- g english
- |
- Exalted Mythic Member
There's only one kind of metal, and it's black.
Posted by: King Picollo
Beer = win
Posted by: elmicker
Posted by: g english
Users glazed with glory for higher post counts could easily be discouraged at their own accord. Creating 2,000 posts is nothing short of a daunting task.
2000 posts? Thats nothing. On a forum this active, you could easily hit 30-40 posts a day just with casual posting. Thats only 60 days, give or take. If you were really trying to up the count, you could hit 100+ without even raising an eyelid. Respond to every post in the flood, add 10 of your own theories to the halo 2/3 forums' deluges; job's a good'un. Post counts are deceptively large, 1000-2000 isnt really that much.I appreciate your more radical view, but I still think that even 2,000 posts, whether that takes a few weeks or not, still takes time. Those who have been members for much longer than those just joining will be far ahead of the "arms race," and this in itself could contribute a leveling effect.
I do in fact realize how small that number really is. I actually just recently searched my name, out of curiosity, to see when the 999th post was currently. It was this past April. The 999th post constantly changes; as more and more posts are made, your newer ones on the list are pushed into a "black hole," past 999. As you can see, that's still quite a ways away from 2,000. So that means that, on average, an active member will post around 1,000 posts over a period of a month or so. You are right in that respect. Definitely.
Ask any regular from the Flood, and they'll tell you that I am a very active member there. I average easily 40 posts a day, most of the time, and come on every day of the week; there is one notable exception, being most weekends when choose to visit my parents.
I still find much of the competitive spirit of gaming forums, in all forms and fashions—point systems, ranks, post counts, etc.—highly destructive and pointless...
Posted by: elmicker
You should judge a person not by labels or by the volume of the crap spewing forth from their faces, but rather the content of their posts and their character.Quite right as well. But...
What if post counts only counted actual posts (more than a few sentences)? Taking into consideration what was said earlier, this easily poses a nasty problem. All characters count as "words."
What if "posts" were ranked and voted on, through some sort of system by other members—possibly open only to active members; this could open the elitist debate of course—to be actual posts? This could easily mark only posts with a sense of accomplishment in quality, and double as a displayable "custom title."
[Edited on 06.08.2007 5:36 AM PDT]