Titles of members


Hi all,
I was just looking at the titles of posters as I was reading (newbie, jr. member, sr. member) and it occured to me: doesn’t this sort of create hierarchy? Wouldn’t it be more primitive to call people who have posted a lot something like computer geek, loser, total loser, etc.?


I don’t know if it’s necessarily more primitive to mock people for contributing to the community, but most primitive societies do have a sense of “elders” or what have you, “those people who’ve been around for a while, and saw it all happen.” They don’t get any extra points for that, but it is generally acknowledge. User ranks as an indication of how long someone’s been around, I think that works. But just like a real primitive society, that shouldn’t translate into influence. The words of a “newbie” should carry as much weight as those of a “sr. member.”

(BTW, I’m pretty sure those are the default ranks, so it’s mostly just a matter of not having done anything with them yet.)


we were just talking about something like this over here.

i have to admit that i don’t see how your proposed system avoids hierarchy though. You still have a progression of stages. In fact, as the whole concept involves earning a title due to continued activity, I don’t think we could avoid the concept of hierarchy no matter what terms we used. I think the most primitive thing we could do is relate it to aging (infant, toddler, child, adolescent, adult, elder) as that represents the only true “hierarchy” in primitive life: anyone who lives longer gets older.


I was thinking of that article “Eating Christmas in the Kalahari” where it talks about hunters mocking each others’ kills to prevent arrogance. I guess you’re right that the progression of stages doesn’t prevent hierarchy, no matter what you call them. I just think that even if someone does not post very often, it doesn’t mean that their ideas are worth any less than a person who contributes a lot.

The words of a "newbie" should carry as much weight as those of a "sr. member."
I just think that even if someone does not post very often, it doesn't mean that their ideas are worth any less than a person who contributes a lot.


The terms don’t even really indicate how long someone has interacted with this forum. Someone could read a lot and post very rarely–or even never–on the boards and know more than the person with the biggest number under their avatar. Likewise, someone could drop by for the first time and throw down a hundred replies. It all really means nothing.

But at the same time, I enjoy milestones (watches the number under his name tick closer to 500).


I just had a thought (in the shower, in case you were wondering). What the titles are really measuring is how often someone interacts with the rest of the community. So wouldn’t it make sense to use relational titles like “stranger” acquaintance" “friend” and so on? Just an idea :).


I love that idea!




Is there anyway to just display the post count without any kind of title?

What about not displaying the post count at all, just displaying it in the profile instead?


What about “just got here,” “been here a while,” “been here a long time,” and “has always been here.”


As far me, I try avoidin the use of b-english, hence, it wouldn’t go down well for me. In fact, that prolly wouldn’t work well for many of use here.


hmm. you have hit on something there, Tara. I would e-prime it as Airique mentioned, but …

still even at that, someone could have either lurked for a long time or even had an account and never posted and still have “just got here” with their first post.

maybe for something more accurate we could say “just starated talking here”

in the end, though, i’d rather have something catchy even if it doesn’t accurately portray anything. the post count merely indicates how much you post, nothing else. but since it represents the only way that the program tracks activity, then i would rather have it work as a fun joke – like anthropik’s “domesticated” spectrum, but with more achievable milestones.

does that make any sense?


Perhaps we could use animals.


“mewing kitten”


“Canary in the coal mine”


roflmao!!! ;D

woot! i’ll second that!


So I put together a list of the various options that we have all suggested and discussed. Feel free to make some more recommendations or to suggest some changes to these lists. After a little more input, I will set up a poll, and let everyone vote on the new system they would like for us to use.

We could go with an upside down version of Tylor’s stages (ala Anthropik’s forum):

  • civilized
  • domesticated
  • rewilder
  • barbarian
  • savage

Or ages within the tribe:

  • infant
  • child
  • adolescent
  • adult
  • elder
  • ancient

Or degree of interaction:

  • Stranger
  • Acquaintance
  • Friend

Or length of interaction:

  • Just started posting
  • Posting for a while
  • Regular poster
  • Senior poster
  • Veteran poster

Some of the lists have more levels than others. Our current system has 5 levels that break down this way:

[table][tr][td]Level[/td][td]Number of posts[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Jr. Member[/td][td]50[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Full Member[/td][td]100[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Sr. Member[/td][td]250[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Hero Member[/td][td]500[/td][/tr]

If we chose a system with more than 5 options, we can just add new levels like at 1000 or 2500 posts. If we go with something with less than 5 options, we will probably change the breaks to happen farther apart like 0, 200, 500 for a 3 option list.


Perhaps we should make them verbs, illuding to e-primitive.

For example:


Adulting (haha)

etc. etc.

Just an idea.


How about something totally unhierarchical, like
(maybe that’s too many)




Still thinking on this one. . . I remember reading somewhere how a member of a “band” (this may have referred to chimps or gorillas? is this from ishmael?) identifies him/her self more as part of the hand than as one of the fingers. It seems that individual identity (vs. member of a group) makes a big part of “civ” mentality–also the idea of the individual’s needs having more importance than those of the group, or that they are even, in fact, separate from those of the group.

So, what about parts of a whole, like parts of the community of living bits that make up a tree:

or parts of an ecosystem:


i think i really like these totally unhierarchical lists. i thought about doing something like that when Scout proposed his kitten and canary suggestions, but i had already finished writing my ideas and didn’t want to add to them just yet.

i like these suggestions. keep them coming.


Man, I’d just put it something like this:

Rarely speaks
Talks a lot
Won’t shut up