I use the term Rank very loosely, and only because that is the mechanism the drives the system. I personally do not favour or consider a member with more posts over another with less, but I do like to think that a member is credited for the contributions made to the community, but that's just my opinion.labbie wrote:I don't care for ranking with choir-related terms. Firstly, they might be a bit confusing if some of us like myself have actually been choir directors in real life, and don't "rank" at that level according to the system. Secondly, and most importantly, many of us are adults, and I think to adopt designations like that would be almost taking us back to where we started from with the old system, which I did find to be rather childish. If we decide to keep a ranking system, I'd suggest staying with the one we are currently using. If we are going to keep a ranking system, then I like the current rankings, i.e., silver, gold, but adding diamond or platinum would satisfy the more frequent posters, in keeping with the theme of precious metals. On the other hand, do we even need rankings? I think a count of postings is enough. I don't feel the need to be rewarded for posting. I enjoy reading and responding to the discussions, and don't feel that I need to be recognized for the frequency of posts to the forum.
Reading back through some of the comments, the system is very unimportant anyway, so maybe we should just keep is basic or remove altogether.
Shall we start a poll on this and all vote?