Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Change g/a forum names and sync to %

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Change g/a forum names and sync to %

    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.
    Last edited by thedeh; February 10, 2010, 06:58 AM. Reason: Updated.

  • #2
    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?
    Born of mortal flesh and blood, she has toiled with understanding cyphers at times so oblique as to defy all understanding, drawing the attention of those so hidden in the shadows that their substance is not even the stuff of legends. Her work, both revered and reviled, continues to this day, as The Exalted.

    Lovin' T-I !!!!

    Custom avatar created by demon. Thank you so much!

    Comment


    • #3
      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.

      sigpic

      New News: New News: T-I: The Story - Part III: The Gatekeepers 1
      Old News: OiNK Founder Acquitted
      News in the Making: T-I: The Story - Part III: The Gatekeepers 2 (2%)

      Comment


      • #4
        Actually I quite like your committee idea.
        Last edited by thedeh; December 1, 2009, 07:48 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          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.
          Last edited by thedeh; December 1, 2009, 07:50 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            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.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Morganti View Post
              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.
              Actually it does and is practiced at ***, a forum which has dozens of recruitment threads even for sites such as FtN, that clearly shows that trackers prefer that kind of method.

              Originally posted by Morganti View Post
              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.
              Who says its not okay? You? Again, they force it at many other sites and it seems to work great. People are giving away great invites in mid level for the extra rep/thanks and easy ability to give the invite away, however, tracker staff scowl at such a practice and we end up with trackers banning T-I members and their inviters and belittling the worth of an account at X tracker.

              Originally posted by Morganti View Post
              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.
              And risk the entire invite tree? We should have clear areas for invite distribution. This is not about a few new users who the system will be harder on, this is about the betterment of this site as a whole.

              Originally posted by Morganti View Post
              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.
              A cheater will always look like he has an excellent history with torrents because he can cheat his way there.

              Originally posted by Morganti View Post
              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.
              The purpose is not to set certain value of trackers and IMO will not do so. 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.

              UPDATED ORIGINAL POST
              Last edited by thedeh; December 2, 2009, 08:31 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                I totaly agree with Dan here.

                We should:

                a) set up a better way to determine if you are allowed to see low/mid/high level G/A and

                b) we should have a trusted section where your trustworthyness is proven and vouched for.

                In that way we could avoid trackers banning us and instead work with us as at ***.

                Edit: Removed name of other invite site
                Last edited by igge; December 3, 2009, 02:06 AM.
                I like my Woman like I like my Whiskey, 15 years old and mixed up with coke.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Wow, some really great ideas here. I'm pretty new here and I was a little suprised that people can start getting invites pretty much right away as soon as they get repped in.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Please do not mention the name of other invite sites here.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      the other invites site mentioned above lists a list of trackers tat are not allowed to
                      give / request invites for , which is shit and i don't like T-I to be the same .

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        That's not what I'm suggesting. Even if we don't have a no-movement list, the above changes are still a step in the right direction in the eyes of a tracker, so even if we don't have as many recruitment threads and tracker staff as the aforementioned torrent forum we will still gain acceptance with many more than we have now.
                        Last edited by thedeh; December 3, 2009, 12:52 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          If the trackers see that the users that are getting invites from here, even if they don't "support" us, still is good users and behave .. they wouldn't have to hate us.

                          The only way to do so .. even if NO solution is 100% sure .. is to be more strict about the high level G/A. It's the high lvl sites that is to risky to give out to anyone.

                          Today .. pretty much a 0 iGiver 50 post new user can get SCC and GFT invites. Which .. imo .. is way out. Those sites are now .. with the fall of the rabbit and ScT and in the lack of invites to HDBits and FtN .. pretty much amoung the highest public available sites.

                          If the wrong users keep getting invites to those sites they will become as restrictive as HDBits and FtN sooner or later. And we don't want that do we?
                          I like my Woman like I like my Whiskey, 15 years old and mixed up with coke.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            What soed the staff think about this? Would be fun to get some input on how the staff think about this.
                            I like my Woman like I like my Whiskey, 15 years old and mixed up with coke.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I hope nobody minds but I thought it might be interesting to have someone on the other end of the spectrum (someone with less than 50 posts) chime in. Having said that, please feel free to tell me to get lost :D

                              At the risk of shooting myself in the foot, I find it interesting that someone who has just joined can immediately get access to ALL the g/a threads just by making a $30 donation. Now I understand that TI exists only with the help of donations and the good will of other people and I'm not suggesting for once second that the donations stop. I understand that donations are so very necessary to keep this site up and running.

                              I think the risk here is that you risk letting people with more money than brains immediately get access to some of those coveted trusted g/a's and the potential for this to backfire. As for possible solutions? I don't know, obviously the risk is that if you stop giving great benefits to the people that donate, you risk losing those donations. Personally I donated because I had the money and quite frankly because I'm an impatient person. Does that mean I will take advantage of g/a's, no not at all, but the risk is still there with anyone who has very little rep.

                              I don't know, maybe it's not an issue at all. What has been the general experience with VIP's? Are there fewer incidents of bad behavior in that user group as compared to the other user groups? If so then it's probably not broken at all, and you should just ignore me now :)

                              Finally I do agree that users should be able to give away invites to whomever they want. If they want to give away invites to the new users, then so be it. It's their tracker account on the line. Then again, I'm new so maybe that jilted view of reality will change as I rack up more posts, giveaways etc.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X