Change g/a forum names and sync to %

[Tru_ninja]

Other than that, I liked the rest of your post.

Thanks,
-Dan

Really??? So you like the idea where we see our progress again?
Cuz i really want that back lol if it is cool that is.

[thedeh]

Getting a bit off topic but the suggestion has been made here... Programming section and VIP options I like it because it would also give vip's a clear indication of when they are able to work in the intro section.

[Tru_ninja]

Dint mean to be off topic the main selling point of it was so VIP could not cover up "being new or inactive" That way those giving invites can quickly see the users that are at 20% but have VIP covering it. The VIP issue was brought up in the beginning and i thought it was part of the topic. again i thought it was on topic :)

but my main reason is cuz im vein and like to achieve lol.

Edit: and thanx for the link to the other topic. i liked it.

[qwerty]

i think this is a great idea i like the higher requirements for the section ga , because what is the purpose of having two different sections (low and mid) if you can get to the mid level section immediately...

ps: great link of the thread poll you posted, i somehow missed that poll and after i have voted and leaved a comment there i saw that the last post was made half year ago :001_tongue:

[thedeh]

Exactly how I see it... I also think it will promote more forum activity due to people trying to earn the requirements for entry into the higher forums & the better invites, which will be great for the site. The higher requirements and the allocation of where invites can be posted go hand in hand though, with SCC and the likes only being able to be posted in trusted most people will want to get in desperately and will go much further to meet the requirements, but as people can post them in mid level, most people don't even bother to get into trusted.

[JustJenna]

The way I see it - it's my invite, I can post it where I want. If I want to give my SCC or BitMe invites in the low level section to a brand new midget that's my prerogative. It's my invite - no one should tell me who I can and cannot give it to. I personally do not like the idea of organizing invites according to "levels" - all that does is encourage traders.

Also, Dan, you are wrong that most people don't bother trying to make it into trusted. I'd like to know where you collected your data to make that claim. A major reason I ban every single day is spamming - people desperate to increase their post count and make it to the trusted section. Everyone wants to know what's behind that door.

[thedeh]

The way I see it - it's my invite, I can post it where I want. If I want to give my SCC or BitMe invites in the low level section to a brand new midget that's my prerogative. It's my invite - no one should tell me who I can and cannot give it to. I personally do not like the idea of organizing invites according to "levels" - all that does is encourage traders.

That's fair enough and I understand that point of view, but by doing this it would:
1. Give much more of an organized feel to the forums and a clear guideline for the necessary contributions required for better invites.
2. It would help our perception in the eyes of trackers as we will be requiring far more stringent levels of say "trustworthiness" rather than handing out their invites like candy and we might see less bans and more recruitment here.
3. Also, it protects the person who invited you, you could give away a BCG referal in trusted, then he can turn around and give one away in low to some nub who ends up getting you both banned due to them cheating or finding out you were from T-I. This way it would protect whole invite trees.
4. I don't like the idea of tracker levels as much as you but it would be far better for the forum as a whole IMO. Plus if we were to change the G/a section names to suit the levels of progression such as 33%, 55%, etc, it would lessen the emphasis on trading.

Also, Dan, you are wrong that most people don't bother trying to make it into trusted. I'd like to know where you collected your data to make that claim. A major reason I ban every single day is spamming - people desperate to increase their post count and make it to the trusted section. Everyone wants to know what's behind that door.

If you browse through the members list you will see what I am getting at. I am just noticing the amount of people who get to 20+ posts, get what they want, then never come back. At least with these new requirements we would require more of a contribution to the community rather than easy access to great invites for 20 spam posts. One of my pet hates is spam, I hate it and at T-I we have a VERY lax stance on spam compared with most forums I've been on, even tracker forums sometimes. I would be the first to congratulate you on your effort for banning spammers but browsing the ban list I see very few banned for spam... except maybe a couple from the intro section.

Anyways, we have just touched on my last post at the moment but I would love to hear your opinion on the entire suggestion. :001_smile:

[CTT]

Personally, I do not judge on the number of posts from a member. It's the quality of what they post that counts. IMHO, twenty posts is a fairly decent amount of posts provided that the contents are non-spam. When I first joined the board a week or two ago. I managed to contribute so that the limits are lifted and it was not easy to be honest to get 20 helpful posts.

Another concerned fact which might be a little off topic is that the number of thread spam which makes the posts in that thread innocently become spams. Threads in General Discussion like "Do you like taking photo?", "Have you aver been in love?" ... are spam target, IMO. I'd used to post in one or two such threads before I realized how pointless/non-contributory they are.