User titles on the new board...lets have some fun

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

OK, lets have some fun with one of the options on the new board. There is a place to put titles relative to the number of posts you make. Right now they are at a default of

0.. to.. 149 posts.. JR.Member
150.. to.. 1500 posts.. Member
1501/+.. posts.. Sr.Member


This is one of the things everyone was asking (when can I not be a Jr.Member?)
Except for Administrator, Moderator and Forum Owner anything can be a title......So lets see what everyone wants and we can go from there...I would say about 5-10 levels is how many we will want.....but it's very open right now....

[Archive]

Posted By: Phil

0-100: Single A
101-200: Double A
201-500: Triple A
501-1000: Rookie
1001-5000: All-Star
5000+: HOF

Just a thought........

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

For levels, we could do baseball related (i.e. "A Player","AA Player",AAA, Majors, HOFer, etc.) or vintage baseball card related (anything from "T206 User" to a "4 Base Hits User"); I'd imagine that last one will need some discussion

ETA - Phil beat me to the first option.

[Archive]

Posted By: Phil

Yeah, I meant to add HOFer.

Maybe in my post, you change Veteran to All-Star
and All-Star to HOFer

I'll edit the first post

[Archive]

Posted By: Anthony S.

5000 edits = A Cycleback

just a thought.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I would like to become a Grand High Exalted Mystic Ruler...like Morris Fink!

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Barry - is that the low or high end of your scale?

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

we could use T206 player values - Abbattichio at the low end to Wagner at the high end or T206 back scarcity - Piedmont on up...

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Matt- haven't figured that out yet. And it's a pop culture reference- can you identify it?

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Google tells me I'm not old enough to know the source of that reference.

[Archive]

Posted By: andy becker

0.. to.. 149 posts.. armpit
150.. to.. 1500 posts.. Post-pubescent armpit
1501/+.. posts.. hairy armpit w/scent

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Hint: it's from the 1955-56 television season.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Barry - I know - that's why I said I'm not old enough - but, one of these days...

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Okay, you got me...but I'm not old enough either (I was three years old in 1955).

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

So would the Group start out as a Penultimate user? Then, since that is really the 2nd to last (by definition) he could work his way up to being the last...

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

Barry,

I was unaware that you were a member of the Brotherhood of Racoons!

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Leon - how about a Benjamin Button approach - you start out as an "expert", and as you post more and more you realize you know less then you thought you did and eventually end up a "novice" or "ignoramus."

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

That's an every day occurrence...We can't go with that...

btw, so far I like Phils post about what they should be....but we could also go for type of hits...single, double, triple, HR, grand slam.....then the cycle....

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Woo-woo...woo-woo!

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

these are user titles, so they should describe a user - I think having the titles "Single User" "Double User" is confusing, although I'm not sure "Piedmont User" and "Uzit User" make much more sense...

ETA - actually I think The Group should be perpetually stuck at "Double User"

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

I would vote for not including this at all--it was one of the things I did not like about the "new board".

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I'm not sure we really do need to be rated based on the number of posts, like the stars you get with ebay. Also, if I'm at say 145 posts and I'm close to the next level, I might do 5 "bumps" just to speed up my promotion. You know, I've got no patience whatsoever.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Barry/Jim - I tend to agree on this - I'm not a fan of rankings based on post count - you could have a Peter Chao come in and rack up the posts and be a "Hall of Famer" and then have some very knowledgeable lurkers who post very rarely (say DoctorDave in the E121 discussion) be "Rookies."
Much more telling to me (but also with it's flaws) is how long someone has been a forum member, and that's already displayed with every post.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

Since I've been accused of being a socialist, I might as well go all the way. Everybody, except for the moderators, should be equal.

(And Lichtman should start "sharing" more of his cards (and I don't mean images!) My mailing address is available on request.)

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

I agree Matt--I don't have a problem with how long someone has been a forum member.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

I would like to be known as the "Thread Killer" since I actually write the last, most irrelevant and least helpful post on a disproportionate number of our threads...or perhaps, I could just be known as "Crickets" for the silence after my poorly conceived and executed jokes.

although I do like the use of penultimate...perhaps I should become "The Amazing Penultimate Something!"
but that sounds more like a Superhero seeking self-aggrandizement.

honestly, though...I don't think the idea of ranking the writers is a great one - promotes activity for activity's sake....unless I'm first, then it's just cool and I'm getting a jacket made up!

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd

0-100: Piedmont
101-200: Polar Bear
201-500: Cycle
501-750: Hindu
751-1000: Carolina Brights
1001-2500: Broadleaf
2500-5000: Uzit
5000+: Ty Cobb




just a thought

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

No Lenox?

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

No Coupon?

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd

I know there are others....perhaps make the levels easier to obtain the other backs


Lenox
Old Mill
Caporal
American Beauty
El Principe
Sovereign
etc

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Underprint?

[Archive]

Posted By: Robert Dixon

I don't see why you guys would not want this feature. We all know that posting more doesn't make you more knowledgable. It's just for fun. I like the A, AA, AAA, etc. idea.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd

0-100: Piedmont
101-200: Sweet Caporal
201-300: Polar Bear
301-400: Sovereign
401-500: Old Mill
501-600: El Principe
601-700: American Beauty
701-800: Cycle
801-900: Hindu
901-1000: Tolstoi
1001-1100: Carolina Brights
1101-1250: Broadleaf
1251-1500: Lenox
1501-2000: Uzit
2001-3000: Drum
3000+: Ty Cobb

[Archive]

Posted By: barry arnold

Please believe me, I am for fun, even though i'm a year older than Barry Sloate.
I have been on a board or two that had individuals who vociferously maintained that those who didn't post frequently were truly not committed to the board and did not want to
experience collegiality or be friends. I have found that competitiveness can
become pathological even on the best of boards.Obviously, I tend to be one who posts less often than some unless the precious topic T206 arises, then I'm a wee bit crazy.

Having offered this caution, I would be happy to jump to the new board and become a rookie or whatever esteemed title I receive. I am just grateful to
have buds who love these beloved cards as much as I do and who continue to teach me. I am also very grateful that there are colleagues willing to create our board and provide the fine leadership.

best,

barry

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob D.

I'm sure there would be debate about whether it would be a low-level ranking or a high one, but I think "Legendary" has a nice ring to it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd

I do agree that members would starting bumping or giving short comments on posts just to increase their number to get to the next level.

[Archive]

Posted By: Greg Ecklund

0-100: Rube
101-200: Bucketfoot
201-500: Hoosier Thunderbolt
501-1000: Duke of Tralee
1001-2000: Flying Dutchman
2001-3000: Iron Horse
3001-4000: Big Six
4001-5000: Sultan of Swat
5001+: Georgia Peach

[Archive]

Posted By: MJ

haha I love this thread - I'm voting for the rare backs as the basis of the titles...as for numbered posts for the backs, I'll leave it up to ya'll.

I like Todd's breakdown of:


0-100: Piedmont
101-200: Sweet Caporal
201-300: Polar Bear
301-400: Sovereign
401-500: Old Mill
501-600: El Principe
601-700: American Beauty
701-800: Cycle
801-900: Hindu
901-1000: Tolstoi
1001-1100: Carolina Brights
1101-1250: Broadleaf
1251-1500: Lenox
1501-2000: Uzit
2001-3000: Drum
3000+: Ty Cobb

[Archive]

Posted By: JDRUM

Well if you have to lose out to someone for the the top spot, I guess Ty Cobb is ok.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

So here is what we can do for this one....easy enough....Since there seems to be some good reasons not to do titles associated with the number of posts I will leave it the way it is right now. So everyone will be a jr.member to start....We will quickly do a formal poll on the new board and see how it goes. I think even a small majority in favor of having the titles would not be enough to have them. In other words if say, 35% didn't want them, then I think that is enough to not do them...however, if 80% want them then I think we go that way. I am fairly neutral on the whole subject and just thought it could be fun. The posts will be counted on the new board anyway though......with or without title....Not a big deal to me...best regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Greg Ecklund

I was pretty close to making Sultan of Swat the top title - if we used player nicknames and that one was top I couldn't really argue.

I much prefer player nicknames to the T206 backs though...it better represents the entire sport that we collect rather than a single set (and frankly a single set that bores me a bit - no offense T206 collectors).

Edited to add:

I really can't understand why instead of having fun with something like titles, people feel the need to raise objections or scenarios why they are a bad idea. Seriously...if someone bumps threads just to raise their post count it will be obvious to everyone and will only expose that poster as a total dork.

[Archive]

Posted By: quan

you can go with post counts correlating to the different eras...

19th century sandlot/cap anson
deadball era/ty cobb
ruthian years/babe ruth
golden age/joe d or ted williams
???60-80s forgotten years/nolan ryan???
steroid age/bonds or selig

the more you post the more disconnect there is to the board's main theme...IRONY! or you can go all benjamin button and work backward era-wise.

[Archive]

Posted By: whitehse

Do people have too much time on their hands to take something that is just plain fun on a message board and turn it into a discussion on the theory of post bumping and how that will be bad for the board. Come on guys...loosen up!

If someone is post bumping should we really care? I believe the new board had a "ignore" feature that you can use to ignore a poster. Lets get over ourselves and look at the new board like a shiney new pickup truck that is meant to be driven and the new features meant to be played with!! Lets get over ourselves and remember we are all talking about a hobby here and the message board that goes with that hobby...not life and death!

Geez!

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

In my opinion, board is silly enough as it is and does not need to be even more so--I think it detracts from being able to have discussions on serious subjects such as the couple that were on the board recently. Count on a number of threads about who is what kind of member and post building comments to increase ones "stature". Net effect will be to keep serious posters away.

Just my opinion.

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

I think if we stay away from terms like "Junior" "Senior" "Expert" "Novice" etc. then there isn't much of a stature issue. I don't see anyone feeling upset that they are a Tolstoi back and not yet a Carolina Brights.

My Trade/Sale Page

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

"So everyone will be a jr.member to start.."

Its bad enough that my wife knows about my junior member status...
does the entire message board have to know too?

[Archive]

Posted By: Greg Ecklund

So having fun on a board devoted to a hobby that is supposed to be fun should be deadly serious at all times? In between posts about grading scams, deceptive auction house practices, and dissertations about contract law I think we sometimes forget why we started collecting in the first place.

If anything Jim it is your post that is not serious...it shows a complete inability to discern what subjects are worthy of serious discussion and which are not. In fact, the only way for your post to be less serious would be if you posted it while wearing a clown wig and a red nose.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Nice one....

And even though I said I am neutral, and to that effect won't cast a formal vote, I think it could be fun. Maybe we can have a poll on what percentage constitutes enough of a percentage to have the titles? And maybe we can have a poll to do a poll.

Jim C. - to me the idea of collecting is to have fun, mainly. Who really cares if a few guys want to make it to Broadleaf 460 instead of Carolina Brights, and oh my gosh, have a thread about? I think we might have to close the board down for good if that happens. Or if they want to go from double AA to triple AAA? It's freaking baseball cards we are collecting not embryonic research. But most importantly you can have your opinion and cast your vote.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anthony S.

When a new user figures out how to post their first message on the new board, we could say they "Lost their Crand-inity."

[Archive]

Posted By: Greg Ecklund

If we use the T206 back designations as titles I would propose that Polar Bears not be allowed to vote

I'm all for animal rights, but I would draw the line at suffrage