More titles?

[Kilted KT]

with the forum growing as it is, and more and more of our members are edging up to and surpassing the 5000 post mark, does anyone else think we might have a few more ranks past 3000?

I'm not sure if this has bean discussed before, but I'm sure we will have quite a few folks over the 3000 mark within the next six months or so..

[Colin]

If it ain't broke..............

The post counts will always go up. I like the fact that once people reach 3000 they have nothing left to "chase" in terms of post counts. It avoids some of the post padding that tends to happen when people are chasing the next title and can almost taste it (yeah, I am guilt of that as well in the earlier days of this forum). That's just my opinion though, I don't really look at people's title or post count though.

What would you suggest as further titles? Maybe we should re-up the current titles as there are 5 titles within the first 250 posts.
Current

Post count titles are as follows:
0 - Kilted Member [New]
10 - Kilted Member
50 - Kilted Regiment
100 - Kilted Samurai
250 - Kilted Warrior
500 - Kilted Gentry
750 - Kilted Noble
1000 - Kilted Elder
2000 - Kilted Legend
3000 - Grand Defender of the Kilt

Upped amounts. We could get rid of Samurai, Noble, and Gentry as people have had issues with those in the past (especially Samurai for some reason?!?):

Post count titles are as follows:
0 - Kilted Member [New]
10 - Kilted Member
250- Kilted Regiment
500 - Kilted Warrior
1000 - Kilted Elder
2500 - Kilted Legend
5000 - Grand Defender of the Kilt

What do you think? I am not sure of Hank's stance on it.

[highlandtide]

I will entertain some feedback on this...

[Kilted KT]

good thought on people chasing titles.....

[davedove]

I kind of like the current structure. With lower post counts needed at the lower levels, it gives incentive to some people to participate. Sure some people will post just for the count (I admit to that at times). Once they get to higher levels, most people aren't too concerned about the titles, as they don't really mean anything.

If some higher levels were included, it would be nice, but certainly would not influence my opinion of the forum one way or another.

I'll admit, I did wonder where Kilted Samurai came from.:confused:

[Raphael]

Perhaps Hank would introduce a new set of titles based on the quality of the post.

[MacWage]

As one of the "newer" members here, I think the lower level titles are good as is because:

It makes the newer guys feel like they are valued here and can be real participants.

If the "newbie" lasted until 100 posts, many would drop faster. The titles become rarer and rarer with each successive one.

I live the idea for custom titles after "Grand Defender." By then, each has their own personality and ideas posted here frequently enough for moderators and members to know what would be appropriate. The only questions are when and who decides. I lean toward the titles being decided by the moderators, with possible questioning of the honoree. Titles, by nature, are appointed gifts from others, yet should be unique to the honoree and ones that honoree would be proud of bearing. By that point, this inquiring may be unnecessary, for a proper title may be evident, or even obvious, by the personality shown by the posts themselves.

The moderators may create custom titles earlier for posters who are particularly notable for content and quality, rather than volume. Some intelligent posters are not aimed at numbers or feel they must comment on anything and everything. I value reading these posts because they are informative and worth reading. For example, if Matt Newsome (MAC) was just another poster and not where he is, would he be an honored member? Maybe, maybe not. His position adds weight to his authority, added to by his valuable content. There are several members I can think of that I ALWAYS read when I see them, others I purposely ignor for repeated stupidity. I hope I am viewed by others as one of the former. As for titles, the postive notable can and maybe should be honored with a special and unique title, while the former should be left alone and NOT silenced unless they brake the rules. I, generally, am not a fan of censorship, though I am a descendant and agree with many of those hated and accused of being the great censors of history (most are wrongly accused, while some are VERY guilty).

This last point needs to be different from "honored member," which is helpful in seeing a recognized authority respected by other members. The proliferation of titles allows unique personalities to show up and can be applied to members besides those specially honored. Thereby, the "honored member" tag remains special, while others may be subtly respected with titles that set them apart.

In short:
Leave lower ranks alone.

Have custom higher ranks for those that reach there before dropping out.

Have custom titles, named and decided by moderators, for members that are notable for content and consistant quality and thoughtfulness, besides "honored member" plaques.

[MacWage]

SEPERATE ISSUE:

Pour1Malt-> "Grand Defender of the Scots Tongue" :rolleyes:

[Kilted KT]

SEPERATE ISSUE:

Pour1Malt-> "Grand Defender of the Scots Tongue" :rolleyes:

more like "Grand Consumer of the Scotch"...

[KiltedCodeWarrior]

Note to self, next time skip to MacWage's summary at the bottom of post!

I actually mostly with your ideas, just took a little long to get there. Not derogatory, just me reading it in the glow of a glass of wine (or 2), and wondering where it was going.