, see where things stand and all.
#18
Posted 25 December 2007 - 03:13 AM
Now Eugine, you say that there might be disagreement on which members would be worthy of the veteran status, or whatever you want to call it. Well, isn't that the very nature of opinion? We face the very same situation every time we vote in the Awards; which members deserve to be granted which prizes. A Vet Vote would be no different, although we might have to implement a different voting system. 75% approval, for instance.
I just don't think we should base the distribution of the status on mere posting habits. Then it would just be like another forum rank, with no real pride associated with it. If the choice was given to the veterans themselves, then the rank would have a real meaning and a sense of acceptance to it. And I doubt newer members would feel left out; for example, I'm not particularly jealous of GL being a Moderator, even though I'd be a bit of an ass if I voiced it.
#19
Posted 25 December 2007 - 09:50 AM
I think it's unfair for someone with the veteran status to vote in other members when we weren't voted in. I'm sure if we have to revote everyone, some members who have the veteran status wouldn't get voted in, and I'll like to see how they will feel.
Hence why I believe the process should be automated, and renamed. It'll be a reward every member gets after meeting XYZ conditions rather than a selective group because why should we vote for someone to have extra PM space and change their username every six month? -__-
You may feel pride in being a veteran split, but honestly it isn't special. Neither is moderating (I do miss the somewhat inactive mod forum and trashcan though ;_:P.
Actually, my name being bolded in the active member list = BEST THING ABOUT BEING A MOD!
Quote
Max said:
#20
Posted 25 December 2007 - 10:16 AM
#21
Posted 25 December 2007 - 09:48 PM
Golden Legacy, on Dec 24 2007, 11:15 AM, said:
Sorry, I didn't really mean it that way but I can see how you interpreted it like that.
Like I said, I don't really see the need for a "veteran" status to begin with. Even senior member. It strikes me as being really elitist and when a community is so small, is it really even necessary to label a member as being superior to others?
#22
Posted 25 December 2007 - 11:26 PM
Hmm, well this has certainly been an interesting argument here. I never really had second-thoughts about the Veteran title until now, but now I at least recognize that there may not be as much a need for it as we might think.
#23
Posted 26 December 2007 - 12:18 AM
#24
Posted 26 December 2007 - 11:03 PM
#26
Posted 02 January 2008 - 08:33 PM
#27
Posted 02 January 2008 - 08:35 PM
Although I'd have to object to your suggestion, on the grounds that nobody really takes the rating system seriously, and that almost everybody has three stars regardless of their disposition.
~ 2900 ~
#28
Posted 02 January 2008 - 09:06 PM
Perhaps there could still be something to change your name after you get x amount of posts though so people don't have to wait x amount of time to be a veter'n.
#29
Posted 03 January 2008 - 02:15 PM
Spam King, on Jan 2 2008, 07:35 PM, said:
Although I'd have to object to your suggestion, on the grounds that nobody really takes the rating system seriously, and that almost everybody has three stars regardless of their disposition.
~ 2900 ~
What are you talking about? It's always involved me. :P I just don't get around to posting much in the site related forums often.
Oh well, it was just a sugestion.
#30
Posted 03 January 2008 - 03:49 PM
#31
Posted 03 January 2008 - 07:06 PM
#32
Posted 03 January 2008 - 07:55 PM
#33
Posted 04 January 2008 - 02:23 AM
#34
Posted 04 January 2008 - 03:12 AM
Though I would love to be a veteran again ;-;
#35
Posted 05 January 2008 - 08:10 AM
Max, on Dec 23 2007, 02:16 PM, said:
Manually set the people who deserve it to veteran. It's not like it's half the forum.