"Rank"

[Abad]

Not that I care much..., but I would like to know the scale that applies to "rank", similar to "points".
There is a rank of 1=Newbie, or new member.., and then, a higher rank, evaluated from 2 to "God-Level".
What is the scale? I would like those different levels to be specified.
I don't want to be "a count, or a marquis, or a baron, or a Sir...": They are stale titles of nobility from Europe, which are useless.
Just a curious question... 😀

[enjoyify]

Rank 6 is the highest level and all must bow before it.

EDIT: I have been informed that Rank 6 is not the highest level and that I have much bowing to do.

[Abad]

@enjoyify, the most "high rank" of 6 is for Admins... (A royal crown is the sticker..,, I think..)

[enjoyify]

I was having a laugh.

Rank is the same as point total. More points = higher rank. That's all.

Rank 6 means that I have more points than someone who is Rank 5.

If you want to call me "Queen" or "Your Majesty" for my high rank, I will allow it.

[eelgoo]

It is purely based on points on the account.

6 is the highest numerical rank displayed.
There is 7 & higher which just have different icons

[Paul (Fuzzy3000)]

All hail to Her Highness enjoyify - much tugging of forlocks follows...

Perhaps she can replace Meghan... 🙂

[Lucafeelgood]

There was something like this here. @amberkat posted a link and I remember that Amberkat described it very well.....Unfortunately, The link does not work anymore. Perhaps our kitten wakes up.

[queensknight]

The Ranking System thread from a couple of months ago discussed this.

Basically the ranks are based on your current points, so your rank will go up or down as your points do:

Rank 1: 200
Rank 2: 39,063
Rank 3: 78,126
Rank 4: 156,251
Rank 5: 312,501
Rank 6: 625,001

As far as I'm aware, there are no "privileges" associated with higher ranks, just bragging rights. Since you're not going to rise very far in rank on the strength of daily visits and forum posts, I think the idea is to be able to distinguish the folks who share content from the people who are here mainly to download.

[ItsMeNotYou]

@Enjoyify my Queen , say hi to King @Hunter ? 😛

[ADAM]

Spending and giving away points decrease rank, but IMHO rank shouldn't drop because your points go down. You did actually earn them by sharing content. Not that it really matters since you get nothing but a number and an icon. You should get content according to your rank. Rank 1 you wait a week. Rank 6 you get same day access.

I've been here and said this before, so it is what it is. A person that's never shared an item has the same benefits as a person that's posted content here for 3 years. Not that that's a bad thing since this is a share site when it wants to be. But fluff for the sake of fluff is pointless.

[queensknight]

@ethiopia, that's pretty much how it is right now, since rank is not tied in any way to privilege (or "standing"). It's just virtue signalling in its current form, so no one makes a big fuss over it--you don't see people whinging about not having the rank they "deserve" because rank doesn't matter for anything. If higher rank came with perks, though, the forums would be lit up! 🙂

@d0gg0d, I agree that tying rank to current points is not the best measure, but it's an easy one to manage automatically (i.e. without needing admins/mods to do anything), which may have more to do with the forum software's configurability limits.

The forum software wasn't custom-designed for a file-sharing site, it's just generic web forum code being adapted to our purposes. My guess is that the "points" system software wasn't originally intended to be used as a currency the way we do here, and its developers had in mind a system where members earned points for various community-oriented things--actions like posting, daily visits, with maybe bonuses for milestones like months/years of membership, total number of forum posts, etc. that could all be managed without human intervention. They may have provided a means for admins/mods to manually credit users with points for one-time events (e.g. "promotions", "rewards", "bonuses", etc.). I don't think spending points was ever a consideration.

The generic system was probably also designed around the notion that certain site privileges (e.g. access to specific forums or features) could be tied to rank. We don't have any "S00per-S3cr3t Exclusive Keys-to-the-VIP-Washroom" forums like that here (or maybe we do, but I haven't been shown the secret handshake yet!), except maybe ones reserved for admins/mods to discuss site business.

More generally, though, if we ever intend "rank" to be meaningful we need to define what we want it to measure, and what we want it to reward, so that it encourages the kinds of behaviour we want to see more of. As @ethiopia said, people who donate points to support contests should be recognized for that, as should folks who contribute to the operation of the site itself. And as @d0gg0d said, spending points should not cause your rank to drop, since spending points is participating in the site's "economy". The site does not benefit from people hoarding points any more than the world economy benefits from rich people sitting on piles of money.

But even within the current system there are ways we can encourage people. Want to reward forum posters who provide helpful advice? Send them some points as a "Thank You!" gesture. Maybe mention it in a forum post, too, so others can see that that's a normal way to thank people here, a bit like a "Tip Jar", (e.g. "Thanks for your help, 100 pts sent!"). The ability we all have to spend points gives us the flexibility to reward the members we appreciate, and build a more helpful community in the process.

Damn, how did I get to peace, love, and happiness from a rant about ranks? 😉 I'd better go before I get all sappy...

Cheers,
QueensKnight

[ulysses]

@D0gg0d, agreed. Rank = download wait times. This has been suggested several times in the past. Before, we didn't have ranks. But Hunter graciously added that option. But I don't believe that Hunter thinks that way. He's a true believer in the old KAT way of sharing, which is share with joy, be a cheerful sharer, and don't stress about who's sharing and not sharing. That's the vibe I get here.

[Goblyn]

I thought Rank was based on "membership years" or even how many blog posts created or shared content. I suppose pts make sense. So if one donates a gazillion rupies, they'd be able to ascend to godhood? Over 9000?

[ADAM]

@Ulysses

KAT was free.

I used to share for no other reason that the oddly satisfying feeling I got to be the first person to share something but now I've turned into something I dislike.

Points were a fun aspect till they became the bitcoin of Daz sharing. I've no real good alternative other than actually sharing content allows you to download content. But then that really isn't what KAT was about either.

Not sure of what the "fix" is other than I feel something is broken and that it didn't use to be.

I've had less time to worry about Daz anyway, so it probably doesn't matter.

[Frank21]

Ha ha Rank works something like this-

[Author]

Posts