Member levels, let's decide
 

Discussion on the member levels has settled enough that I think it's time to put it to a vote.

We had three primary proposals that came out on top:

• A list of release codenames to indicate post level:
  • Mistral - 0-24 posts
  • Scirocco - 25-99 posts
  • Gregale - 100-249 posts
  • Bora - 250-499 posts
  • Chinook - 500-999 posts
  • Diablo - 1000-1999 posts
  • Fremantle - 2000-3999 posts
  • Harmattan - 4000-* posts
• A maemo.org-style header:
  
  http://wiki.maemo.org/images/5/55/Wi...n_template.png
  
• No member level, no karma.

The voting will "close" in 7 days on April 15th, 2009 (taxes, anybody?). The results are non-binding and a suggestion only (Reggie is free to do as he sees fit).

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

I like the release names, just change the values for the last 3 a bit:

# Diablo - 1000-2499 posts
# Fremantle - 2500-4999 posts
# Harmattan - 5000-* posts

That makes more sense.

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

Well, my goal was to try to to keep the interval from growing too quickly when we start adding levels later on.

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

you forget the "no change" option

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

Since it is an asymptotic function, that's hard to do ;)

But if you don't want it to grow too quickly, you have to factor it into the beginning and not just depress the end.

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

8 levels Just thinking is the levels not too much?

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

There are obvious issues with the current system and it needs to be changed one way or another.

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

I'm totally for no change. The energy consumed on this "irc - who's the @op" topic should be channeled to something more productive :-) no, I'm not trolling.
Whatever levels you set up, and if you are on the highest one, doesn't mean you know more than somebody who just registered.

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

You may not be trolling, but you are missing the point.

This is exactly the point. The current system suggests that there's some sort of meaningful seniority implied by the member levels, which there isn't, so the goal is to put together a system that doesn't imply anything. Thus, the codenames.

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

If that's the goal, why the need for codenames in the first place? Just list post counts themselves, or number of hairs on one's head.

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

Because the member levels are still fun, and there are people that like them.

Anyway, if that's what you want, then you want option 3 in the poll.

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

i choose maemo style. So, I'm a Gregale. Yay!

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

I didn't say it's what I want, I just wanted to know what this so-called "goal" was that you were referring to. Now I see, it's fun. I'm all for that.

Plus, if we went the hairs-on-head route, we might find ourselves endlessly debating sorites paradoxes, and that's not good for anyone! (and it's especially bad for that unfortunate Barber who shaves all and only men who do not shave themselves).

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

How about peer review? members could give other members votes for troll, jedi, helpful, spectator, etc. Earn your geek cred in the eyes of your peers.

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

People should still be allowed to vote for no change, no matter how "wrong" it is.

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

I'm not sure that being a geek would equate to cred under a peer review system.*

(*Yet another lesson I have learned from reading The Life and History of General Antilles.)

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

To an extent, we already have this. See the hearts and thumbs on qgil's profile.

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

i agree with GA on this one. consider the previous discussion like the primaries and this is the actual election. if you don't like any of these 3 choices, then either you missed out on the original thread or there just aren't a whole lot of people that agree with you.

so... if you think the system should remain unchanged, please read the original discussion, and vote here for "the lesser" (lessest?) of these 3 "evils". :) GA's making the assumption that, if a "no change" option was present, not many people would vote for it anyway, so consider this a chance to make your vote count instead of getting wasted on an unpopular choice.

the maemo.org setup looks good to me, except (i never use the maemo.org forum, so...) what determines your star rating?

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

why level...

this poll look conspiracy lol

but seriously...level help for categorized how you active...so i can post a noob frenchy post everyday and be a dump...or inverse...

In fact, i never like LEVEL or any others distinction on forums...specialy if this forum talk about freedome anywhere...

Death to all discrimination (yes, make a level side always made some issue)

Why not everybody be Harmattan Supper Duper and be considered...

this is just my free opinion from Quebec.

Woot

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

The exact metrics used in the maemo.org profile would have to be determined later. Don't read into what's in the mockup as far as user ratings too much (karma, stars, thumbs, etc.).

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

Definitely a maemo.org-style header. It seems like the whole community wants to move towards maemo.org being a central "hub" for everything tablet related. I definitely think that's moving in the right direction, and ignoring user information there when the switch to talk.maemo.org is made would be a huge mistake.

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

I am for leaving it just as it is, but perhap moving the Senior level post count up so it means more? And increase the PM quotas on lower levels.

I see no reason for 8 levels of madness.

if it must change!
EVERYONE on this page should be TOP level , with NO higher levels


So to me around 1000 posts would indicate a Senior level.

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

I guess you missed the earlier thread. The idea here is to have meaningless member levels. The problem with having Junior and Senior members has been illustrated quite well when new members assume that the Senior title means something when it doesn't. Avoiding this was the whole impetuous of my proposal to change it.

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

I like the maemo.org style header, but I still think there should be some kind of talk.maemo.org-specific thing on there, something that is calculated from posts and thanks within the forum*. Perhaps a combination of the first two suggestions?

I still think that if you hit a certain level you can choose from a set of oddball names, like "Sardine", "Elephanta" or even a custom one.

*Disclosure: I'm proud of my post:thanks ratio on ITT, so I am biased here.

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

I know the earlier thread (which was only discussing another options). This is more of a matter of principle. Now the decision has already been made that there will be a change, without any polls. If there was option for no change we would find out if there is support for current system.

But I don't really care about member levels, so I let them choose who do care.

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

IMHO then, they should be truly meaningless or not there at all. Unfortunately anything with an ascending hierarchy will be viewed by some as some sort of rank or competitive badge of honor. Simply using the post count may do this as well.

This in turn may lead to meaningless short posts like " I agree completely." which add nothing to the thread but do add to a newbies post count.

As much as I have kicked and moaned lately about this forum becoming more like maemo.org (from now on known to me as m/o), if we are going to do it, it might as well be whole hog.

I voted for the m/o style header because it does look more polished and is more unique among other forum styles.

Another possibility is to make more user customizations available to a member based on time and/or post count. Each member can decide how or if they want to show their colors.

After so long and/or so many posts a member can upload their own avatar. Below that they can only choose from 10 or fifteen forum provided ones. At another time and/or grade a member might be able to use his own title. Below that they are given 1 of 10 random ones. (< These random titles could change at random intervals as well, to to add some interest and fun.) At yet another level, features like the infamous thread tags are made available... and so on.

This is new to me. Most publicly viewed forums that I've dealt with are privately owned. What the owner wants, the owner can get. This forum from what I gather, will be something different.

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

Hardly, the results of this poll are only a suggestion.

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

I know thats why said move the senior post count up to 1000 so it will then mean something. I swear to God, I think sometimes I am speaking another language?

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

How does the current system not lead to this? We already have member levels, karma, and post counts to whore for. A new member level system wont change that.

The reasoning behind which I still can't fathom.

URLs are generally abbreviated with fullstops. So you're looking for "m.o".

What's the advantage here? More post-count whoring? If new members are abusing avatars, that's something to deal with on a case-by-case basis.

An idea that's been proposed a couple times. I'd like to see it myself, but I'm not sure how high general support is. We may need a plugin for it.

Random is just spam (much like the tag system as it currently stands).

Again, haven't we reviewed this fact previously? Reggie is still in charge of Talk. . . .

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

Perhaps I should have made it more explicit: 100 posts or 1000, post counts don't tell you much about a user or their experience, so attaching meaningful ranking systems to a meaningless number is pointless.

I don't know, do you?

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

Forbidding the option of "no change" is an instance of those presently in power controlling the choices of those not in power.

I would like the lowest status rating, whatever the system.

But I would still prefer to vote "no change". I am not interested in someone's argument that that isn't logical. That would be my choice, not theirs.

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

Hey, look, I forgot to include it, and there's no way to edit polls. I realize everything is a conspiracy to you, so I wont try to shatter your tinfoil hat fantasy land, but so it goes.

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

Like I said:

So again like I said, you look at that list of people and tell me that 1000 posts doesn't tell you that they are a Senior member? I see no reason to have Jedi Knights

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

I think I'm with the PB on that language thing...


Yeesh! I don't have the inclination to dissect your posts and regardless of what I have said posted in the past, you still can't "fathom" my point of view regarding the haphazard way in which m/o, m.o (either way I would still pronounce it like the leader of the three stooges :) ) has been managed and presented in the past.

I imagine that the the next wave of new users are not going to be as receptive to IRC, Mailing lists, Bugzilla, and the like as you and others are.

And yet, to me it seems like attempts are being made to make this forum into something that the former group is more comfortable with.

Before someone pops in to tell me that this is not the topic of the thread... I'll remind you I did vote and was only stating a constructive opinion about that topic when my post was sliced and diced. :)

I truly wish you good luck with all your efforts GA. But, my money is on the next device being a huge success and as such, it just may need another enthusiast to come along to start a friendly forum that new users can relate to. C'ya around. :)

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

It seems it really does come back to that whole listening thing. :rolleyes:

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

There's a question that nobody can safely answer except by agreeing with you.

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

Excuse me for being stupid again... It should have been "posted in the past". :confused:


BTW, more and more of us stupid people are comming. You're pro'ly gonna need a helper or two if ya wanna keep pointing it out. :)

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

qole has the right idea here. Using either the posts:thanks ratio, or m.o karma will lead to more useful posts, and less "I agree" posts, because the rating will mean something. If we have a rank, people will think it means something regardless of whether it does or not, so why not actually have it mean something?

As for the "over 1,000 posts means something" issue... I'd just like to point out that munky261 is on that list, and... well... this post by bongo pretty much sums up why that means nothing (in context) (No offense meant, munky!) Posts do not equate to experience. "Thanks" and karma equate to experience. Can we come up with some equation that factors in: (posts optional, because... as I said, they're useless on their own, but useful compared to other items), thanks given, thanks received, m.o karma? It seems that some kind of rating that factors in all this information would be the ideal solution, and create meaningful ranks, which, IMO, should be the goal here.

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

i agree. take me for instance. i've been a member for a very short time, but i have posted A LOT (that omega thread was great ;)) because i like to add my two cents.

but as you may or may not know, I am still a MAJOR NOOB at anything linux/tablet related, and i'm eerily close to being a "Senior Member," which will be a major misrepresentation of my position here.

i don't know about the thanks/karma rating system either, i've got 14 thanks, and none of them were from me saying anything that *actually* helped anyone. (feel free to thank me!)

[i like "Prolific Poster"]

Re: Member levels, let's decide
 

I'd just like to interject that there's not really anyone "in power" or "not in power." There are just some people who have stronger opinions (and maybe louder voices) and those who don't. Some would call this a detriment of open communities and others would call it a benefit. If enough people call for "no change," then that's where it will stand.

Tim