banjojohn Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) Can anyone please tell me what these 'titles' refer to, obviously this probably has something to do with the number of posts/replies which a member has written... But exactly how are these allocated and do members have any choice over the particular title which will appear on their posts? Edited December 3, 2015 by banjojohn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimLucas Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Can anyone please tell me what these 'titles' refer to, obviously this probably has something to do with the number of posts/replies which a member has written... But exactly how are these allocated and do members have any choice over the particular title which will appear on their posts? The titles change as the number of posts passes certain numbers. I've never bothered to remember/record what those numbers are. Paul and Ken know, and they chose the names... some time ago, I believe. I don't know whether they also chose the numeric boundaries or whether that's something built into the Invision software. But I suspect Ken will reply fairly soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken_Coles Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Banjojohn, The boundaries, as I recall, are currently 10, 30, maybe 100, 500, and 2500 posts. The Invision board software always uses a name. The idea seems to be that readers can identify which posts are from active vs. new participants. Some sites use the default category names: some of those names seemed odd (beginner for less than 10 posts when some of our new members are the most experienced players in the game). Other forums use very clever references to the topic/instrument in question. There was some ire (I couldn't tell if it was mock or real) from a couple of folks at the term 'chatty concertinist' as I guess they didn't like it. With hundreds of active members, you'll never please everyone I guess. If the name displeases you just ignore it; everyone here knows you didn't choose it. 'Heavyweight boxer' was a brilliant suggestion by a member; it makes me grin. Jim Lucas leads the way so we invent new terms for him as he blazes new paths. Stay tuned. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anglogeezer Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Banjojohn, Snip, Snip, Snip There was some ire (I couldn't tell if it was mock or real) from a couple of folks at the term 'chatty concertinist' as I guess they didn't like it. With hundreds of active members, you'll never please everyone I guess. If the name displeases you just ignore it; everyone here knows you didn't choose it. 'Heavyweight boxer' was a brilliant suggestion by a member; it makes me grin. Jim Lucas leads the way so we invent new terms for him as he blazes new paths. Stay tuned. Ken In England, the term 'chatty' can mean scruffy or dirty Jake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Dunk Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 (edited) In England, the term 'chatty' can mean scruffy or dirty Jake Really? New to me I have to say, and as a fellow Tyke I can't even claim it's because I'm from a different part of the country, only another part of the county. Edited December 25, 2015 by Pete Dunk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf Molkentin Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 (edited) As I would have to translate "chatty" with "geschwätzig", which means a person who's doing an awful lot of talking no matter what sense it should make, I once took it as a slightly unfriendly but tongue-in-cheek labeling meant to encourage even more posting in order to achieve a more reputable level... Edited December 28, 2015 by blue eyed sailor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimLucas Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 As I would have to translate "chatty" with "geschwätzig", which means a person who's doing an awful lot of talking no matter what sense it should make, I once took it as a slightly unfriendly but tongue-in-cheek labeling meant to encourage even more posting in order to achieve a more reputable level... My understanding* is that someone who is "chatty" is someone who likes to talk. It can also apply to a group of people, meaning that they like to talk with each other. It isn't inherently derogatory, though tone of voice (difficult to convey in print) can imply that it's overdone. And it doesn't mean someone who gossips, though a person who is chatty could also be a gossip. * "My understanding" - As I've learned over the years, not only can the same word or expression mean different things to different people, it can mean radically different things even to different individuals who live in the same town. The different meanings may have evolved in different social groups or different families; they can reflect different outlooks on life (e.g., optimist vs. pessimist); or they can even be the result of misunderstandings that were not corrected (a hazard of learning meaning "from context"). But regardless of the source, they exist. I myself have tripped over this phenomenon more than once, with different individuals taking as insults comments that I had intended as compliments. This is why I always advise that if you think that someone has said something offensive, don't attack them for it, but first ask bluntly whether the meaning they intended was (expressed in different words) the same as what you understood it to be. My own classification here -- "Ineluctable Opinionmaker" -- is a case in point. I didn't choose it. In fact, I don't like it, though I'm sure it wasn't chosen to upset me. (I suspect it may even have been meant as a compliment. Ken, you don't need to respond to that.) More than one individual has taken me to task for it, as if I myself had chosen it and meant to impose myself as a maker of opinions that others should necessarily share. (Among the synonyms for "ineluctable" is "unavoidable".) That's not the case, nor is it true of the others who have "earned" that title after me. But the title is a small thing. It's not -- in my opinion -- worth complaining about, much less trying to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 ' Heavyweight Boxer '. I would feel uneasy if it was thought that I chose this silly title for myself. It took me a while to deduce that ' boxer ' presumably derives from ' squeezebox ' and I would be having to fill my pockets with sand and be carrying my Concertina when stepping onto the scales to qualify as ' heavyweight ' ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf Molkentin Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 It took me a while to deduce that ' boxer ' presumably derives from ' squeezebox '... So you're much ahead of myself, never made it that far with my guessing... Best wishes - Wolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjcjones Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 (edited) It appears to me that these titles are a hangover from the early days of the internet, when it was a smaller and more exclusive community. Now it has come to maturity, what useful purpose do these serve? The fact that someone may be a frequent poster doesn't guarantee that they have anything sensible to say, whereas (as Ken has pointed out) some of the most experienced and knowledgeable players may be junior members of the forum. A number of users (myself included) regard them as silly at best, and embarrassing or even offensive at worst. They may have a place on a game-players' forum but not in one devoted to serious discussion. If there is an option in the software to turn these off, can I please ask that the admins consider doing this? If there isn't, then can they please suggest it for a future upgrade? Edited December 29, 2015 by hjcjones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAc Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 (edited) It appears to me that these titles are a hangover from the early days of the internet, when it was a smaller and more exclusive community. Now it has come to maturity, what useful purpose do these serve? The fact that someone may be a frequent poster doesn't guarantee that they have anything sensible to say, whereas (as Ken has pointed out) some of the most experienced and knowledgeable players may be junior members of the forum. A number of users (myself included) regard them as silly at best, and embarrassing or even offensive at worst. They may have a place on a game-players' forum but not in one devoted to serious discussion. If there is an option in the software to turn these off, can I please ask that the admins consider doing this? If there isn't, then can they please suggest it for a future upgrade? Howard - just for completeness's sake, let's untangle the issues - are you taking offense by the mere fact that the number of posts is being made public, or by the arbitrary names attributed to the categories? Your argument about the loose relationship between the number of posts and the credibility of a member (which I basically agree with, but see below) seems to imply the former; if the names were removed and the numbers retained, your argument would still hold. Nevertheless, even though either information may not be useful, I don't see a lot of harm in keeping it either; it is up to every user to look at the information or not. Whether it's the signup date, the activity, the circle of friends and (in some forums) a karma system of some sort - all of this information is an offer to the reader to make up his or her mind whether a given post may or may not be worth reading, but it's just that - an offer that can (and normally is) accepted or declined at the reader's discretion, so I vote for keeping it. If, on the other hand, it's not the bare information about the activity but the putting in in terms (or more specific, the particular term's it's put into) that you take offense in - well ok. Some of the titles appear goofy to me, but their choice gives me as a person interested in language and its use a hint about the personality of those running the forum, which is also a piece of additional information as well as a personalization and de-digitalization of the forum. Both I personally consider valuable. Edited December 29, 2015 by Ruediger R. Asche Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjcjones Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 (edited) It's not that I take offence, exactly, but I think the terms are a bit silly, and like Rod I'm not especially comfortable with the one attached to my name, although I agree it is clever. I think the whole idea of these names is frankly a bit childish. It seems to originate from the time when the internet was an exclusive counter-culture (I'm trying to avoid the term "teenage geeks" here ) and goes along with anonymous nicknames, which are increasingly falling out of favour as people prefer to use their real names. Both seem a bit pointless on a forum like this where many of us know one another in the real world. They might be appropriate in a gaming or role-playing forum, but I question their relevance in a forum which is for (more or less) serious discussion and whose users comprise a wide range of ages, countries and cultures. At the risk of sounding pompous, it lacks a bit of gravitas. I don't object to the number of posts being published, although think this information is of limited value. However the names themselves don't convey much information, since it is not obvious what they mean - I assume "Heavyweight boxer" means a high number of posts but I don't know how many, and I don't know whether an "Ineluctable Opinionmaker" has made more or fewer posts than say a "chatty concertinist". If this information is available it is not readily apparent. Mudcat, which I believe uses its own software written by its originator rather than an off-the-shelf system, manages perfectly well without any of this nonsense, and I haven't noticed any great clamour there for it to be introduced. Neither does a climbing forum I belong to, and again the information is not missed. This is less a complaint about this particular forum than a Grumpy Old Man rant about the internet in general. Despite it now being central to business and commerce and to our social and leisure activities, across all generations, in too many cases it seems we are forced to use what some twentysomething considers to be cool, rather than what meets the users' needs. Edited December 29, 2015 by hjcjones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Taylor Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 I agree with Howard. Lets just drop these names, they are just plain silly and their joke value dissipated a long time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken_Coles Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 If you count the dots (one to six) beneath your icon, hjc, you can sort out the categories. I can possibly alter/turn off the names but the other info is likely to persist. I will wait a little bit to collect any other opinions (by PM is fine, thanks) and then tackle it as indicated. I do indeed go back to early days of the internet - I'm no teenager! - in fact my knuckles drag on the ground, er, the keyboard. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimLucas Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 ...my knuckles drag on the ground, er, the keyboard. Knuckles, not thumbs? That says it all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjcjones Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 I think it's the names rather than the other information which is the issue. Why not have a poll to canvass opinions? I've made my own views clear, but I will of course go with the majority if they are happy to keep them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimLucas Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 (edited) ' Heavyweight Boxer '. I would feel uneasy if it was thought that I chose this silly title for myself. It took me a while to deduce that ' boxer ' presumably derives from ' squeezebox ' and I would be having to fill my pockets with sand and be carrying my Concertina when stepping onto the scales to qualify as ' heavyweight ' ! My interpretation of this one has always been: "Boxer" = squeezeboxer "Heavyweight" doesn't just refer to physical weight. It's often used to mean "not lightly cast aside", or even "top class". Why the latter? I'm not sure, but certainly in various sports with weight classes, the only "class" that casual fans seem to pay attention to is the "heavyweight" class. So I've always assumed that "heavyweight boxer" was intended to imply "a squeezboxer worth paying attention to". (I'll give my opinion on the general concept of these names and the other issues raised in a separate post or posts.) Edited January 1, 2016 by JimLucas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimLucas Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 For what it's worth (different things to different individuals, I'm sure), here are some of my opinions on issues raised in this thread. You're welcome to disagree with them, or even avoid them entirely (by not reading further).On the names representing categories based on number of posts: I'd be quite happy to see them disappear. Why? The posts in this thread and elsewhere make it clear that the various members here have conflicting interpretations of both what they mean and their importance. It seems that most folks have no idea (at least not until they're told) what they're supposed to mean. Some see them as labels representing a poster's alleged "importance". My experience has been that those who take these "ranks" seriously are even prone to take offense at those who are ranked more "highly". The names -- presumably intended to be clever -- classify posters based on their cumulative numbers of posts, but the classes are too broad to be meaningful, even to those who care about such a statistic. Meanwhile, it's become clear that the meanings of the individual rank names have been frequently misinterpreted/misunderstood. What's more, the exact total number of each poster's posts always appears below the poster's avatar in the same area to the left of the post where the "rank" name appears. So even for those who care about such a statistic, the names are both redundant and extremely uninformative. (Ken also mentioned "the number of dots", but they're just as redundant and imprecise. Why not get rid of them, too?) Pseudonyms, or "anonymous nicknames", as Howard (hjcjones) called them: This is really a separate issue, but since Howard mentioned it, I feel it's worth addressing here. There can be a variety of different reasons for using pseudonyms, and I don't think anyone should be forced to use their "real" name any more than they should be forced to use a pseudonym. ("Ineluctable opinionmaker" comes to mind. ) Here are a few reasons: First and foremost, a person's "real" name conveys no information about them to someone who doesn't already know them. A nickname or pseudonym, on the other hand, is often intended to convey something about the person, e.g., something other than their interest in concertinas. Member "yankeeclipper" is an example... a Yank who clips (shears) sheep. I use my "real" name here, but on at least one other, non-musical forum I use a pseudonym that indicates my interest in concertinas. Then there's the question of what a person's "real" name might be. I use the name "Jim" both in private and in business, though "James" is what appears on my birth certificate and passport. But I've had friends who were regularly known as "Sam" and "Pete", while their "real" names had no connection to those. And there's "Concertino", a travelling clown from Germany who (among other things) plays the concertina. (He's not to be confused with concertina.net member "Conzertino", though they do know each other.) That's actually his "real" name, since he had it legally changed. Pseudonyms can avoid confusion. I know of at least one other Jim Lucas -- an American musician, though not a concertina player, -- who even has a brother with the same name as my brother. In pre-internet days I got a letter intended for him, asking why I hadn't yet sent the banjo music "I" had promised. Which brings me to "hiding from abuse". If you share a name with someone who's being stalked across the internet, you would almost certainly want to use a different name or names in various forums. I use various pseudonyms in places other than concertina.net, because there are individuals who will search out a person with opposing opinions and attempt to harass them wherever they can find them on the internet. For someone who started elsewhere with their "real" name, a pseudonym may be a means of safety here... as well as saving Paul some administrative headaches. And some folks just consider their aliases to be "fun" (not necessarily the same as "a joke"). As long as they're doing no harm, I see no reason to deprive them of that fun. Anyone else with opinions on these matters? So far, only a few of us have expressed ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now