# Army.ca ranking system (new idea)



## yoman (20 Mar 2006)

I have had an idea for a while now that I would like to bring up.

In order to more affectively show the user's seniority on the board would it be a good idea to tie the ranking system with the time logged in and not just the number of posts the user has. This would eliminate people from just posting pointless stuff  to get a higher rank on the forum.

Example, to achieve new member status you would need the current 25 posts plus 5 hours logged in. 
For junior member 50 posts plus 10 hours logged in. 
etc...

I do not think it would be to difficult to implement as army.ca already keeps tabs of the number of hours a user has logged in. 

I'm sorry if this has been discussed before.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (20 Mar 2006)

The only issue with that, is i could easily leave my computer idle (as i always do), and simply open Army.ca.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Mar 2006)

The number of posts and the length of time a user is logged on really matters little in the scheme of things. What does matter is the quality of posts you provide. There are some members who have hundreds of posts but are regarded as little more then buffons while there are newer members with under 100 that are already well respected. Of course it works both ways.


----------



## yoman (20 Mar 2006)

My idea is not meant to eliminate all the bad posts. Just to help reduce the useless posts people make on the forums in order to gain rank. 

And for the just leaving your computer on. I suppose putting a maximum amount of time you can log in by just looking at 1 page. But that complicates things a lot.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Mar 2006)

One is already "booted" after 30 minutes anyway if idle.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Mar 2006)

yoman said:
			
		

> My idea is not meant to eliminate all the bad posts. Just to help reduce the useless posts people make on the forums in order to gain rank.



You'll never be able to eliminate those idiotic posts.  The Staff/Mods can do that though.  They can police the people you are talking about to a certain extent.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Mar 2006)

If you feel they are useless use the Report to Moderator function but make sure its a valid complaint otherwise we may start to scrutinize your posts.


----------



## Scott (20 Mar 2006)

If someone wants to increase their rank here I say let them. One click will show how useless their posts are or the contrary.

Posts to Radio Chatter don't count now and that's where most of the noise happens...

I dunno, why mess with it? Not saying it's a bad idea....


----------



## yoman (20 Mar 2006)

Its more of a tool to deter some of the bad posts that could occur.


----------



## Scott (20 Mar 2006)

If I sees 'em I just deletes 'em. And sends a PM explaining it.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Mar 2006)

yoman said:
			
		

> Its more of a tool to deter some of the bad posts that could occur.



The Mods keep an eye out for that, and if necessary remove them.  Here today - Gone Tomorrow......or within seconds.   ;D


----------



## Franko (20 Mar 2006)

We had that a while back and it was done away with...for reasons that I wasn't privy to at the time.

I'm sure Mike got rid of it for a good reason.

Regards


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Mar 2006)

Rank though has no bearing as it is. Again, if you feel the post is useless let us know so we can decide and perhaps drop it into the Abyss. We do have that option


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Mar 2006)

Geez George get out of my head.....


----------



## yoman (20 Mar 2006)

Well it was just a suggestion/idea. 

You guys know what's best (I hope  ;D).


----------



## George Wallace (20 Mar 2006)

There is still a sort of Ranking system in place.  You, Yoman, are currently a Member, up from being a Guest.  There are Veterans and other Ranks also.  Then there are those Maple Leafs that indicate amount of time/posts etc.  So, in a way there still is a form of ranking the personages on the site.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Mar 2006)

Well keep your ideas coming, Mike is the boss after all, we are just his loyal minions.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Mar 2006)

...and not really that loyal. :cheers:


----------



## Torlyn (20 Mar 2006)

I have an idea!  Let's have a ranking system where users can rate the posts of members with a + or -, and have the rating show on the side, by the users Avatar...  Oh wait.   >

While it pains me to say it (hehe) the mods are right here.  After a while, you learn who the good and bad posters are.  You also get to see the progression of some posters.  (When you've been here for a while, it's a hoot to go back and see what you wrote 6 months ago...  Before IAP/BOTP...  Then cringe as you read them again...)   ;D

T


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (20 Mar 2006)

Look at me? Im a vetern (how the hell did that happen?!) and i dont think anyone takes what i have to say with a grain of salt!  

Rank really doesnt mean a lot, other than provide you with a lot of reading material to validate someone (previous posts that is)


----------



## yoman (20 Mar 2006)

Torlyn said:
			
		

> While it pains me to say it (hehe) the mods are right here.  After a while, you learn who the good and bad posters are.  You also get to see the progression of some posters.  (When you've been here for a while, it's a hoot to go back and see what you wrote 6 months ago...  Before IAP/BOTP...  Then cringe as you read them again...)   ;D



Oh I'm pretty sure that I know who the good posters are, and who the not so good poster are. (I do leave the cadet forum quite a bit  ;D)


----------



## monika (21 Mar 2006)

No offence to the young'uns out there, but does anyone over the age of say, 15 really care about post count? I'd expect that at the Leafs board not here! One board I used to belong to simply didn't have the post count public; you had to check profiles to get it. 

Personally I go for quality not frequency but apparently that's a by product of age


----------



## aesop081 (21 Mar 2006)

yoman said:
			
		

> Well it was just a suggestion/idea.
> 
> You guys know what's best (I hope  ;D).



There is no need to suck up now..... ;D


----------



## gnplummer421 (21 Mar 2006)

Curious, you guys just built up a whole bunch of points just talking about the rank system  ;D

All kidding aside, I believe someone who truly cares about and enjoys writing/replying to posts, wouldn't focus on points, but rather discussing issues that we deem important, so from that viewpoint, it would be a good idea..I sometimes notice the careless blabber from some posters, and although we try to support freedom of speech, we also need discipline with regards to the site conduct code.

Sooo, how about those Sens eh?
Gnplummer421


----------



## yoman (21 Mar 2006)

TMM said:
			
		

> No offence to the young'uns out there, but does anyone over the age of say, 15 really care about post count? I'd expect that at the Leafs board not here! One board I used to belong to simply didn't have the post count public; you had to check profiles to get it.
> 
> Personally I go for quality not frequency but apparently that's a by product of age



I suggested this idea because its something that`s already here. I was just suggesting a modification to the system. If you want quality, then maybe some sort of system that if you think the user has posted something valuable/interesting, then they get a point. 

I don`t really care, I can figure out myself who are the good posters. 



			
				gnplummer421 said:
			
		

> Sooo, how about those Sens eh?
> 
> Gnplummer421



Sens are doing good. We desperately need Hasek back to go fare in the playoffs I think. But who know`s Emery could very well do it for us. Sorry, got a little side tracked there.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Mar 2006)

gnplummer421 said:
			
		

> Curious, you guys just built up a whole bunch of points just talking about the rank system  ;D


Slick move....eh!


			
				gnplummer421 said:
			
		

> All kidding aside, I believe someone who truly cares about and enjoys writing/replying to posts, wouldn't focus on points, but rather discussing issues that we deem important,


Most of us agree that we don't need no stinking medals/titles/rank if we enjoy the site and contribute good advice or discussion.


			
				gnplummer421 said:
			
		

> .......so from that viewpoint, it would be a good idea..


Did you just contradict yourself?


			
				gnplummer421 said:
			
		

> ....I sometimes notice the careless blabber from some posters, and although we try to support freedom of speech, we also need discipline with regards to the site conduct code.


That is what the Staff try to maintain.  Many times the members don't even notice when the site is 'invaded' by a Troll or other disruptive poster.  Often posts that are racist, trolling, or otherwise offensive will be removed immediately.  This keeps us 'honest' and out of the Courts.  Hopefully we are maintaining open and worthwhile discussion.  

As was mentioned above, we had a "Ranking" system before, but some Trolls abused it by artificially inflating the Ranking of their 'friends' and at the same time deflated the Ranking of those who they felt were 'not their friends'.  That system was removed, as it caused quite a stir amongst the membership and led to several Bannings.  If you notice, there are two forms of ranking currently in effect, and although they don't reflect the calibre of the Poster's contributions, they do give some idea of how long or often a Poster has been on the site.


----------



## gnplummer421 (21 Mar 2006)

Yes George, I do sometimes contradict myself, here's my reasons why;

I'm Blond (and greying), I'm a shiftworker (what day is it...a day off) and I'm a Dutch/Canadian...need I say more >

Gnplummer


----------



## Kristen (21 Mar 2006)

I think that's a really good Idea and Army.ca should really try it. I sure would like to see that happen!! Thanks very much Kristen


----------



## ouyin2000 (21 Mar 2006)

Torlyn said:
			
		

> I have an idea!  Let's have a ranking system where users can rate the posts of members with a + or -, and have the rating show on the side, by the users Avatar...


I can see how this wouldn't work, as people would just spam with new accounts to upgrade their own status 

Maybe have only Army.ca Subscribers able to rate the quality of someone's post? That may, a member would have to buy a subscription, and that could alleviate the problem of spamming with new accounts.


----------



## Journeyman (21 Mar 2006)

My only issue with the ranking system comes with the people that quickly post 10 mindless comments, so that they're "qualified" for entry into the chat system....only to grace us with: 

*scheissekopf runs around the room*

or "*IS ANYBODY INFANTRY IN HERE?   KEWL ! ! !    WHAT'S THAT LIKE?* "

Yes, the Mods are aware of my bete noire/personal groupie, whom I'll just call "Alpha." Maybe somehow tie membership to a the requirement for an IQ of greater than the 10 required postings. Perhaps add a software "restraining order," where some people simply aren't allowed to converse with others.

I offer no solution - - I'm just bitchin' to inflate my posting numbers. (Do these bring extra airmiles or something) ???

In seriousness......I see *no need to change * what's currently in place. 
*Bravo Zulu* (not a reference to my alphabet being complete without "Alpha"  ;D  - - man, I slay me sometimes )


----------



## Scott (21 Mar 2006)

Torlyn was being sarcastic, I do believe  ;D

We had a ranking system about a year and a half ago where you could click an icon by a person's screen name if you agreed or disagreed with what they said and it would give them a +/- rating based on what you thought of the post. It was nothing elaborate, just another icon below a person's name. Problem was that there was some abuse of the system so we disabled it.

If you'd like to see it them petition Mike, I'll just ask that you can't rate DS  

All in all I don't care, I don't judge by post count.

Journeyman, we take aim at the guys who mindlessly post just to gain access to chat and try to curb that behavior. The Grave (where useless posts go to die) gets the works of those who are just spamming the board in order to enter chat. We can also ban users from chat and a couple have been for acting like idiots in there.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Mar 2006)

JM

Nothing like advertising a fact that they should not know.....now they know the secret.


----------



## ouyin2000 (21 Mar 2006)

Scott said:
			
		

> Torlyn was being sarcastic, I do believe  ;D
> 
> We had a ranking system about a year and a half ago where you could click an icon by a person's screen name if you agreed or disagreed with what they said and it would give them a +/- rating based on what you thought of the post. It was nothing elaborate, just another icon below a person's name. Problem was that there was some abuse of the system so we disabled it.


I figured that much, I also figured that it was in existance before, by the way he worded his post.

I was just taking it as a serious consideration, and suggested the modification (for army.ca subscribers only) to keep the suggestion alive.


----------



## MikeL (21 Mar 2006)

What makes you think every person who buys a subscription is a mature poster an should be the ones rating other people? 

Why not stick with the current system, going by someones post count is a horrible way to judge a person or if they bought a subscription. Checking a person's profile, reading their posts, etc should be good enough. Also, the mods are here to handle the trolls/people who spew BS on the forums.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (21 Mar 2006)

Actually as Franko noted, we had a "peer assassination" based rating system where you could rate up or down a user every few hours. I really liked the concept; trolls could be publicly exposed as could quality (vs. quantity) posters. The implementation however was lacking, in that ratings got out of hand and it was a popularity contest (or an exercise in vendetta) instead of being put to good use.

And that's where we are now...


----------



## Journeyman (21 Mar 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> .....now they know the secret.


D'oh......damn OPSEC!



			
				Scott said:
			
		

> We can also ban users from chat and a couple have been for acting like idiots in there.


~ahem~  You're talking about the _other_ idiots, right?  I'm still OK?  



			
				MikeL said:
			
		

> Checking a person's profile, reading their posts, etc should be good enough.


I've seldom known army people not to be able to form their own opinions (and inflict them upon others). I know I judge people here by the content of their postings....not their seniority. This then influences how I will view future postings, or whether I'll bother reading it - - that's human nature, a method of time management.


----------



## Scott (21 Mar 2006)

> ~ahem~  You're talking about the other idiots, right?  I'm still OK?



I'll try to extortion before banning, see how bad the Army.ca monkey has you  ;D


----------



## ouyin2000 (21 Mar 2006)

MikeL said:
			
		

> What makes you think every person who buys a subscription is a mature poster an should be the ones rating other people?


It doesn't make me think that. I based the suggestion on the fact that they would have to pay money in order to get the chance to rate someone's post. That *should* deter a lot of the problems.



			
				MikeL said:
			
		

> Why not stick with the current system, going by someones post count is a horrible way to judge a person or if they bought a subscription. Checking a person's profile, reading their posts, etc should be good enough. Also, the mods are here to handle the trolls/people who spew BS on the forums.


There is nothing wrong with the current system, I am just putting things on the table for arguement's sake.


----------



## MikeL (21 Mar 2006)

ouyin2000 said:
			
		

> It doesn't make me think that. I based the suggestion on the fact that they would have to pay money in order to get the chance to rate someone's post. That *should* deter a lot of the problems.



What happens if a troll or some immature person buys a subscription? An starts rating their buddies up an good posters down?

If there was to be a rating system, might be best to let the mods rate others an/or let the staff pick posters who they deem to be mature an contribute to the forum and let them rate others.


----------



## ouyin2000 (21 Mar 2006)

Nothing is to stop someone from doing that, but it would stop some of them.

And letting the DS be the only ones to rate a post is a good idea, but what is going to stop them from doing the same thing as these "trolls".

Not that I'm saying the DS aren't doing their jobs well, just more food for thought.

I do understand your point, Mike, and it had crossed my mind. Maybe I should just sit back down amongst the crowd.


----------



## monika (21 Mar 2006)

MikeL said:
			
		

> What happens if a troll or some immature person buys a subscription? An starts rating their buddies up an good posters down?



Does subscription allow posters free reign? I can't imagine spending a few dollars would allow people to take advantage of the site.



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> Perhaps add a software "restraining order," where some people simply aren't allowed to converse with others.



There are boards I've been on where you can block other posters from contacting you, including blocking private convos in chat. I'd be glad to PM them if asked, if that might help implementation of said technology if so desired.

I've only been around here a short time but so far I like the way I see things being operated. It is tricky at first, but I just think that newbies should be on Sunday Best Dinner with the In-Laws Best Behaviour.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (21 Mar 2006)

I think tying anything that could be abused to a subscription is a problem... makes it hard to take it away when you've made it clear the user has paid for it. 

Luckily subscribers seem to be the sort who like to help out and support the site, vs. those who just like to cause trouble... But there's nothing saying that trend will continue.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Mar 2006)

MikeL said:
			
		

> What happens if a troll or some immature person buys a subscription? An starts rating their buddies up an good posters down?
> 
> If there was to be a rating system, might be best to let the mods rate others an/or let the staff pick posters who they deem to be mature an contribute to the forum and let them rate others.



Buying a Subscription does not give you free reign of the site.  One or two Subscribers, however, thought that and found out that a BAN was the end result.  Everyone on the site is bound by the rules of conduct that Mike has published.  Even the Staff must follow his rules.  Granted they also have input as to what the rules should be, as the site is constantly growing and developing.  Hopefully, we can keep it a site that everyone can enjoy.


----------



## Trinity (21 Mar 2006)

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> Luckily subscribers seem to be the sort who like to help out and support the site, vs. those who just like to cause trouble... But there's nothing saying that trend will continue.



Sorry Mike.. as a subscriber.. I'll try to stop getting into trouble....


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (21 Mar 2006)

Forgot you were a subscriber, now I have to go back and edit that post for accuracy.


----------



## MikeL (21 Mar 2006)

I wasn't trying to imply that subscribers have free reign or are trouble makers or anything like that. But for the rating system AFAIK it is anonymous so you don't know who is voting certain people high an others low.


----------



## Pea (21 Mar 2006)

All is well in the army.ca world... I am a subscriber.   ;D


----------



## theseeker (4 Apr 2006)

yoman said:
			
		

> I have had an idea for a while now that I would like to bring up.
> 
> In order to more affectively show the user's seniority on the board would it be a good idea to tie the ranking system with the time logged in and not just the number of posts the user has. This would eliminate people from just posting pointless stuff  to get a higher rank on the forum.
> 
> ...



now this is just a thought but for people that are guest vs subscribers should there be a difference in the ranking system.
thought does the ranking system really matter for much...........  just a thought dont bash me for it


----------



## yoman (4 Apr 2006)

theseeker said:
			
		

> now this is just a thought but for people that are guest vs subscribers should there be a difference in the ranking system.
> thought does the ranking system really matter for much...........  just a thought dont bash me for it



I see what you mean. Its not a bad idea. But I think having the blue subscriber bar under you name shows that you support the forum in more ways then just posting. That's the rank your have.


----------



## qyrang (10 Jun 2006)

I've searched this topic but I can't find out how the ranking system actually works. If somebody could enlighten me that would be great thanks,


       Geoff


----------



## Michael OLeary (10 Jun 2006)

It doesn't, or rather it didn't, work. Twice, in fact.  And both times taken back down because of abuse by immature members.


----------



## qyrang (10 Jun 2006)

Anyways can you inform me about it?
Thanks


----------



## Michael OLeary (10 Jun 2006)

It was a simple system that by which you could give a person a "+1" or "-1" rating, the cumulative +1's and -1's were totalled to show the total numbers of positive and negative rankings received.


----------



## qyrang (10 Jun 2006)

How does it work now?


----------



## Michael OLeary (10 Jun 2006)

It doesn't. There is no rating system.


----------



## qyrang (10 Jun 2006)

so then what's with all of the "new member, junior member,etc..." how does that work?


----------



## vangemeren (10 Jun 2006)

It refers to the number of posts that you have done (radio chatter ones aren't counted)

Guest   0
New Member   25
Jr. Member   50
Member   100
Full Member   250
Sr. Member    500
Army.ca Veteran   1000
Army.ca Fixture   5000

Subscribers have paid to get extras on this site that only subscribers have.


----------



## qyrang (10 Jun 2006)

Thanks A lot for all your help


----------



## Devlin (10 Jun 2006)

Well I have been kicking around this site since the war diary days. I don't have a hecl of a lot of posts as I tend to lurk and learn and not post just to spout off. It's pretty easy after you have been on the site for a while to filter out those that are just spewing noise and the members who have knowledge and provide value to this great resource.


----------



## munky99999 (4 Jul 2006)

Your system is bugged however to begin with.







I assure you I haven't been on this website for that long.


----------



## the 48th regulator (4 Jul 2006)

munky99999,

What is your purpose on this site?

You really do enjoy trying to push buttons don't you.


dileas

tess


----------



## techie (4 Jul 2006)

munky99999,

I would suggest you follow my advice in my sig.

That time just shows how long your browser has been open on this site. I have 1 day 11 hours, but thats becasue ill read a post, leave my PC for 30 min to an hour, then come back read/post again. It adds up over time. 

As for a rating system, it would all be subjective. It would be very hard to set up a fair, honest, non subjective rating system that could not be abused. The only fair way to rate someone is to read their past posts, and see if the information they gave is relevant.


----------



## munky99999 (4 Jul 2006)

Seeing as I just woke up and turned on my computer, my browser hasn’t been open for that long.



> You really do enjoy trying to push buttons don't you.


I am not trying to push anyone’s buttons, I am simply pointing out how his system would be in favour for people like me. Which by your respect towards me should show the opposite favour in this case.


----------



## HItorMiss (4 Jul 2006)

Munky Just stop...please...I mean at what point do you think to yourself "Hey lets piss off the people I want to work with...No wait lets piss of the people who will be charge of me...Oh no wait lets piss off the people I want to be like! yeah yeah thats a good idea!"

You just dig and dig but let me assure you that the hole ends not in China but with your soon to be introduction to this sites warning system, where if you continue with your inane, useless, unproductive post you'll be on a read only status.

Hmmm on second though I just became your biggest fan..Post Munky post often and with little thought all you want!


----------



## techie (4 Jul 2006)

munky99999 said:
			
		

> Seeing as I just woke up and turned on my computer, my browser hasn’t been open for that long.



If you look at my profile murky99999, we regesterd on the same day, and i have more time on this site then you.



			
				HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Hmmm on second though I just became your biggest fan..Post Munky post often and with little thought all you want!



+1 HoM


----------



## HItorMiss (4 Jul 2006)

On to the topic at hand. There really isn't a need for a ranking system most people know who on this site has informative answers or questions and who really isn't worth the bandwidth.

Unless the Mod's wanted to adminester a system whereby they decided how informative or useful you are on this site, however as with the work that "certain" posters heap on the Mod's I know they have enough to do.


----------



## big bad john (4 Jul 2006)

Murky IMHO you agitate or troll.  If you want to dispel this impression read more and post less.  When you do post, please TRY to post constructively.  Just a thought.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (4 Jul 2006)

munky99999 said:
			
		

> Your system is bugged however to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you visit Army.ca, then visit it again any time in the next 15 minutes, the time between those 2 visits is accumulated in your total. This process repeats itself, so if you read a post every 14:59 your time adds up pretty quickly, even if you go out for a coffee between each read.

We've been using the same system for literally years now, and I can assure you through personal testing that this is how it works. It can be scary to be faced with your own additiction in such stark terms, but denial is usually the first stage.


----------



## Pea (4 Jul 2006)

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> We've been using the same system for literally years now, and I can assure you through personal testing that this is how it works.* It can be scary to be faced with your own additiction in such stark terms, but denial is usually the first stage. *



Scary like this Mike?


----------



## munky99999 (4 Jul 2006)

While you are probably right. I probably am addicted, but I know I didn’t come on the site for 8-9 hours last night. But I have figured out how it happens. I am constantly logged in. So perhaps this is what’s creating this. Though I suppose I am addicted to the site. I’m a sort of person who crams the first couple chapters of a book before the class even begins. So I want to know everything I can about BMQ before I go. Though I probably won’t be using any of those tricks, I will want to do it the right way.

I’m starting get the army.ca munchies, ;D


----------



## Trinity (4 Jul 2006)

Damn PEA

I'm only at 17 day  6 hours


Girl...  you need help


----------



## GAP (4 Jul 2006)

Shhh....they're trying to tell in a nice way   ;D


----------



## navymich (4 Jul 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Damn PEA
> 
> I'm only at 17 day  6 hours
> 
> ...



Great idea for a new thread, how much time have you wasted spent on army.ca?  I agree, it is very addictive.  ;D (15 days 16 hours here)  And just kidding about the "wasted" part, definitely not time wasted with what you can learn here.  Great stuff, even with the trolls.  

Edited to add:  Disregard, I should have searched first, my bad.  There is a thread about time spent -- http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/39607.30.html


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (4 Jul 2006)

navymich said:
			
		

> Great idea for a new thread, how much time have you wasted spent on army.ca?  I agree, it is very addictive.  ;D (15 days 16 hours here)  And just kidding about the "wasted" part, definitely not time wasted with what you can learn here.  Great stuff, even with the trolls.



Not much you can do here that hasn't been done before: 

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/26986.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/39607.0.html


----------



## Trinity (4 Jul 2006)

> Time wasted for Trinity
> 
> Birthday	1974-04-18 (11765 Days, 17 Hours, 29 Minutes)
> Date Registered	Monday, 31 January 2005 20:31 (518 Days, 19 Hours, 58 Minutes)
> ...




COOL...  nice feature...  and good use of the subscription... only .14 cents an hour.

http://army.ca/php/timewasted.php


----------



## George Wallace (4 Jul 2006)

munky99999 said:
			
		

> .........but I know I didn’t come on the site for 8-9 hours last night. But I have figured out how it happens. I am constantly logged in. So perhaps this is what’s creating this.




The time that is recorded there is the accumulated time you have spent on this site since you registered.........not since you last logged on.


----------



## the 48th regulator (4 Jul 2006)

munky99999 said:
			
		

> Im a sort of person who crams the first couple chapters of a book before the class even begins. So I want to know everything I can about BMQ before I go. Though I probably wont be using any of those tricks, I will want to do it the right way.
> 
> Im starting get the army.ca munchies, ;D



The challenge with cramming is you skim over all the important parts.

dileas

tess


----------



## Trinity (4 Jul 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> The challenge with cramming is you skim over all the important parts.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



Now Now Tess...

Let the RTU's find their own way!  

oh sorry.. RTM  : ;D


----------



## Yrys (6 Jul 2006)

well, munky 99999,

as your profile state that your are 1987 years old,
seem to me possible that you were log that long !



> Age: 	1987


----------



## munky99999 (6 Jul 2006)

Yrys said:
			
		

> well, munky 99999,
> 
> as your profile state that your are 1987 years old,
> seem to me possible that you were log that long !


It's not the right age. Must have been a mistake or an admin or something put it in afterwards. As for your post, I don't have a clue what you are asking.


----------



## qyrang (6 Jul 2006)

Instead of blaming somebody else (mods) , take responsibility and do something about it. Just by assumption I am guessing that you are 19?


----------



## the 48th regulator (6 Jul 2006)

qyrang said:
			
		

> Instead of blaming somebody else (mods) , take responsibility and do something about it. Just by assumption I am guessing that you are 19?



Cheerys qyrang,

Munky, you just don't get it do you.

You are going to do so well in our  Military.  Seek and Accept resposabilty for once in your life.

dileas

tess


----------



## Trinity (6 Jul 2006)

munky99999 said:
			
		

> Must have been a mistake or an admin or something put it in afterwards.



Did you seriously just accuse the admin of messing with your account?

Are you wearing a tin foil hat?  You know you're not allowed to line your combat helmet with tinfoil!!

The admin here may be sadistic, cruel, and ugly (just some of their good features) but they aren't going
to change your profile so they could turn around and accuse you of looking stupid.

No one needs to accuse you of that....  

Tess... in this case.. forget the *seek *and accept responsibility... lets go lower and just try ACCEPT responsibility.


----------



## big bad john (6 Jul 2006)

I can see that my first assessment was not on... you are just not very bright, are you.  Some what dimwitted in fact if I am to judge by your last post.  Now run along and don't play with any sharp objects!


----------



## GAP (6 Jul 2006)

Now run along and don't play with any sharp objects!


----------



## munky99999 (6 Jul 2006)

I would accept responsibility, but I usually put some crazy age like 1919 or something when I do profiles on the internet. I don’t ever put anything around my actual birthdate.



> Did you seriously just accuse the admin of messing with your account?
> 
> Are you wearing a tin foil hat?  You know you're not allowed to line your combat helmet with tinfoil!!
> 
> ...


I didn’t accuse anyone of messing with my account. Just stated that I don’t know how 1987 got there and proposed possibilities. When I was an admin for my school forum I screwed with people’s profiles all the time; attempting to fill in the information. Lets leave out my tin foil beret out of it.  I definitely can’t see how an admin trying to fill in a profile will make you look stupid afterwards. Not to mention that I don’t think they could assist in my mission to look stupid to begin with anyway.



> You are going to do so well in our Military. Seek and Accept resposabilty for once in your life.


In person I am a shy person who speaks basically never. Which is much different from online me.


----------



## HItorMiss (6 Jul 2006)

munky99999 said:
			
		

> In person I am a shy person who speaks basically never. Which is much different from online me.



Trying being more your in person, personality and just stop talking...stop posting ...Just *STOP* everything


----------



## winchable (6 Jul 2006)

There shall be no ranking system,
The lord hath spake.
All discussions regarding it shalt henceforth be considered blasphemous.

"STONE HIM"

Right, locking the thread before the dogpile produces puppies.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Jul 2006)

munky99999 said:
			
		

> ........ When I was an admin for my school forum I screwed with people’s profiles all the time; attempting to fill in the information. ......




Please Stop Now!  Stop now before you dig your hole any deeper.  You have just exposed an unethical side of your person.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (6 Jul 2006)

Munky I think you are seriously relishing the idea that you may get punted from this site, no need to wait say the word and we will help you along.


----------



## Trinity (6 Jul 2006)

Che said:
			
		

> There shall be no ranking system,
> The lord hath spake.
> All discussions regarding it shalt henceforth be considered blasphemous.
> 
> ...



Yet he who is without INTERNET SIN.. cast the first stone....


Crowd waits silently..

Ah to hell with it

/Padre picks up a stone and throws it at Munky99999


----------



## navymich (6 Jul 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> /Padre picks up a stone and throws it at Munky99999



...those in glass houses....ah to hell with it.....*hands Padre another stone*


----------



## paracowboy (6 Jul 2006)

navymich said:
			
		

> ...those in glass houses....ah to hell with it.....*hands Padre another stone*


you might as well throw it. He throws like a girl, anyway!


----------



## GAP (6 Jul 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> you might as well throw it. He throws like a girl, anyway!



Ohhhhh.....This catfight I am going watch from a safe distance.... ;D


----------



## navymich (6 Jul 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> Ohhhhh.....This catfight I am going watch from a safe distance.... ;D



Well GAP, if what Para says is true (and hell, we know he speaks the gospel ), you shouldn't have to back up too far to be safe from Padre's aim...... ;D


----------



## aesop081 (6 Jul 2006)

Thread should be renamed :

Army.ca ranking system (bad idea)


----------



## the 48th regulator (6 Jul 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> you might as well throw it. He throws like a girl, anyway!



 :rofl:

Ahh man I had to padre.....I am going to hell anyhooo



			
				munky99999 said:
			
		

> In person I am a shy person who speaks basically never. Which is much different from online me.



Maybe you should try switching your personas the other way around..... :

dileas

tess


----------



## Trinity (6 Jul 2006)

It's ok tess..

All is fair in love and war....   and Army.ca


----------



## big bad john (6 Jul 2006)

Staff; Please banish him as he does not contribute to the site or to anything that I can see.  Secondly, regardless of the first, this thread is also not contributing to the well being of the site (ARMY.CA) as a whole so IMHO, please lock it up!  Thank you for the bandwidth.


----------



## paracowboy (6 Jul 2006)

ask and ye shall receive


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Jul 2006)

Quote from Munky9999,
_When I was an admin for my school forum I screwed with people’s profiles all the time; attempting to fill in the information._


Goodbye..........


----------



## paracowboy (7 Jul 2006)

re-opened on request.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (7 Jul 2006)

I know I myself have seen the ranking system as a bit of a "look how long I've been able to stick around and not screw up enough to make them ban me."  It gives a bit of an indication of how long a person has been here, and that the higher you go the more likely you are to make posts of quality and coherent thought.

Granted, this is not a blanket end all be all situation as many can still act like morons with a 500+ post count.

meh, mod's have been around long enough to see what does and doesn't work.  But why do we need an improved ranking system?  It doesn't give you a higher power or more responsibility.  The onus is still on each person to remain respectful and aware whether they have 11 posts or 1100.


----------



## big bad john (7 Jul 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> re-opened on request.



Thank you for the quick, positive direct action!


----------

