Well, I can assure you Duardo isn't baised in the least.. there was a "Do/Did you pee in the shower?" Flood thread, and after it became a Hot Topic he banned everyone who posted in it, and there was a legendary member or two in there along with a Mythic member. This included me, being Heroic, along with a few others. Why? Because he considered it spam. If that's what he considers spam, I have no idea what he calls half the crap in the Halo 3 forum. Back on topic.. The majority of Mods are baised I think, and it's understandable. People who clearly know the rules can band them a little.. they've earned their rights. I'd be biased too if I had the priveledge.

I'v been banned before, once I think... ever since that very small ban I have not been able to achieve mythic... and it was ages ago... However... should I ever gain that blue title bar, I would certainly hope that I am not judged either way for it, if I post something stupid and against the rules, I should expect to get banned for it, just like any other member. (darn long sentence eh?) I don't expect to be treated better or given "passes" because of my title bar... like one thread I saw get nuked about a week ago... a noble legendary member with a equally stupid reply... I believe it was something along the lines of "wat" was one of only 3 people in the some 6 page long thread, not blacklisted. The other 2 people had decent replies which tried to put some value into the thread, so I could see why they got the pass on the nuke... but the Nobel legendary member should have been vaporized... You hear me mods? I expect no special treatment, neither should anyone here with a color'd bar. If I do something stupid, please, make an example of me.

I've been seeing Mythic Members and Legendary Members post either off-topic posts, or just total spam, and nothing has happened to them yet. Then, when I see a Member or Heroic Member (including all the prefix titles too) post an off-topic post, they would get banned right away. I think it's just a past history that basic "Members" having a better chance at getting banned than "Mythic/Legendary/Heroic Members" do from past-history. I'm not sure if that is true though...

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Pezz It comes down to this - is removing this person beneficial to the community? If someone posts amazing threads 90% of the time, then [b]trolls[/b] ....[/quote] That's all I would need sorry, even if they are mythic, if they're being humourous, then maybe I'd let em off the hook, but I don't think there should be room for trolls here.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Achronos The process of trying to understand isn't fun, because there isn't any way you can understand without additional input.[/quote] Input! Input! Need Moar Input! [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbkbU32X5dI[/url] On Topic: What it comes down to in my mind is mutual respect. People with experience & consistent good behavior inherently earn a little respect. Not that it makes a person immune to getting whipped for bad behavior, but are allowed some leniency over minor infractions. Especially if said persons history doesn't show re-occurrences. I may not be Mythic, but I've been around for awhile and am acquainted with a [i]few[/i] people around here. Does that mean I expect to be given any quarter, heck no. I know darn well if I even dip my toe into the deep end I'll end up with cement shoes. It's no different than any of the forums that I have moderated in the past and will in the future. I have always given a bit of leniency to regular behaved members, but if they cross the line they get the same treatment anyone else would.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] BobBQ Show me a Fabled Mythic Exalted Legendary Member who posts meatspin or goatse - I guarantee you won't see him again.[/quote] Well yeah, certain offenses are more bannable than others, but what if you saw a Mythic member derail a thread and spam, and then later on see a regular member derail a thread and continue to spam? What I'm [b]guessing[/b] is that the regular member will at least recieve a warning and the Mythic [b]probably[/b] won't get anything. [Edited on 04.03.2009 2:40 PM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] A Celtic Tiger I like the title bar system as it is. Unlike Xbox.com's Community User Level, which is largely post-count based, Bungie.net's system is based on activity, (not neccesarily post-count,) and a no-doubt very cleve algorithm that does not just works, it works best.[/quote] *Disagrees* I disagree because when a user make [u]ONE[/u] mistake they get all of their trust basically stripped from them.

[i]Holy crap.[/i]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] x Foman123 x I understand where you're coming from, but hopefully if I can correct some of your line of thinking, your outrage will be a little bit lessened.[/quote] First off, thanks for taking the time to respond with a thoughtful post. Secondly, apologies if I came off as such, but I was not "outraged" when I posted my above response. If anything, I conveyed my strong feelings on the topic in a way that could, I see now, be identified as blind anger or outrage. [quote]I am not saying that users with just a "Member" title are untrustworthy. Hell, some of the users I trust the [i]most[/i] here have a "Member" title. What I'm saying, however, is that a member who is Legendary or Mythic has a [i]proven[/i] track record of relatively active forum posting combined with posting within the rules. In general (and with some admitted exceptions), these members know the rules and try to abide by them. If they make a misstep and I tell them about it, they are likely to correct it. I have to disagree that "most" users would "act like Mythics given the chance." This is not cynicism -- I know that many members hope to achieve a higher title. I also know that a huge majority of the users here are good-natured, nice people who just want to come and talk about their favorite video game or gaming community for awhile. But long experience and observation have taught that [i]most[/i] members post by trial-and-error. In other words, they post what and where they feel like it, and if they get warned/banned for it, THAT is when they know not to do it again. In some cases, they post what and where they feel like it and if they get banned for it they simply wait out the ban and then do it again. This description fits the vast, vast majority of users of these forums, and I would wager that not only have these users not read the forum rules, ToU, and CoC, they do not even know where to find them.[/quote] In that case, would you extend the same courtesies to the Members you know and trust as you would to Mythics? If so, it is clearly a matter of knowing a user more so than simply recognizing any status. Continuing this line of thought, if this is the case, why not try to get to know more average users? I realize such a goal is pretty much impossible given the sheer number of users on B.net (with more joining every day), so I won't be as naive as to expect you and the rest of the site administrators and moderators to do so. What I mean to say by such a statement, however, is that trust is developed through knowledge of an individual more so than a specific title. I agree with you that the manner in which someone posts is indicative of their character, especially in light of an existent forum history of poor or sub-standard behavior, but I feel the users who engage in such activity can be easily identified and quickly dealt with. As I'm sure you inferred from my prior post, I feel that any punishment meted out should be done on equal terms and be applicable to every member who violates a given rule. This way it is ensured the rules are never broken, regardless of status or whether or not more experienced users know they can get away with a slight infraction. After all, the rules are not to be broken or bent, correct? If so, why allow some members to bend them a little while prohibiting others from doing so? I don't wish a stricter enforcement of the rules and ToU upon one user demographic or another, I simply think that they need to be enforced equally and fairly throughout, regardless of status. Why reward some users for following the rules with the ability to ignore them sometimes? [quote]I know that you're optimistic about the nature of most users of these forums, but please believe me when I say that this is the reality. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, either -- the vast majority of users have no stake in the forums and simply want to ask a quick question, have a one-off discussion about Halo or Matchmaking, or get caught up on the latest news. Nothing wrong with that, and for a user like that, there's really no reason to read the rules or post in any manner other than trial-and-error. But this kind of posting on a mass scale by thousands of users is not good for the forums as a whole, which is why the admins and moderators generally do what they can to discourage such trial-and-error posting.[/quote] Optimistic? You know what, you are right. I agree that I feel most people are good natured and don't do things out of spite. Maybe that is a wrong belief to hold in an environment as anonymous as the internet, but the atmosphere engendered by the B.net community (at least in my opinion based off of my experience here) typically disdains rude and spiteful behavior. Such posters are called out, even if the the troll is fed in the process, and the rules are enforced. As for the matter of "trial-and-error" posting as you call it, if the question is innocent enough, why does it matter what you do to the poster? If many are one-time posters, does banning them actually teach them anything? I'd guess that it doesn't. Having had their question answered, and seeing that they have been banned or blacklisted (if they even bothered to check back and see that they were), the one-off poster will never return. If they do somewhere down the line, what's to stop them from making another account and posting a question to a random forum once more? I agree that the punishments dolled out on B.net can serve as learning tools, but only for the users dedicated enough to stick around and suffer through them. If a user continues to engage in disruptive behavior further punishments will either correct the situation or remove them from the community. I feel that one point that needs to be given some attention is the average age of the typical B.net user. I'd easily believe anyone who tells me the average user age trends towards 15-18 (and under) more so than one that trends towards 20+. Not to attack the younger age groups, especially since I have met, talked, and played games with several mature younger gamers, but it is my opinion that the younger a user is the more likely the incidence of rules violation. That is not to say that older users don't engage is foolish behavior, but the incidence of it is lessened the older a member. I realize that this is a point that would be hard to address in any meaningful sense, and certainly don't advocate age-gating the site or singling out someone simply because they seem "young". What I do feel needs to be done is that this point simply be addressed for whatever value it has and then considered when discussing rules, punishments, and member treatment. [quote]Most Legendary and Mythic members, on the other hand, have generally learned the rules either by keen observation over several YEARS on these forums or by actually reading the rules themselves. Before they even hit the "submit" button, they usually have a very good idea whether their post is within the rules or not. They are not posting by trial-and-error. But even then, they can make mistakes. That is where a little leeway comes in. I agree that great communities require a sense of respect and equality, but I don't think that this is inconsistent with that. Saying that a community has a "sense of equality" simply means that no discrimination occurs [i]for arbitrary reasons[/i]. Here, it is no different. All members are treated equally based on their trust rating and history on the forums. There is no arbitrary discrimination, but there is different treatment for members who have proven that they are upstanding and active community members. It sounds absolutely insane to say that a member with 15 prior bans for posting off-topic should receive the same ban for posting off-topic yet again as a Mythic Member who has been here for five years and slips up and accidentally posts in the wrong forum. I do not see how giving a bit of leeway to Legendary and Mythic members (or any member with a trust rating that indicates that they are both active and rule abiding) is either absurd or "favoritism" in the sense that you mean it.[/quote] I still fell that a good-natured, decent member who follows the rules, yet makes mistakes at the same frequency as a Mythic Member, should be treated no differently from a higher status member. Such a member may not be known to you, but for one posting out of what may have been a relatively long time on B.net, that user would face a stiff penalty all due to the fact that their title bar isn't blue or even light gray. I do agree with you that a user with a prior history of bans and bad behavior should be treated differently, but that difference in treatment stems not from member status but from their own proven history on the forums. That all said, where do I feel the B.net community stands? For the most part, it is great and runs smoothly. I do believe that more tolerance, or equal tolerance, needs to be extended to all members. Still these are my opinions and others may think differently. Regardless, I do urge everyone here to think of each other in equal terms and for those in moderating or administrating roles to extend a degree of equality in all matters needing them. I'm glad to see that some believe that a community does exist here, and I for one want to see that community to continue to grow and do so in the right direction. Am I wrong for wanting such?

The Mythic/Legendary/Heroic/Member idea was pretty bad, in my opinion. All of the threads I see in here now related to one's "status." No one cares about anything else now :/ At least that's how I feel.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Old Papa Rich Isn't the elitism argument a little over-blown? I am speaking only from my limited experience, but I have yet to see [i]anyone[/i] with a title act differently because of it. The complaiunts of elitism seem more like the come from the people withyout titles. I guess that's where they would come from. But, since your trust rating is entirely, if amiguously, in your own control, There is really no cause for cries of "special treatment."[/quote] I agree. People who constantly cry elitism come off as pansies who like to whine because they feel certain people get treated different, or better than them. They just can't stand someone getting treated different, or better, because it makes them feel inferior. So they cry elitism to make themselves feel better. There's cliques everywhere. People need to get over it and live with it.

Circular post is circular. [i]Swish[/i]. [Edited on 04.03.2009 1:31 PM PDT]

I like the title bar system as it is. Unlike Xbox.com's Community User Level, which is largely post-count based, Bungie.net's system is based on activity, (not neccesarily post-count,) and a no-doubt very cleve algorithm that does not just works, it works best.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Geegs30 I don't know about the Mythic members, but the normals like me, yeah we get banned/warned pretty often :( I like to try to be good, sometimes it just doesn't work out. And I hate myself for it[/quote] Hey! I havn't been banned in over a month!

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Achronos The trust rating already includes elements of game participation. I'm talking about making titles less about rankings and more about just labels. Right now, there is a hierarchy. What if there wasn't really a hierarchy. What if they were just labels that you got? The current idea that I fancy is that they'd be a user setting - there would be a set of titles that you can earn for various things, and then you'd go to your My Settings page and select which one you want to use. The prefix would still be done in the same way it is now, to differentiate a bit more. Not sure what I'd do about the bar colors, maybe they'd be earned too. You guys think of the forum titles as a ranking system, but that's not how I see their purpose. I see it more for differentiating people on the forums, just like avatars. Nothing really planned here, just thinking out loud.[/quote] I think it would be interesting if you could "pick" you title or w/e it would be. I guess it would sorta like the awards on Roosterteeth.com, except that you would be able to use them.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Achronos More agreeing with you in a circular kind of way, then moving the topic back to an explanation of why I think what I do about titles (making them "fun" should be the goal). [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Reptilian Rob That was the jest of what I was trying to convey, perhaps you misread my previous post. Or perhaps you are only proving my point. I'll reply in depth later. [/quote][/quote] I also don't think a member should be able to see another members or even their own "Trust Rating". It holds no relevancy to me wether or not the people in this thread have built up a trust or not, since I'm not a moderator. It should only be visible to the moderation team since they are the only ones it actually pertains to. I just think it's unfair to judge a person souly based on how often they post and their ban history. I know most of the Septagonians in here will stand up and say "But hey wait a minute, I only judge a person on what their post contains because I'm smart and trendy(lol)" but the sad fact of the matter is they are ranks with promotions to earn and all the negative effects they bring along.

I can't know and wouldn't want to guess what goes through someone else's mind. I can tell you what I think. If someone makes a rule violating post, I see it. I don't see their member name, or their member title. I respond based on what is in the post, not the member's name, not their history, not their title, but what they wrote. I've banned employees, and was told "I would have banned them too". What many might miss out of the equation is that a member with a well-vested title who breaks a rule and is called on it, tends to lose that title. Combine that with the fact that people with harder to attain titles tend to know the rules, the limits, and how to go "just so far" and not cross the established line and you may examples that may lead to a favoritism conclusion. But if you ask me, such a conclusion is misguided. It's understandable, but IMO it is not so. It's all perception, and perception is subjective. Anyone is welcome to their reality and interpretation of things. I've been called a jerk, an ass, powerhungry, powermad, too mean, too lenient, too silly, too serious, and am constantly told that I need to get a life (interesting that someone on the Internet is able to look and determine that I don't have one that meets their approval, but that is the way of things). If you ask me, there is no such thing as a "highly ranked member". At least there isn't for me. If someone wants to equate the trust system (which I pay as much attention to as I do the weather in Bangkok) to a "rank system", they are welcome to. But I surely don't.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Reptilian Rob [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Achronos What I hate is posts about elitism. Sorry, but "elitism" is, to me, an excuse used to not do something. [/quote] That was the jest of what I was trying to convey, perhaps you misread my previous post. Or perhaps you are only proving my point. I'll reply in depth later. [/quote] My thoughts exactly.