The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I refer to the mysterious system of Notables, Regulars and Newbies. Let me explain myself: the system in place here means people have something to aim for and to stick around for. I myself came because I saw GAD advertised in SR club magazine but found the forums to be informative and amusing, which is why I'm going to stick around. However, the point of this topic; is this system bad or good? You see in the last few days I have seen a number of arguments over winning GAD or advancing rank. If this happens often then surely this is a bad thing? Is this system more disruptive than good? Or What does everyone think?
(P.S. I have nothing against this system so don't start telling me to shut my yapper and such.)
(P.S. I have nothing against this system so don't start telling me to shut my yapper and such.)
Obviously you need higher ranks otherwise the forums would fall apart. (Some of you think they already are, maybe your right but I haven't been here long so I wouldn't know.)
Grix Thraves wrote:
As for the system, I'm not sure. Being a notable is irritating
> somedays, and nice others. It's a great thing to work towards, but once you're
> there, it's a bit... dull. And you get loads of regulars accusing you of
> thinking you're above everyone else too, which isn't that nice. :0)
Yep, very true.
"Oh, oh, oh, you all think you're great!"
"Well, maybe..."
"u fink ur bettr than us just cos u a notaeble"
"No, not really..."
"You're all really arrogant, and if a newbie ever posts something you bash it just because you're a Notable!"
"I'll bash your head in a minute, twonk."
Okay, so it's not really like that.
I'd never have the guts to say that last bit.
As for the system, I'm not sure. Being a notable is irritating
> somedays, and nice others. It's a great thing to work towards, but once you're
> there, it's a bit... dull. And you get loads of regulars accusing you of
> thinking you're above everyone else too, which isn't that nice. :0)
Yep, very true.
"Oh, oh, oh, you all think you're great!"
"Well, maybe..."
"u fink ur bettr than us just cos u a notaeble"
"No, not really..."
"You're all really arrogant, and if a newbie ever posts something you bash it just because you're a Notable!"
"I'll bash your head in a minute, twonk."
Okay, so it's not really like that.
I'd never have the guts to say that last bit.
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
There would be no limit to how many stars would be awarded a day- some days there would be lots, others there would be none.
The point is to rate people by their topics, not how many posts they've made, and to offer more than just GADs in reward for good topics.
- - -
I don't think that would really be fair on people like me, as there's no way they could fit 300 stars next to my name ;-)
There would be no limit to how many stars would be awarded a day- some days there would be lots, others there would be none.
The point is to rate people by their topics, not how many posts they've made, and to offer more than just GADs in reward for good topics.
- - -
I don't think that would really be fair on people like me, as there's no way they could fit 300 stars next to my name ;-)
I have lobbied, for a long time, to have some kind of "star" rating system.
Everyone starts on 3 stars say. If you swear, spam etc you get a star knocked off in warning (or a ban if it's really bad). If you post something really good you get a new star. There would be no limit to how many stars would be awarded a day- some days there would be lots, others there would be none.
The point is to rate people by their topics, not how many posts they've made, and to offer more than just GADs in reward for good topics.
Everyone starts on 3 stars say. If you swear, spam etc you get a star knocked off in warning (or a ban if it's really bad). If you post something really good you get a new star. There would be no limit to how many stars would be awarded a day- some days there would be lots, others there would be none.
The point is to rate people by their topics, not how many posts they've made, and to offer more than just GADs in reward for good topics.
I think the system is great, but i think there should be more ranks, something like:
JAT-->Occasional-->Regular-->Above average-->Note worthy--> Notable.
Not great but you get the idea!
JAT-->Occasional-->Regular-->Above average-->Note worthy--> Notable.
Not great but you get the idea!
Yeah, good luck winning a game, really. Just don't write stuff just because you think that you will win with it, and you'll do fine. :0) Just write down what you think.
As for the system, I'm not sure. Being a notable is irritating somedays, and nice others. It's a great thing to work towards, but once you're there, it's a bit... dull. And you get loads of regulars accusing you of thinking you're above everyone else too, which isn't that nice. :0)
Why the hell do people fear us because we can spell, I'll never know.
Ooh, and you just reminded me of something I thought of last night.
(To the customer service forum!)
As for the system, I'm not sure. Being a notable is irritating somedays, and nice others. It's a great thing to work towards, but once you're there, it's a bit... dull. And you get loads of regulars accusing you of thinking you're above everyone else too, which isn't that nice. :0)
Why the hell do people fear us because we can spell, I'll never know.
Ooh, and you just reminded me of something I thought of last night.
(To the customer service forum!)
It seems like a good system to me and no I'm not creeping. I often write in the newsgroups about the very same issues with no chance of winning anything at all. So now I write a few messages here not expecting to win but knowing that it is a small possibility.
As always there are people that aren't particulary well adjusted and get angry over minor things and no doubt get jealous if someone else gets a free game when they thought their input was better. Realistically though theres no way they can predict what the SR overseers will take interest in and what they consider a good posting. I might write something which I think is brilliant but it could be that postings containing similar points had already been posted.
Anyway best of luck winning a game :-)
As always there are people that aren't particulary well adjusted and get angry over minor things and no doubt get jealous if someone else gets a free game when they thought their input was better. Realistically though theres no way they can predict what the SR overseers will take interest in and what they consider a good posting. I might write something which I think is brilliant but it could be that postings containing similar points had already been posted.
Anyway best of luck winning a game :-)
I refer to the mysterious system of Notables, Regulars and Newbies. Let me explain myself: the system in place here means people have something to aim for and to stick around for. I myself came because I saw GAD advertised in SR club magazine but found the forums to be informative and amusing, which is why I'm going to stick around. However, the point of this topic; is this system bad or good? You see in the last few days I have seen a number of arguments over winning GAD or advancing rank. If this happens often then surely this is a bad thing? Is this system more disruptive than good? Or What does everyone think?
(P.S. I have nothing against this system so don't start telling me to shut my yapper and such.)
(P.S. I have nothing against this system so don't start telling me to shut my yapper and such.)