Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Private Membership is here!


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
263 replies to this topic

#51 Ali

Ali
  • Wielder of the Spork

  • 3,201 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 April 2014 - 06:21 AM

We didn't say you weren't getting any perks :p I left that open for discussion (either within Retired OR via PM to the staff). Like I said, it's still a testing phase and we will definitely be taking any and all feedback good or bad on board.


*scurries off to Retired where she belongs*

#52 Strategist

Strategist
  • Sadmin


  • 9,488 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 April 2014 - 06:22 AM

*scurries of to Retired where she belongs*

Yeah you do that! Take that :ali:  with you too! :p



#53 Ali

Ali
  • Wielder of the Spork

  • 3,201 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 April 2014 - 06:23 AM

Yeah you do that! Take that :ali:  with you too! :p


I've lent it to Joe again. Because I find that funnier,

#54 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 April 2014 - 06:23 AM

Another cop out.


Feel free to explain why setting rank requirements is anyone's job other than staff.

#55 Jess

Jess
  • ūüćīAioli-Americanūüćī



  • 9,194 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 April 2014 - 06:23 AM

At the risk of micro-modding, can we get this back on Private discussion? I'm more interested in what people think of that right now.

#56 Romy

Romy
  • Ableist Neocodex Elite Four Member



  • 4,738 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 April 2014 - 06:28 AM

Feel free to explain why setting rank requirements is anyone's job other than staff.

Because Retired members make the nominations NOT staff.



#57 Adam

Adam
  • Coffee God


  • 4,346 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 April 2014 - 06:29 AM

This is almost like retired members making a huge stink about moderators being able to see inside of their section...

#58 Strategist

Strategist
  • Sadmin


  • 9,488 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 April 2014 - 06:31 AM

At the risk of micro-modding, can we get this back on Private discussion? I'm more interested in what people think of that right now.

NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT. (Agreed)


I've lent it to Joe again. Because I find that funnier,

Joe's Spoon of Dork? :p



#59 Jess

Jess
  • ūüćīAioli-Americanūüćī



  • 9,194 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 April 2014 - 06:32 AM

NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT. (Agreed)


FINE. I'LL TAKE MY CARING SOMEWHERE ELSE.

/flounce

#60 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 April 2014 - 06:35 AM

Because Retired members make the nominations NOT staff.


...so? Private members will be nominating themselves... does that mean the Private applicants will be setting the rank requirements?

This is almost like retired members making a huge stink about moderators being able to see inside of their section...


How so?

#61 Romy

Romy
  • Ableist Neocodex Elite Four Member



  • 4,738 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 April 2014 - 06:48 AM

...so? Private members will be nominating themselves... does that mean the Private applicants will be setting the rank requirements?
 

Difference is, the people reviewing the applications clearly outlined the requirements.

The people reviewing/voting the Retired nominations did not.



#62 Eefi

Eefi
  • 1337 h4x0r

  • 1,613 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 April 2014 - 06:49 AM

Ow, 1000 posts is going to take a long time for me but I can wait.



#63 Bone

Bone
  • no

  • 3,637 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 April 2014 - 06:59 AM



 

 



 

 

tumblr_inline_mo6tv2IG2M1qdgd4x.gif



#64 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 April 2014 - 07:25 AM

Difference is, the people reviewing the applications clearly outlined the requirements.
The people reviewing/voting the Retired nominations did not.


So, it's the people that vote on the applications that set the rules? Not the people that nominate users to be voted on? Make up your mind.

Still, it sounds to me like you're making this stuff up. Can you give a real world example where voters set all the requirements for the nominees' acceptance?

#65 Elegy

Elegy
  • 854 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 April 2014 - 07:47 AM

It seems like this thread went towards a Retired vs. Private discussion. I never really had a good idea on what Retired was, other than I compared it to the "Neocodex elite" kind of image. I've been lurking for a good amount because I thought i would be impossible for me to get into Retired, so that's why I was a bit excited to see a Private rank!

 

I'm very interested in the Private rank as I feel like it's more obtainable than Retired, though it seems like there's so many open-ended questions that maybe the folks of Retired & Staff figure out, because correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like the general idea behind opening Private is to not have new-comers stop at Adv+ (As i'm guilty at becoming a huge lurker once I got my 500 posts back in the day) and to continue moving in a growing community?

 

I enjoyed my time as a beta tester when I had the opportunity to, and I really am excited for Private :)



#66 Ali

Ali
  • Wielder of the Spork

  • 3,201 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 April 2014 - 07:52 AM

I'm very interested in the Private rank as I feel like it's more obtainable than Retired, though it seems like there's so many open-ended questions that maybe the folks of Retired & Staff figure out, because correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like the general idea behind opening Private is to not have new-comers stop at Adv+ (As i'm guilty at becoming a huge lurker once I got my 500 posts back in the day) and to continue moving in a growing community?

Pretty much. Things have got rather stagnant...It used to be a tiered ranking system that you moved through that was essentially a pyramid in structure. When there was a limited pool of private members, it was easier to spot people who deserved retired. Once private and retired merged, there was no real direction as to where the rank lay any more (e.g. was it a basic reward for activity and contribution like Private, a sort of legendary longtime achievement like Retired or somewhere in the middle) and it was harder to notice people in a big crowd of advanced members. Hopefully this will get things flowing again a bit. Plus it's an incentive for sustained involvement in the community.



#67 Rocket

Rocket
  • Ginger Snapped



  • 6,990 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 April 2014 - 08:33 AM

I'm so confused after reading all this blabbering. But nice to see a new rank, I wont meet most of the req's for a while (kinda scared now), but I look forward to see how this plays out and which members become accepted.



#68 Pilot

Pilot
  • Bees?

  • 1,072 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 April 2014 - 09:17 AM

I'm gonna be edgy and refer to it as Advanced++



#69 redlion

redlion
  • I don't exist!

  • 12,070 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 April 2014 - 10:21 AM

Joe's Spoon of Dork? :p

Legitimately LOL'd. 
 

Difference is, the people reviewing the applications clearly outlined the requirements.
The people reviewing/voting the Retired nominations did not.

Retired has always been (and continues to be) a rank for people who stop trying. If you're still here posting out of habit after a few years, being relevant and talking with older members as well as newbies, you get it. It's not a mystery, but it's also not as strait forward as Advanced+ (which essentially a robot could nominate and vote on). Retired has a large subjective quality to the voting process, and Private does as well, to a lesser extent. Simply meeting the required criteria is a start - not a guarantee that you'll get the rank. Someone who posts 3 semi-spam posts a day for a year would have over 1000 posts and time in rank, but probably wouldn't be promoted unless their posting merited the reward.
 

Ow, 1000 posts is going to take a long time for me but I can wait.

This is exactly the attitude we're looking for. New members should recognize that this rank is a medium to long term goal. Older members should recognize that this is not exactly the same Private you know and love. If you're old enough to actually remember Private, you can check the retired thread for more discussion on that point.

#70 Drakonid

Drakonid
  • 624 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 April 2014 - 11:56 AM

I don't think it's difficult to ATTEMPT to come to a consensus.

POST OF THE MOTHER FUCKING YEAR.



#71 Brennon

Brennon
  • 929 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 April 2014 - 02:55 PM

Woo new rank! :D Something I'll (and many other members I'm sure) strive for!



#72 Romy

Romy
  • Ableist Neocodex Elite Four Member



  • 4,738 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 April 2014 - 03:07 PM

So, it's the people that vote on the applications that set the rules? Not the people that nominate users to be voted on? Make up your mind.

Still, it sounds to me like you're making this stuff up. Can you give a real world example where voters set all the requirements for the nominees' acceptance?

I made a clear distinction between the Advanced+ process and the Private process Sweeney. Get your shit together.

 

And 2 examples would be joining a fraternity AND newly established clubs at a university.



#73 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 April 2014 - 03:19 PM

I made a clear distinction between the Advanced+ process and the Private process Sweeney. Get your shit together.
 
And 2 examples would be joining a fraternity AND newly established clubs at a university.


No, you didn't.
And your examples are nonsense. Both of those have overarching rules from the University to which they belong.

#74 Romy

Romy
  • Ableist Neocodex Elite Four Member



  • 4,738 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 April 2014 - 03:21 PM

No, you didn't.
And your examples are nonsense. Both of those have overarching rules from the University to which they belong.

 

You're arguing for the sake of arguing now.

The requirements for either of those two examples are established largely by the members.



#75 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 April 2014 - 03:23 PM

You're arguing for the sake of arguing now.
The requirements for either of those two examples are established largely by the members.


I'm arguing for the sake of arguing?
If the rules are "largely" established by the members, then you didn't actually find an example that satisfied my request:
"Can you give a real world example where voters set all the requirements for the nominees' acceptance?"


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users