There needs to be more than one person that has to handle this, Kirk is probably one of the very few who take care of signatures, because he's one of the few active JA's. If we can't edit signatures, there should be more active people who can.Ketchup_Bomb wrote:Kirk usually gets to sigs pretty quick once they have been reported.
New ranks!
Well, personally I'd be fine with that.Excal wrote:This doesn't have anything to do with running the site... its about the rank system. And I'd just go back to the original rank system... and give moderators the power to remove sigs and edit profiles. Ofcourse there'd be a small checks and balances system in place just to make sure people don't abuse their power... but then again, it's not like you're actually going to take any of my suggestions... so I'll stop now.Kirk wrote:How would you run the site? You seem to have plenty of ideas on how it should be done but all you do is say we do it wrong. Installing new mods on is not an example.
As for the rank change, it was kind of a test to see how people liked it, if it went through good we'd keep it, but if not we'd simply revert to the previous versions.
What was the original rank system, Moderators and Admins? Meh I've been doing some thinking and it seems like we're making things way too complicated nowadays. It's probably better to have those two ranks and have the rules relaxed a bit more. Personally I believe a lot of rules are kind of rediculous (including sigs...) and shouldn't be attacked more than they should be (I mean seriously, people getting banned because their sig was 78KB instead of 75KB a few times?) I like the userforums rules on sigs... just keep it at an appropriate level. Most of the time people followed that pretty well and there weren't really any problems at all. Here though, now... it's crazy.
The only reason I wouldn't want user ranks (such as the ones on the users forum, grunt, jackal, etc) is that people may post things just to get their postcount up. However, it doens't seem like that's an issue on the users forum, and I'd support the addition of them here...
GTAF, that's why they're set really high, maybe in an exponential format... (like 1k posts, 2k posts, 4k posts, 8k, 16k, etc). This is where I think we should have the Private/Captain/Lieutenant/Captain stuff, if we don't use the Grunt/Jackal/Hunter system. The staff ranks should be what they were before, since the users here obviously don't want the current ones. That's what we're here for... to help the users, not ourselves.. :/
meh.
GTAF, that's why they're set really high, maybe in an exponential format... (like 1k posts, 2k posts, 4k posts, 8k, 16k, etc). This is where I think we should have the Private/Captain/Lieutenant/Captain stuff, if we don't use the Grunt/Jackal/Hunter system. The staff ranks should be what they were before, since the users here obviously don't want the current ones. That's what we're here for... to help the users, not ourselves.. :/
meh.
Very true. I agree with Kirk, put the old ranks back.Kirk wrote:The onlyThe staff ranks should be what they were before, since the users here obviously don't want the current ones. That's what we're here for... to help the users, not ourselves.. :/
meh.
And i think the addition of user ranks is a great idea.
![[x]](http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/3713/fearck7.jpg){kind=link}
![[x]](http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/8220/rb6vzo3.jpg){kind=link}
![[x]](http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/7088/bustawolfrb3.jpg){kind=link}
That would require someone manually give every single person a rank, based on what they do, because it is an opinion. It's far too much effort for something as simple as text under your name. Emblems are given as rewards, there isn't a need for titles.Sarb wrote:No, I don't mean the +rep thing, I mean that users who are helpful or whatever have a ank under their name like grunt, hunter, etc. So basically the same rank idea as the users forum but ranks aren't given out for total posts. The ranks should also have different names then the users forum.