Revamping the rank system. Again

[RocketSingh]

I propose a different approach which consists in gradual increase in the activity level required for every rank, so that some users wouldn't end up stripped off of their current rank. For example, Hero member right now requires activity of 480. After implementing the change, it would first require 494, then 508, and up to, say, 960...

Would not people actually go ranked down in this process?

[1713250321]

1713250321

[1713250321]

1713250321

[1713250321]

1713250321

[1713250321]

1713250321

[actmyname]

I propose a different approach which consists in gradual increase in the activity level required for every rank, so that some users wouldn't end up stripped off of their current rank. For example, Hero member right now requires activity of 480. After implementing the change, it would first require 494, then 508, and up to, say, 960...

Would not people actually go ranked down in this process?

Yes, provided they're inactive.

If you're active, you would stay at your current rank. Isn't that more of an incentive ?

[deisik]

I propose a different approach which consists in gradual increase in the activity level required for every rank, so that some users wouldn't end up stripped off of their current rank. For example, Hero member right now requires activity of 480. After implementing the change, it would first require 494, then 508, and up to, say, 960...

Would not people actually go ranked down in this process?

Yeah, that seems to be another, totally unintended side effect well worth to be considered separately. I guess that minor members (lol) could even end up being demoted to a lower rank if they stay latent long enough, and demotion is not taken care of (read specifically prevented) by the forum engine...

I'm curious what other unforeseen effects such a system might have

If you're active, you would stay at your current rank.  Isn't that more of an incentive?

Here you must run as fast as you can, just to stay in place. And if you wish to go anywhere you must run twice as fast

[Lauda]

Yeah, that seems to be another, totally unintended side effect well worth to be considered separately. I guess that minor members (lol) could even end up being demoted to a lower rank if they stay latent long enough, and demotion is not taken care of (read specifically prevented) by the forum engine...

I guess a measure could be implemented to prevent the de-ranking of users if that's desirable. However, I actually don't see that as a bad thing as long as the parameters are right (e.g. slow enough).

I'm curious what other unforeseen effects such a system might have

As long as pros outweigh cons this is fine.

[botany]

I like this idea. The trick lies in how gradual the increase in activity requirement for a particular rank should be.

This would also be better than creating new ranks, because it is a one-time process. Creating a new rank leads to questions on what should be the signature restrictions for that rank, the name of the rank, coins/badges, etc.
Maybe it is time to revamp the rank system along with the new forum rollout? 

[deisik]

Actually this is great idea, but it would confuse signature campaign user and manager in many ways.
If signature campaign never exist, i think not many people would care about rank as long as they're member or above

Could you please specify at least one way in which signature campaign managers might get confused? The whole idea of this proposal is to keep users tied to their current rank for a longer period of time (thereby making fewer promotions to a higher rank per unit of time). If the users don't get "downgraded" to a lower rank, there shouldn't be a single issue in this respect...

In fact, it would most certainly contribute to less confusion, if there is any at all

[deisik]

Actually this is great idea, but it would confuse signature campaign user and manager in many ways.
If signature campaign never exist, i think not many people would care about rank as long as they're member or above

Could you please specify at least one way in which signature campaign managers might get confused? The whole idea of this proposal is to keep users tied to their current rank for a longer period of time (thereby making fewer promotions to a higher rank per unit of time). If the users don't get "downgraded" to a lower rank, there shouldn't be a single issue in this respect...

In fact, it would most certainly contribute to less confusion, if there is any at all

I don't know if this actually can confuse signature campaign managers or give them disanvatage, but i think these could happen :
1. Signature campaign who use system to check user rank based on activity point, unless they check it manually or directly check their rank automatically.

2. Signature campaign manager who looking for lots of member with high ranks

Both points make no sense since, for example, the Legendary rank doesn't depend on user's activity within the known range. You will see a lot of Legendary members who have less activity than me, but I am still only a Hero member (as of writing this post). On the other hand, if a campaign manager would be looking for high-ranked members, you would naturally expect him to look at their current rank, not their activity

Also, i think new user/user with low rank might think this idea give them disadvantage, especially if they want to join signature campaign.

I don't quite understand what you mean. Anyways, we are all essentially in the same boat, not just new or low-ranked users

[botany]

I don't quite understand what you mean. Anyways, we are all essentially in the same boat, not just new or low-ranked users

As the activity levels required for different ranks keep getting higher, people who attain them at a later point of time will spend more time in each level. Again it all boils down to how gradual the increase in activity levels for attaining a particular level is.

[deisik]

I don't quite understand what you mean. Anyways, we are all essentially in the same boat, not just new or low-ranked users

As the activity levels required for different ranks keep getting higher, people who attain them at a later point of time will spend more time in each level. Again it all boils down to how gradual the increase in activity levels for attaining a particular level is.

Yes, that is the whole idea behind my proposal. And people with higher ranks will spend even more time till reaching the next rank. In fact, this is how the ranking system works right now. For example, to reach a Hero member rank you will need twice as much time than for reaching a Senior member rank, from a preceding rank. The new system simply extends these times. The question is whether this extension should be made slow but indefinite (permanent) or somewhat less slow but with a fixed limit in respect to activity requirements (say, 960 for a new Hero member)...

Personally, I would go for the first option

[Jet Cash]

Won't this just create more spamming by members who don't want to get demoted.

I think it would be better if posts in certain threads and boards were not counted. Gambling for example. Also posts in threads with more than (say) 200 replies could be ignored. This may reduce the bumping of tired old threads that clutter some boards.

[deisik]

Won't this just create more spamming by members who don't want to get demoted

Personally, I don't think that reduction in rank is a good idea either

I think it would be better if posts in certain threads and boards were not counted. Gambling for example. Also posts in threads with more than (say) 200 replies could be ignored. This may reduce the bumping of tired old threads that clutter some boards.

This doesn't feel quite right since instead of a number of posts made on the forum, we would essentially have a number of posts made in specific boards. Bumping old threads could be prevented by locking them, but this wouldn't in the least prevent from creating new ones. We already have two multi page threads about Gold vs Bitcoin in the Economics section, totally useless each. In fact, not counting posts in them would only lead to creating more such threads

[azguard]

Won't this just create more spamming by members who don't want to get demoted

Personally, I don't think that reduction in rank is a good idea either

I think it would be better if posts in certain threads and boards were not counted. Gambling for example. Also posts in threads with more than (say) 200 replies could be ignored. This may reduce the bumping of tired old threads that clutter some boards.

This doesn't feel quite right since instead of a number of posts made on the forum, we would essentially have a number of posts made in specific boards. Bumping old threads could be prevented by locking them, but this wouldn't in the least prevent from creating new ones. We already have two multi page threads about Gold vs Bitcoin in the Economics section, totally useless each. In fact, not counting posts in them would only lead to creating more such threads

about tread that is something different you will always have 2 that are same or similar with topic this can be reduced yes
in gambling you have something completely different most are based on sport and certain league so this is hard
on other section i dont know how it is i didnt see but the fact is for this is will take time for it