Titles based on join dates? You have to be kidding me. Why take out join dates from in forum viewable profiles, always talk about combating elitism, then give titles like heroic member, and legendary member? That is the dumbest most selfcontradicting thing I've ever seen. I am deeply dissappointed in any system that promotes elitism, but even more so in one that promotes elitism, based on time, not any type of contribution. Its simply stupid to me to see someone who has just gotten off a ban, and yet they are supposed to be "heroic." I find this to be really stupid.
That being said, I like the report as spam option, and I hope it isnt abused, or used in a pointless manner.
[Edited on 12.10.2007 12:27 PM PST]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Flame Killa 2PC [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Achronos No. Even the mods can't see it. Although for me, the raw number appears underneath the unleash ninjas button. However, it is likely that more positive reinforcement will be tied to this rating eventually. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] PKF_647 Could we please have a way to know where we stand on the "Trust Scale" other than the custom titles?[/quote][/quote] Thats because there is no [i]truth scale[/i]. My friend who's only post like SIX times and has made only like 3 topics that no one replied to, and he is a heroic member! And he has been around for 2 years, that proves its based on time.[/quote] Proves? Not really, only if you think that it is one way or the other. But there are so many more variables that could have/add values into the trust system. Use your imagination. Is your friend in any groups? How about founding any? No warnings or bans? How about participating in threads that tend to get locked? Do they have a linked gamertag? What about their Halo 2/3 playing abilities? Ever hit by the banhammer? How about messages from the Soul? Or credit for exploring aspects of this site? Or replies in threads for news articles? Or submitted avatars? PM's with employees, moderators or other members with high trust? Or Halo 3 content that gets a certain number of hits or downloads.... seriously, there are a lot of potential sources that could feed into this system. Having a long standing account with no recent negative marks is just one.... and not one that could be made overnight. But it could be lost if he did start feeding the system with current negatives. I can think of plenty of things that could either be considered positive or negative in relation to a trust system. Each of them are speculation. Your proposal that it is only one thing is speculation as well. And one that has been stated to not be the only factor in a trust determination by the man who sees the system work. I don't see how clean long term account is a bad thing to reward. If the reward is abused, the ability to lose trust is quick and easy to demonstrate. You think that your friend's account would keep that status if he abused the rules? You're welcome to repeat your speculation, you're welcome to believe it. But I am neither inclined nor obligated to agree with your conclusion.