- squirrel dude
- |
- Fabled Mythic Member
Post A
Alright, let's do this. LEERO- you know the rest. It's gonna take two posts people, be patient.
Posted by: CrazzySnipe55
Posted by: squirrel dude
Isn't it a problem, no matter what. Especially considering the statement, "I expect more from a mythic member" only exists if we have a title system?
No, it's really not. What happened to you sucks, plain and simple. But just because something like that happened to you doesn't mean that we should all throw up our arms and cry foul of the system most of us have no problem with.
Ol' Charlie Manson was a huge fan of the song Helter Skelter by the Beatles and thought that it (Helter Skelter) would be a race war that would shoot the world into the apocalypse. So, because the Beatles wrote one song that one person misinterpreted, should we now accost the Beatles and label them as a terrible bunch of people and them and their awful song to be just as much of a cause for the murders of Sharon Tate and her house guests as Charles and his Family? No.
We should blame (entirely) Charles Manson and his Family for being an infinitesimally small portion of the people who had heard that song and interpreted it in one particular way that ended in a murderous rampage. Neither the Beatles with Helter Skelter, nor the Web Team with the Title system should be at blame for Charles Manson or whoever PM'd you (respectively).
It wasn't in a PM, it was in the public forum. Probably irrelevant, but let's get our facts straight, eh?
The event isn't equivalent to Charlie Manson (I'm not that crazy, c'mon), and the title system isn't equivalent to helter skelter. The event is more like a couple of kids making fun of their friend for being girly (or tomboyish, whichever). They're applying their knowledge of gender norms to segregate their friend or shame him into becoming more normal. Ultimately it's a small even in a child's life, but it's representative of cultural gender norms.
No, that is elitism. That is wonderful, wonderful elitism. "Us better members aren't elitist, it's those lower classes who just don't know better yet that are elitist." Wow. Don't even try to hide behind some crap about it being satire or sarcasm. That was just some delicious elitism.
The level of complete and utter ignorance and bewildering obliviousness you're displaying right now is profound.
What you said, is what you said, and it was elitist.
Members who try to not get their title taken away want to be Mythic. If this was a ranking system it would go Member -> Heroic -> Legendary -> Mythic. Heroics who try to not get their title taken away want to be Mythic. I've been saying stuff about the lower... levels? being the ones who create all of the elitism since before I was even Heroic so don't throw that -blam!- at me.
Oh, you were heroic before? Did you also work your way up the corporate ladder before you became wealthy. Yeah, you still understand of the common man. *thumbs up*
Heroics who try to not get their title taken away want to be Mythic...
Legendaries who try to not get their title taken away want to be Mythics. Or they're just being good community member who aren't trying to get banned, but I see your point, and agree with. They're working to get to the upper class, like all of us.
It is a simple fact that to have the Mythic title is better than having the Legendary title is better than having the Heroic title is better than having no title as far as the title system is concerned. Having the Mythic Title means that you have a higher trust rating than someone with the Legendary Title. The same goes for Legendary to Heroic, and Heroic to Members.
It is not elitism it point out that the rank of General is higher than the rank of Captain is higher than the rank of Sergeant is higher than the rank of Private. It's pointing out a fact. The fact that you can't stop being so butthurt about the fact that one person said a mean thing to you one time and actually realize that there's no -blam!- elitism present on this site is astounding.
You wanted an example, I gave you an example. Don't be upset I easily found, and then you gave me the most beautiful one ever?
Posted by:CrazzySnipe55
Actual, legitimate, non-sarcastic or satiric elitism on this site is incredibly difficult to come by and usually it's done by people below the Mythic rank anyway (presumably because they wish they were Mythic and want to pretend that their rank is better for some reason).And that right there is not elitism. That is a fact.
You shouldn't have asked me to show you an example of elitism, and then when I say it isn't representative of the system. If a singular example isn't representative of the system in your eyes, then you shouldn't have asked for it in the first place.
Holy jesus monkey ballsack. If you've got no points, you want ALL the points. If you've got 1 point you want 2. If you've got 3 points you want 4. If you've got 4 points you want to keep all of your damn points. This is not a difficult concept to grasp, man.
Oh I grasp that, and I'm critical of it. The titles should be representative of better membership activity, and I don't think the current point system accurately reflects that.
Time to actually address the "it's for fun" statements.Gladly.
It's simply disingenuous.I AM NOT LYING, JOKING, BEING SARCASTIC, OR USING SATIRE." *thumbs up*
The system wasn't put in place because Achronos thought it would be fun. Don't lie you to yourself. If the members never asked for it to be put into place it wouldn't have been.What an idiotic statement. No -blam!- if they hadn't suggested it wouldn't have been put in. That's the Community Forum at work right there. If the Community suggested a Get-Together/Water Balloon Fight that'd be fun, and suggested by the Community. Things can be suggested by the Community and also fun.
If membership didn't ask for it, or want it, there would be no reason for Achronos and the webteam to devote resources to this project.I see no argument against it being fun so far.Something being fun, and something being for fun, are the not the same thing. Children have fun with pots and pans, but that doesn't mean that pots and pans are there for children to play with them.
Thus, ultimately, the reason it's in place should be the reasons members argued for it to be put in place. That's its purpose.Its purpose to be in place is so that it can be in place? LOLno.Remember the first post, that OP, where I showed the basic reasons for why the system is currently in place? Yeah, those would be reasons it's in place not so that it can in place. Honestly, where did you get that from?
Even if it is for fun, that's not an excuse to have a flawed system.It's not flawed. MMmmmmm... Yeah it is. I'd say more, but you didn't.
You're just pissed off because one person one time was a dick to you. Both can be true. I don't know if you know this, but I can both be upset at a person, and think that a system is flawed without being biased. I've already filled out the butthurt report form and everything.
Unfortunately, we can't make any claims about how the sophisticated the system is, how things are weighed or how effective it is in any precise terms. We've never been told what it is. For all we know it could be a simple formula that multiplies (posts per day x years on the website )/(# of bans x duration of bans) all then put into a ranking system.
We've been told there's a trust rating. And that you lose something like 1000 trust after you've been banned. Your "simple" formula doesn't seem to fit the bill here. A point system isn't that sophisticated. Hell, I'll just draw one up that might give similar results.
200 points for each year of membership
30 points for post per day
-1000 points for a ban.
-100 for warning
That would give me about: 500 points. That might be enough for a simple heroic title. It's all based on a scale of other members, after all. Again, that wouldn't be all that sophisticated of a system.
[Edited on 08.18.2012 1:03 PM PDT]