Army.ca ranking system (new idea)

[yoman]

While it pains me to say it (hehe) the mods are right here.  After a while, you learn who the good and bad posters are.  You also get to see the progression of some posters.  (When you've been here for a while, it's a hoot to go back and see what you wrote 6 months ago...  Before IAP/BOTP...  Then cringe as you read them again...)  ;D

Oh I'm pretty sure that I know who the good posters are, and who the not so good poster are. (I do leave the cadet forum quite a bit  ;D)

 

[monika]

No offence to the young'uns out there, but does anyone over the age of say, 15 really care about post count? I'd expect that at the Leafs board not here! One board I used to belong to simply didn't have the post count public; you had to check profiles to get it.

Personally I go for quality not frequency but apparently that's a by product of age

 

[aesop081]

Well it was just a suggestion/idea.

You guys know what's best (I hope  ;D).

There is no need to suck up now..... ;D

 

[gnplummer421]

Curious, you guys just built up a whole bunch of points just talking about the rank system ;D

All kidding aside, I believe someone who truly cares about and enjoys writing/replying to posts, wouldn't focus on points, but rather discussing issues that we deem important, so from that viewpoint, it would be a good idea..I sometimes notice the careless blabber from some posters, and although we try to support freedom of speech, we also need discipline with regards to the site conduct code.

Sooo, how about those Sens eh?
Gnplummer421

 

[yoman]

No offence to the young'uns out there, but does anyone over the age of say, 15 really care about post count? I'd expect that at the Leafs board not here! One board I used to belong to simply didn't have the post count public; you had to check profiles to get it.

Personally I go for quality not frequency but apparently that's a by product of age

I suggested this idea because its something that`s already here. I was just suggesting a modification to the system. If you want quality, then maybe some sort of system that if you think the user has posted something valuable/interesting, then they get a point.

I don`t really care, I can figure out myself who are the good posters.

Sooo, how about those Sens eh?

Gnplummer421

Sens are doing good. We desperately need Hasek back to go fare in the playoffs I think. But who know`s Emery could very well do it for us. Sorry, got a little side tracked there. 

 

[George Wallace]

Curious, you guys just built up a whole bunch of points just talking about the rank system ;D

Slick move....eh!

All kidding aside, I believe someone who truly cares about and enjoys writing/replying to posts, wouldn't focus on points, but rather discussing issues that we deem important,

Most of us agree that we don't need no stinking medals/titles/rank if we enjoy the site and contribute good advice or discussion.

.......so from that viewpoint, it would be a good idea..

Did you just contradict yourself?

....I sometimes notice the careless blabber from some posters, and although we try to support freedom of speech, we also need discipline with regards to the site conduct code.

That is what the Staff try to maintain.  Many times the members don't even notice when the site is 'invaded' by a Troll or other disruptive poster.  Often posts that are racist, trolling, or otherwise offensive will be removed immediately.  This keeps us 'honest' and out of the Courts.  Hopefully we are maintaining open and worthwhile discussion.  

As was mentioned above, we had a "Ranking" system before, but some Trolls abused it by artificially inflating the Ranking of their 'friends' and at the same time deflated the Ranking of those who they felt were 'not their friends'.  That system was removed, as it caused quite a stir amongst the membership and led to several Bannings.  If you notice, there are two forms of ranking currently in effect, and although they don't reflect the calibre of the Poster's contributions, they do give some idea of how long or often a Poster has been on the site.

 

[gnplummer421]

Yes George, I do sometimes contradict myself, here's my reasons why;

I'm Blond (and greying), I'm a shiftworker (what day is it...a day off) and I'm a Dutch/Canadian...need I say more >

Gnplummer

 

[Kristen]

I think that's a really good Idea and Army.ca should really try it. I sure would like to see that happen!! Thanks very much Kristen

 

[ouyin2000]

I have an idea!  Let's have a ranking system where users can rate the posts of members with a + or -, and have the rating show on the side, by the users Avatar... 

I can see how this wouldn't work, as people would just spam with new accounts to upgrade their own status

Maybe have only Army.ca Subscribers able to rate the quality of someone's post? That may, a member would have to buy a subscription, and that could alleviate the problem of spamming with new accounts.

 

[Journeyman]

My only issue with the ranking system comes with the people that quickly post 10 mindless comments, so that they're "qualified" for entry into the chat system....only to grace us with:

*scheissekopf runs around the room*

or "IS ANYBODY INFANTRY IN HERE?   KEWL ! ! !    WHAT'S THAT LIKE? "

Yes, the Mods are aware of my bete noire/personal groupie, whom I'll just call "Alpha." Maybe somehow tie membership to a the requirement for an IQ of greater than the 10 required postings. Perhaps add a software "restraining order," where some people simply aren't allowed to converse with others.

I offer no solution - - I'm just bitchin' to inflate my posting numbers. (Do these bring extra airmiles or something) ???

In seriousness......I see no need to change what's currently in place.
Bravo Zulu (not a reference to my alphabet being complete without "Alpha"  ;D  - - man, I slay me sometimes )

 

[Scott]

Torlyn was being sarcastic, I do believe  ;D

We had a ranking system about a year and a half ago where you could click an icon by a person's screen name if you agreed or disagreed with what they said and it would give them a +/- rating based on what you thought of the post. It was nothing elaborate, just another icon below a person's name. Problem was that there was some abuse of the system so we disabled it.

If you'd like to see it them petition Mike, I'll just ask that you can't rate DS  

All in all I don't care, I don't judge by post count.

Journeyman, we take aim at the guys who mindlessly post just to gain access to chat and try to curb that behavior. The Grave (where useless posts go to die) gets the works of those who are just spamming the board in order to enter chat. We can also ban users from chat and a couple have been for acting like idiots in there.

 

[George Wallace]

JM

Nothing like advertising a fact that they should not know.....now they know the secret.    

 

[ouyin2000]

Torlyn was being sarcastic, I do believe  ;D

We had a ranking system about a year and a half ago where you could click an icon by a person's screen name if you agreed or disagreed with what they said and it would give them a +/- rating based on what you thought of the post. It was nothing elaborate, just another icon below a person's name. Problem was that there was some abuse of the system so we disabled it.

I figured that much, I also figured that it was in existance before, by the way he worded his post.

I was just taking it as a serious consideration, and suggested the modification (for army.ca subscribers only) to keep the suggestion alive.

 

[MikeL]

What makes you think every person who buys a subscription is a mature poster an should be the ones rating other people?

Why not stick with the current system, going by someones post count is a horrible way to judge a person or if they bought a subscription. Checking a person's profile, reading their posts, etc should be good enough. Also, the mods are here to handle the trolls/people who spew BS on the forums.

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

Actually as Franko noted, we had a "peer assassination" based rating system where you could rate up or down a user every few hours. I really liked the concept; trolls could be publicly exposed as could quality (vs. quantity) posters. The implementation however was lacking, in that ratings got out of hand and it was a popularity contest (or an exercise in vendetta) instead of being put to good use.

And that's where we are now...

 

[Journeyman]

.....now they know the secret.     

D'oh......damn OPSEC!

We can also ban users from chat and a couple have been for acting like idiots in there.

~ahem~  You're talking about the other idiots, right?  I'm still OK? 

Checking a person's profile, reading their posts, etc should be good enough.

I've seldom known army people not to be able to form their own opinions (and inflict them upon others). I know I judge people here by the content of their postings....not their seniority. This then influences how I will view future postings, or whether I'll bother reading it - - that's human nature, a method of time management.

 

[Scott]

~ahem~  You're talking about the other idiots, right?  I'm still OK?

I'll try to extortion before banning, see how bad the Army.ca monkey has you  ;D

 

[ouyin2000]

What makes you think every person who buys a subscription is a mature poster an should be the ones rating other people?

It doesn't make me think that. I based the suggestion on the fact that they would have to pay money in order to get the chance to rate someone's post. That *should* deter a lot of the problems.

Why not stick with the current system, going by someones post count is a horrible way to judge a person or if they bought a subscription. Checking a person's profile, reading their posts, etc should be good enough. Also, the mods are here to handle the trolls/people who spew BS on the forums.

There is nothing wrong with the current system, I am just putting things on the table for arguement's sake.

 

[MikeL]

It doesn't make me think that. I based the suggestion on the fact that they would have to pay money in order to get the chance to rate someone's post. That *should* deter a lot of the problems.

What happens if a troll or some immature person buys a subscription? An starts rating their buddies up an good posters down?

If there was to be a rating system, might be best to let the mods rate others an/or let the staff pick posters who they deem to be mature an contribute to the forum and let them rate others.

 

[ouyin2000]

Nothing is to stop someone from doing that, but it would stop some of them.

And letting the DS be the only ones to rate a post is a good idea, but what is going to stop them from doing the same thing as these "trolls".

Not that I'm saying the DS aren't doing their jobs well, just more food for thought.

I do understand your point, Mike, and it had crossed my mind. Maybe I should just sit back down amongst the crowd.