Change g/a forum names and sync to %

**thedeh** · 11-18-2009

Well I think we agree that the g/a system atm needs to be changed, we've had numerous polls such as "a week to access mid level" and were overwhelmingly in favor and the people voted against are mostly banned now. Reading a post by nurowiz he had some great ideas, so I though Id try and expand on them and make a suggestion out of it.

__________________________________________________ __________________________

How about changing the names of the giveaway section forums and syncing them to the userclasses, such as:

Low level => 10% Giveaways.
Mid level => 33% Giveaways.
Trusted => 55% Giveaways.

That way it gets rid of the trader type analogy of having different "levels" of trackers and also deals with the issue of changing mid level to have more suited requirements for entry and ties everything up in a simple way.

Also, I'm not sure but we could make it that people who are already 33% or 55%, etc are not demoted, only have this apply for new users. (similar to trackers when they up the requirements for promotion) what do you guys think?
__________________________________________________ __________________________

I'd also like to see higher requirements for the 10%, 33% and 55% levels.

10% = 20 posts, that would ensure forum activity plus make sure of a grace period for brand new people to make sure they are actually able to contribute to the site as good members rather than having them break rules and get banned after already receiving invites.

33% = 50 posts, 20 rep, 2 weeks at the site. I think this is more in line with the current quality of invites we have to offer in the mid level section, if people want the invites then they have to contribute to the site. This would force a higher standard of posts from all the newbies and keep them coming back trying to earn there way up.

55% = 100 posts, 50 rep, 6 weeks at the site. This would almost guarantee we caught bad users before the made it to 55% and banned them. Plus, achieving the requirements once isn't a big deal, but for the users who are banned all the time, that means they only get one chance every 6 weeks/50 reps. Almost ensuring trustful users and users who definitely do not want to get banned as they know how hard their status is to get back.

There is a plethora of torrent invite sites available these days, what kept me coming back to T-I in the beginning before I knew the community here was the fact that I had not yet attained access to the higher sections, I think these new requirements would ensure more activity due to that same principle.
__________________________________________________ __________________________

I would also like to see trackers be ranked into 55%, 33%, 10%.

eg.
SCC, FTN, BCG, etc, in 55%.
TL, ScL, SciHD, etc, in 33%
PTP, IPT, PTM, etc, in 10%.

(We could have a committee or some kind of vote to get these lists started (Thanks AfterMidnight) and we could have a sticky to suggest tracker position changes.)

This would ensure that people who are requesting trusted invites are actually trusted and stop people from just placing them in lower sections for the extra rep/thanks.
__________________________________________________ __________________________

These suggestions fix things in the eyes of trackers as we are no longer using trader terminology and also addresses the issue of giving away good invites too easily, back when the board first implemented giveaway requirements very few good trackers were given out there, now there is SCC, GFT, BCG and even FTN given away here and it is time for an update to the system.

The purpose is to give a set of requirements that must be earned before you may even apply for tracker that requires a great deal of trust. This way it will limit the risk of bad members/traders/cheaters getting into the good sites and put less risk on invite trees and also look better in the eyes of tracker admins as T-I will no longer be the place where "easy invites" are handed out and bad users thrive. Right now a user can be banned, start a new account, get repped, spam to 20 posts, apply for GFT and get it, all in the matter of a couple of days. This would severely limit that possibility.

By having this system it would require much more and better forum activity from the users here and would help this site to thrive. Cheaters would require months per ban before receiving excellent invites again and T-I would become less of a cheaters paradise and more a place where trackers want to recruit people.
__________________________________________________ __________________________

I am open to every change/opinion guys and understand this is a work in progress, suggestions would be much appreciated, lets try and make this a community effort.

**flutrose** · 11-19-2009

I fully support anything that gets rid of trading references, which includes tracker "levels." But one question: We would then put our GA's in whatever userclass we wanted to target, regardless of the tracker level? For example, I could make a GA for an ScT invite in the 10% section if I so desired?

**AfterMidnight** · 11-19-2009

Dan, this is an excellent idea that should address many of the suggestions I've seen recently. The part about making TI more appealing to trackers hit especially close to home.

As to flutrose's concern, perhaps it is time we changed how we rate trackers. I know this would be a lot of work for someone, but what if we formed a committee? It could be 3 or 5 members "in the know" about trackers. The committee could decide the level of the tracker based on availability, content, etc. Instead of high-level trackers we could have level 3 trackers, mid-level as level 2, etc.

Edit: Need to read more carefully. Basically, combine Dan's ideas for syncing to the userclass and my idea for the committee and you'll get what I'm trying to say.

**thedeh** · 11-20-2009

Actually I quite like your committee idea.

**thedeh** · 12-01-2009

Bout time for a bump.

Also, in thinking, I'm all for raising the current requirements for promotion. I think high level should be something you acquire over a period of months and mid level something attainable after a month. More like the requirements for promotion at TPS. That would then also promote better forum activity and make it much harder for people making dupe accounts to get good invites.

**Morganti** · 12-01-2009

I'm pretty sure that rerating trackers, regardless of how it would be done, does not in fact get away from the old practice of rating trackers and simply relabels the tiers.

Furthermore, while it might be okay to have a level that requires a person several months and dozens of giveaways to achieve, it's not okay to force people to give away certain tracker invites solely in that forum. See my point below. It seems more efficient to have each person individually decide what kind of person may apply, as many are already doing.

I do believe that going to the system originally proposed would be beneficial though. Tying it to the user level instead of the tracker level deemphasizes the valuation of the tracker itself and focuses more on the "value" of the user, which is desirable. However, I disagree with you that giving away invites "too easily" is actually a problem. These invites are the property of the inviter, and it is their choice where to post their giveaway. If they want the applicant pool to include everyone who can spell their name correctly and put two syllables together, that is up to them.

Also, being able to apply for a giveaway does not mean that you have any chance of winning it. If people can be persuaded to also check lower level giveaway forums, than it just means more people will apply. The inviter may just want more applications so they can perhaps find someone that's just starting out but has a really good history with torrents.

You're starting to attribute intrinsic value to these invites and give them different tiers of value, which is precisely what we're trying to get away from. You don't need to protect people from giving away their more "valuable" invites, since it seems unlikely that they would be given away accidentally. Put some trust in the giver, as opposed to imposing additional restrictions.

**thedeh** · 12-02-2009