Bungie.net Community
This topic has moved here: Subject: "Special" privileges to Mythic Members?
  • Subject: "Special" privileges to Mythic Members?
Subject: "Special" privileges to Mythic Members?
  •  | 
  • Exalted Mythic Member

A J A Q
C A C U
E C E E
...K.....E
..........N

Posted by: SS_Zag1
Posted by: Blizzard411
I wasn't talking about Halo, because it has nothing to do with this discussion.

What I mean is that a "normal" member could contribute a lot like a Mythic member contributes.

One Two

But generally the Mythic members have contributed a lot more, and can be more easily trusted. Mythic generally means you've spent many many days of your life surfing B.net, talking to people, and being a good sport.

Generally speaking.


The Number "Way too many" comes to mind.

I'm rather surprised that there are only 200 people have been here for 4 years, and kept out of trouble. (And actually posted, etc)


[Edited on 02.18.2008 11:05 AM PST]

  • 02.18.2008 11:04 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Pink Menace
Show me one instance of a Mythic Member being "above the law".

I could think of plenty, lol! I know some members that aren't even Mythic, but they can get away with razzape on these forums, lol.

[Edited on 02.18.2008 11:07 AM PST]

  • 02.18.2008 11:07 AM PDT

-S

I agree, but only in the situation that, if you get your own avatar, Certain Affinity Guys can post lolcat images in reply to threads.

[Edited on 02.18.2008 11:17 AM PST]

  • 02.18.2008 11:17 AM PDT

Einstein
Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater.

Posted by: Shishka
I agree, but only in the situation that, if you get your own avatar, Certain Affinity Guys can post lolcat images in reply to threads.

I see what you did there...

[Edited on 02.18.2008 11:29 AM PST]

  • 02.18.2008 11:28 AM PDT

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.

Posted by: Shishka
I agree, but only in the situation that, if you get your own avatar, Certain Affinity Guys can post lolcat images in reply to threads.


You mean Halolcats, right?

  • 02.18.2008 11:44 AM PDT

Halo 3 (31st), ODST (14th) and Reach (4th) Mythic Conqueror. (Mythic is Solo, Legendary, All skulls on + scoring on and no deaths/saves).

Staff Writer and speedrun record holder at highspeedhalo.net

Ignorance is the true enemy of all things.

Rocking Bungie.net for over 8 years!

Posted by: Shishka
I agree, but only in the situation that, if you get your own avatar, Certain Affinity Guys can post lolcat images in reply to threads.


I would be willing to trade all the Certain Affinity Guys lolcat images for custom avatars for Mythic Members. But, since they're Blue-barred users, wouldn't they also count as Mythics too? Custom avatars and lolcat image privileges? Steal!

;)

Posted by: Havok Se7en
Thus breast feeding them their responsibility. They would only behave FOR that custom avatar. A TRUE Mythic member would keep their title regardless of special privileges.


While I agree, if a certain section of the community behaves extra specially well in order to attain and keep a generally meaningless reward; what's the harm? It can only be good for the community if more people stay more closely to the rules. Or at least try to in the hope of one day attaining said reward.

And Firefox thinks its spelled 'privileges.' Which looks about right.

As for myself, while I would very much like the idea of a custom avatar, the problem would then become what to choose for an avatar. All 3 Halo discs set up in a triangle on a white background maybe?

  • 02.18.2008 11:44 AM PDT

Sandswept Studios Design Director

Visit us and check out our games at Sandswept.net!

~~Pardon Our Dust.~~

Posted by: Shishka
I agree, but only in the situation that, if you get your own avatar, Certain Affinity Guys can post lolcat images in reply to threads.

Deal.

  • 02.18.2008 11:49 AM PDT

July 15, 2008... The day the timer stood still.

Posted by: SS_Zag1
Posted by: Shishka
I agree, but only in the situation that, if you get your own avatar, Certain Affinity Guys can post lolcat images in reply to threads.

Deal.
Dammit, I was about to say that.

  • 02.18.2008 11:52 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: BlueBaron123
The whole Heroic, Legendary, Mythic thing is based around a trust rating, correct?

Can you explain to me the whole trust thing, Im still a little foggy
I used to be a Heroic Member and I went back down and dont know why

  • 02.18.2008 12:53 PM PDT

etc etc/glaringly obvious/and so on, and such <=Not redundant!
Posted by: Cr4ne Style
Taxes do nothing to affect the share of wealth, since taxes are only applied to income.

So that's not even a part of the conversation at all, so it's pointless talking about it....

"for a "best" moral to exist, there must exist the "best" moral base. If the base of morality varies from location to location, culture to culture...then there can't be an absolute moral..

permit, i have not made a single remark about a user getting to create his own avatar. i have only been talking about members with various titles getting perks that others cannot get. if i remember correctly, i was talking about making some avatars only being available to mythic members, and i see no reason not to do that. this would be like a bnet equivalent of recon armor. if bungie wants to do something like this, then i have no complaints.

my main thoughts involve the nearly vacuous nature of the titles in general. one guy in this thread has an account that is only a few months old and he usually just posts to bump his own screenshots, yet he has 'earned' the heroic title. does his title indicate ANYTHING about the quality of him as a member or about the quality of his posts? no. your account is legendary, and it has been open for less than 2 years with about 250 total posts. do those two facts indicate ANYTHING about your value as a member or about the quality of your posts? no.

titles appear to just indicate that a member has met some criterion based on arbitrarily selected factors assigned arbitrarily assigned weights. there is nothing the matter with member titles being in place, how they are meted out, or what members get when they earn such titles. i am surprised by how mysterious and robust so many people find the titles.

  • 02.18.2008 12:58 PM PDT

#2 Supporter Halocharts, #11 other account.
"Ordinary love is selfish, deeply rooted in desires and satisfactions. Divine love is without condition, without boundary, without change."
You are all loved beyond measure.
I, like you, am a light-sound-vibration complex that resonates with others. I have hopes and dreams and ambitions, just like you! I AM, and so are you! Yes, we are one and the same, you and I.

From Achronos:
That's because the trust rating (that the titles are based on) is a measure of trust, not post quantity or quality

What they've contributed and how much they'e contributed is irrelevant. Indeed, I have seen many complaints here to the effect of wait -- how come I've never seen this or that guy before yet he has x title and only x posts? And the key is that it's not a measure of quality or value as a forum participant as it's being construed as, just a measure of how well you can be trusted not to abuse the forum, especially if given increased privileges. Certainly, the two often, but not always, coincide, which is part of the reason for the confusion.

There are many "normal" members, for example, who are highly visible and certainly contribute tons -- but this is a value judgment, not something that can be automatically assessed. "Trusted" members have shown that they fit the criteria for trust -- long membership with few bans -- by an automatic system, and thus can be left to automatic privileges such as custom avatars, however likely or unlikely. A system for assessing quality of participation would require human input, and even were this feasible, would it be an independent measure with its own set of rewards, or concurrent with those of trust ratings, or would "extra" points be given to a trust rating for being identified by a mod as a quality poster? There are lots of questions there but at the moment, I hope we can agree that that which the trust ratings assess is not what it's generally thought to be, nor is it as though the designers are denying this fact.

One other thing I'd like to point out is that just because there are members of quality who do not have a particularly high trust rating does not mean we should ban rewards altogether so they're on equal footing with people who potentially high trust ratings and whatever level of quality. The point is, the trust system provides an ability to grant some members of the forum features that most would abuse, and it's selfish to deny them that. It would be similar in concept to choosing between five people living (but not you) or no one at all, and choosing the latter because you're whiny and oh it's so not fair.

[Edited on 02.18.2008 1:23 PM PST]

  • 02.18.2008 1:13 PM PDT

etc etc/glaringly obvious/and so on, and such <=Not redundant!
Posted by: Cr4ne Style
Taxes do nothing to affect the share of wealth, since taxes are only applied to income.

So that's not even a part of the conversation at all, so it's pointless talking about it....

"for a "best" moral to exist, there must exist the "best" moral base. If the base of morality varies from location to location, culture to culture...then there can't be an absolute moral..

nice post, naku. i think that we could get into an interesting discussion about trust and how it relates to member titles, but i will not get into that here.

as far as i can see, no matter what the rating system is called and no matter what titles are used, the member titles do not indicate much in terms of value, any value, including trust. we can swap out the bnet titles with '*', '* *', '* * *', etc., and nothing would change. if a person were to earn one star, two stars, three stars, or how ever many stars, it just indicates that he has met some arbitrarily selected criterion. i do not know what they use at mlg, but i suspect that it would be the same case with their titles.

since some titles are seen as more important that others (heroic is better than member, legendary is better than heroic, and so on) by members, value becomes an issue. it seems that many members think that the titles indicate some sort of value. the folks at bungie have spoken of 'trust', but i find that an odd word to use in this context. as far as i am aware, earning these titles does not involve members being trusted more in any meaningful sense. with what are they entrusted? the titles do not appear to have anything to do trust, they just involve labels used to identify members who have been selected to get a few perks.

[Edited on 02.18.2008 1:33 PM PST]

  • 02.18.2008 1:30 PM PDT

Sandswept Studios Design Director

Visit us and check out our games at Sandswept.net!

~~Pardon Our Dust.~~

Sesqui, if I see someone who made an account a week ago posting really nice posts, I still don't trust them as far as I can throw them.

Trust, among other things, is gained over time with consistency of a certain quality of posting. Quality of posts do not automatically make someone deserve something. They still have to earn it through time and consistency.

So no, a Member, Heroic Member, and Legendary member do not fall under the same category as Mythic. Otherwise they would be Mythic, I would imagine. :P And yes, it follows the same for all. Heroic members aren't Legendary, and Members aren't Heroic. Each one is a step of progression.

[Edited on 02.18.2008 1:43 PM PST]

  • 02.18.2008 1:40 PM PDT

etc etc/glaringly obvious/and so on, and such <=Not redundant!
Posted by: Cr4ne Style
Taxes do nothing to affect the share of wealth, since taxes are only applied to income.

So that's not even a part of the conversation at all, so it's pointless talking about it....

"for a "best" moral to exist, there must exist the "best" moral base. If the base of morality varies from location to location, culture to culture...then there can't be an absolute moral..

how much do you trust any bnet members? and, how does a member title affect how much you wold trust a poster?

you mentioned things that affect trust, but those things are not factors in the ratings as far as i can see. simply making some number of posts for some amount of time will do it. i would be shocked to learn that you would trust a member more or less based merely on his member title.

as for the difference that you pointed out between members with various titles, yes, they do contain that difference. i do not know if you meant this to be a meaningful point since i am bad at interpretting symbols like ':p'. i do not know if you made that point in jest for a laugh or because you think that the titles actually do indicate increasing levels of some important qualities.

Posted by: SS_Zag1
Sesqui, if I see someone who made an account a week ago posting really nice posts, I still don't trust them as far as I can throw them.

Trust, among other things, is gained over time with consistency of a certain quality of posting. Quality of posts do not automatically make someone deserve something. They still have to earn it through time and consistency.

So no, a Member, Heroic Member, and Legendary member do not fall under the same category as Mythic. Otherwise they would be Mythic, I would imagine. :P And yes, it follows the same for all. Heroic members aren't Legendary, and Members aren't Heroic. Each one is a step of progression.

  • 02.18.2008 1:49 PM PDT

Sandswept Studios Design Director

Visit us and check out our games at Sandswept.net!

~~Pardon Our Dust.~~

Posted by: sesquipadelian
how much do you trust any bnet members? and, how does a member title affect how much you wold trust a poster?

I generally trust a user based on past experience. The title helps me identify them better, but obviously with some recent events I'm not so sure about that anymore.

If I don't know someone, and they're a Member, for example, and they post some really nice thread, great. I still wouldn't give them buckets of candy and shower them with roses.

you mentioned things that affect trust, but those things are not factors in the ratings as far as i can see. simply making some number of posts for some amount of time will do it. i would be shocked to learn that you would trust a member more or less based merely on his member title.
The amount of time a member has been here affects their rating. (Join date) The quality of their posts, that is to say, the less blacklistings and warnings they get, affects their join date. If someone is Mythic, they've generally never been warned or blacklisted (and if they have, very few times) over the course of their many years here. That says to me that they've kept out of trouble, all while contributing and being a good sport.

as for the difference that you pointed out between members with various titles, yes, they do contain that difference. i do not know if you meant this to be a meaningful point since i am bad at interpretting symbols like ':p'. i do not know if you made that point in jest for a laugh or because you think that the titles actually do indicate increasing levels of some important qualities.

Pardon my emotes. ;)

I put a ":P" after it because it's just a funny little thing. If someone was the equivalent to a Mythic member, they would be one. Don't you think? I'm just saying, a Member who posts identically to a Mythic Member is still a member. They still have to earn their keep over time.

Point? Mythic Members HAVE done something to earn their title. It's not just something bestowed upon them. Myself and the other Mythic Members have been around for a long time, and generally have kept out of trouble better than the rest.

  • 02.18.2008 1:57 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Join KOTOR!

I intend to live forever, or die trying.

I'm not sure if that is good idea.

  • 02.18.2008 2:01 PM PDT

#2 Supporter Halocharts, #11 other account.
"Ordinary love is selfish, deeply rooted in desires and satisfactions. Divine love is without condition, without boundary, without change."
You are all loved beyond measure.
I, like you, am a light-sound-vibration complex that resonates with others. I have hopes and dreams and ambitions, just like you! I AM, and so are you! Yes, we are one and the same, you and I.

Posted by: SS_Zag1
So no, a Member, Heroic Member, and Legendary member do not fall under the same category as Mythic. Otherwise they would be Mythic, I would imagine. :P And yes, it follows the same for all. Heroic members aren't Legendary, and Members aren't Heroic. Each one is a step of progression.

Yes, clearly. As for your implication that this progression is necessarily indicative of something other than the criteria by which they are chosen, I disagree. As a whole the system separates the wheat from the chaff -- but at the margin, is there a fundamental difference in trust that's exhibited by a Mythic member over Legendary, or Legendary over Heroic? Are Mythic members at a sufficiently high value, more so than Legendaries and Heroics, to be trusted with custom avatars? I don't necessarily think so -- but at the moment, yes, I am all for them getting new avatars. Realize that one of factors, evidently one of the most important, is time -- is the difference between 3 years and 4 (or whatever), which is not at all a conscious effort, enough to say that this group is trusted while that group is not? We don't have all the details on the trust system, and even if we did it would be difficult to pin any metric as having x amount of importance in trust, but I am all for the greatest amount of people possible being "rewarded" -- that is, not punished by default -- and I see no reason why the relatively sparse Mythics should have exclusive privileges.

What I am suggesting is the idea of established expectations and momentum -- most Heroics, I am sure, are on their way to Legendary, and so forth. Just because they do not have the requisite time in exhibiting the good behavior does not mean they will suddenly engage in all sorts of malefaction at the end of their third year. I would be interested in statistics on the number of Heroics and Legendaries who are there because of bans preventing them from being Legendaries and Mythics. I suspect, but I could be wrong, that this is actually low. I personally put little stock, when browsing the forums, in any difference between X Member and XX Member.

Exclusive privileges as a whole -- I certainly don't think it's a good idea to reward every group the same. But the thesis of this thread is that only Mythics should get any reward at all, which I disagree with. Mythics can have unique rewards but the basis for that should be in recognizing their tenure, not their trust becuase the latter is likely not that unique as far as we know. If Bungie were to say (only) you guys can have avatars because you've been here admirably long -- I'm all for that justification.

[Edited on 02.18.2008 2:30 PM PST]

  • 02.18.2008 2:04 PM PDT

etc etc/glaringly obvious/and so on, and such <=Not redundant!
Posted by: Cr4ne Style
Taxes do nothing to affect the share of wealth, since taxes are only applied to income.

So that's not even a part of the conversation at all, so it's pointless talking about it....

"for a "best" moral to exist, there must exist the "best" moral base. If the base of morality varies from location to location, culture to culture...then there can't be an absolute moral..

i agree with your first point and third points but disagree with the second. they have earned the titles. bungie decided the requirements to receive the title, and they have met those requirements, but, this is "just something bestowed upon them." bungie has figured out variables that they wish to consider, and some members happen to have account histories that meet requirements of various titles.

since bans are a part of the formula, member titles do indicate something about how often a person gets banned, which corresponds to how often that person violates forum rules.

Posted by: SS_Zag1
Point? Mythic Members HAVE done something to earn their title. It's not just something bestowed upon them. Myself and the other Mythic Members have been around for a long time, and generally have kept out of trouble better than the rest.

  • 02.18.2008 2:07 PM PDT

Look for the back

oh...is that why their names are highlighted?

  • 02.18.2008 2:09 PM PDT

Sandswept Studios Design Director

Visit us and check out our games at Sandswept.net!

~~Pardon Our Dust.~~

Posted by: sesquipadelian
i agree with your first point and third points but disagree with the second. they have earned the titles. bungie decided the requirements to receive the title, and they have met those requirements, but, this is "just something bestowed upon them." bungie has figured out variables that they wish to consider, and some members happen to have account histories that meet requirements of various titles.

since bans are a part of the formula, member titles do indicate something about how often a person gets banned, which corresponds to how often that person violates forum rules.

So are you saying you think we shouldn't get rewarded for not violating the forum rules?

I don't really lean one way or the other. In many ways, the title itself is a great little gift. They don't have to give Mythic members anything, if they don't want to. I'm just curious if you think not violating the forum rules is worth a unique avatar, as proposed in this thread.

  • 02.18.2008 2:21 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: AJAQ
Posted by: SS_Zag1
Posted by: Blizzard411
I wasn't talking about Halo, because it has nothing to do with this discussion.

What I mean is that a "normal" member could contribute a lot like a Mythic member contributes.

One Two

But generally the Mythic members have contributed a lot more, and can be more easily trusted. Mythic generally means you've spent many many days of your life surfing B.net, talking to people, and being a good sport.

Generally speaking.


The Number "Way too many" comes to mind.

I'm rather surprised that there are only 200 people have been here for 4 years, and kept out of trouble. (And actually posted, etc)

Not so much. It's very difficult to post continuously for 4 years.

  • 02.18.2008 2:31 PM PDT

etc etc/glaringly obvious/and so on, and such <=Not redundant!
Posted by: Cr4ne Style
Taxes do nothing to affect the share of wealth, since taxes are only applied to income.

So that's not even a part of the conversation at all, so it's pointless talking about it....

"for a "best" moral to exist, there must exist the "best" moral base. If the base of morality varies from location to location, culture to culture...then there can't be an absolute moral..

Posted by: SS_Zag1
So are you saying you think we shouldn't get rewarded for not violating the forum rules?

I don't really lean one way or the other. In many ways, the title itself is a great little gift. They don't have to give Mythic members anything, if they don't want to. I'm just curious if you think not violating the forum rules is worth a unique avatar, as proposed in this thread.


no. i am not saying anything of the sort. i have posted repeatedly that i support bungie giving away perks any way that they see fit. if they wanted to give mythic members rare avatars, recon armor, a h3 pontiac, or anything else, i would not have a single problem with it.

as for particular perks to be awarded based on meeting some requirements, i have little to say. i do not think that anyone deserves such perks, and i do not think that having an account for a long time, making some number of posts, and getting banned rarely implies that anyone has earned much of anything or that they deserve something. but that is merely my opinion. if bungie wishes to place weight on those things and give away various benefits to those who have best met the chosen criteria, then they can go hog wild as far as i am concerned.

i am not against bungie awarding perks to anyone for any reason.

  • 02.18.2008 2:35 PM PDT

Posted by: xianoa
how happy is a midget likely to be once you start melting cheese on them?


(O : o)=GTI=W====(o : O)

reach 100 replies #99

  • 02.18.2008 3:01 PM PDT