Ranks for the Treefrog Army (1 Viewer)

[Peter Reuss]

As requested...here is your pay grade (the number is the minumum posts to be at that grade):

Private - 0
Private 2 - 50
Private 1st Class - 150
Specialist - 250
Corporal - 400
Sgt - 600
Staff Sgt - 800
Sgt. 1st Class - 1000
Master Sgt - 1200
First Sgt - 1350
Sgt Major - 1500
Command Sgt Major - 2000
2nd Lieutenant - 3000
1st Lieutenant - 4000
Captain - 5000
Major - 6000
Lt. Colonel - 7000
Colonol - 8000
Brigadier General - 10,000
Major General - 12,500
Lt. General - 15,000
Four Star General - 20,000

Queen - well, only Shannon gets that role!

It's obviously easier to move up in the lower ranks!

 

[aujj65]

Hmmm, another 12 years on this forum at my going rate and I should be a 4 star!

Jeff

 

[jazzeum]

Queen - well, only Shannon gets that role!

I thought her title was Commander of the Universe and the One Who Knows All and Sees All!

 

[Peter Reuss]

I thought her title was Commander of the Universe and the One Who Knows All and Sees All!

Her title...is whatever she wants it to be

 

[theBaron]

Her title...is whatever she wants it to be

How 'bout Rumpole's "She Who Must Be Obeyed"?

 

[lancer]

Drat! My whole plan is trashed. Now I will have to find another way to rule the world. -- Al

 

[Rob]

As requested...here is your pay grade (the number is the minumum posts to be at that grade):

Private - 0
Private 2 - 50
Private 1st Class - 150
Specialist - 250
Corporal - 400
Sgt - 600
Staff Sgt - 800
Sgt. 1st Class - 1000
Master Sgt - 1200
First Sgt - 1350
Sgt Major - 1500
Command Sgt Major - 2000
2nd Lieutenant - 3000
1st Lieutenant - 4000
Captain - 5000
Major - 6000
Lt. Colonel - 7000
Colonol - 8000
Brigadier General - 10,000
Major General - 12,500
Lt. General - 15,000
Four Star General - 20,000

Queen - well, only Shannon gets that role!

It's obviously easier to move up in the lower ranks!

A while back we had a list of the top ten posters, any chance we could have an update on that ?

Rob

 

[The Lt.]

A while back we had a list of the top ten posters, any chance we could have an update on that ?

Rob

Rob there's no doubt you'll appear as number one on the list an will be adding the 4th star before the end of this year.

 

[jazzeum]

Rob,

That's still there. If you go to Community, click on Members List, then click on Posts, it will provide you with the list from most (you) to least.

Cheers,

 

[Rob]

Rob there's no doubt you'll appear as number one on the list an will be adding the 4th star before the end of this year.

I wonder if the wife will allow me more spending money if I'm a four star General Joe?

Rob,

That's still there. If you go to Community, click on Members List, then click on Posts, it will provide you with the list from most (you) to least.

Cheers,

Thanks Brad. Wow, when you do it there are pages and pages of members who have not posted a single post!

Rob

 

[Shannon Reuss]

How 'bout Rumpole's "She Who Must Be Obeyed"?

I have always wanted a t-shirt in my wardrobe that said that . Or maybe two so I could still be wearing one while the other one is being washed. It's an integral part of the uniform as I take over the toy soldier world...Bwaahahahaha!

 

[Shannon Reuss]

Rob,

That's still there. If you go to Community, click on Members List, then click on Posts, it will provide you with the list from most (you) to least.

Cheers,

That is a cool function ...if only it included signatures too. It would make it so easy to weed out the spammers that have snuck onto the forum to plant a link to their perfume/wedding favors/N-o-k-i-a phone websites in their signatures and then skulk off to crash the party on another forum.

 

[Arnhemjim]

Fellow Forum Membership,
With all due deference, and as a mere “ranker” in this lash-up, might I humbly recommend that somehow there is a balance struck between quantity and quality in the posts. Understood that this would open up an entirely new issue of subjective versus objective judgment as to a given post. However, I would hope that the majority of forum members can differentiate between a substantive and/or informative post, and mere “prattle”. It’s my understanding that’s why the forum has moderators. I believe the majority of the forum membership already has empirical evidence from some of the more recent “challenging“ threads (was seriously considering listing the Forum amongst a list of battlefields I have visited), and the benevolent intervention of the moderators to restore civility to some potentially “mutinous” (perhaps disruptive or counter-productive would be more p.c.) elements within the rank and file. I’m certain that there are many others who would have thoughts on this subject, even to the extent that they might offer candidate criteria for a table of “guidelines”, beyond those that already exist and are in use. Will be anxiously awaiting other members thoughts on this subject.
Arnhemjim
Newly Re-liberated Arizona Territory

 

[Rob]

That is a cool function ...if only it included signatures too. It would make it so easy to weed out the spammers that have snuck onto the forum to plant a link to their perfume/wedding favors/***** phone websites in their signatures and then skulk off to crash the party on another forum.

Does seem to have been a few of late, and so many members who don't seem to post at all.

Rob

 

[theBaron]

Peter, does the software include functionality to print a list of top posters by count, say, on the main page? I've seen that on some other sites, eg, FineScaleModeler, but I don't know if the page software is the same.

 

[Mitch]

Jim...

Personally speaking I think your post smacks of a form of elitism. What, or who, has the right to say what is according to you prattle versus what you call substantive or quality posts. Many on here know a bit about history many think they know a lot more than they do however, we all learn even, from what is deemed by some as prattle. there are those just learning or do not know much about a certain subject and can either gain valuable knowledge or be sent in the right direction from members or elsewhere.

Also, many like the banter just prattling on about dioramas etc and don't see this as anything other than a release from the grind. I see know reason why more arbitrary rules should even be contemplated on a forum which, is supposed to be about talking about toy soldiers and history.

I also think the points you raise about mutiny to be OTT yes, there are disagreements on here but, dear me, some, think its the end of the world when its rather a storm in a tea cup. You should view some of the rugby and football sites and see what is allowed to be said it would make some see just how polite this forum really is.

For me, a site that I must believe was intended for fun, should not shackle the collector anymore than absolutely necessary.
Mitch

 

[Rob]

Jim...

Personally speaking I think your post smacks of a form of elitism. What, or who, has the right to say what is according to you prattle versus what you call substantive or quality posts. Many on here know a bit about history many think they know a lot more than they do however, we all learn even, from what is deemed by some as prattle. there are those just learning or do not know much about a certain subject and can either gain valuable knowledge or be sent in the right direction from members or elsewhere.

Also, many like the banter just prattling on about dioramas etc and don't see this as anything other than a release from the grind. I see know reason why more arbitrary rules should even be contemplated on a forum which, is supposed to be about talking about toy soldiers and history.

I also think the points you raise about mutiny to be OTT yes, there are disagreements on here but, dear me, some, think its the end of the world when its rather a storm in a tea cup. You should view some of the rugby and football sites and see what is allowed to be said it would make some see just how polite this forum really is.

For me, a site that I must believe was intended for fun, should not shackle the collector anymore than absolutely necessary.
Mitch

Superb post. I'm sorry Jim, I do not mean to upset you, but your post came across as high handed and patronising. Mitch is absolutely right. Who is anyone to tell anyone else what they should post in any way shape or form?. Unless it is offensive or designed to inflame, people are free to post whatever they please. Some are comfortable with a one line answer, some do not have English as a first language and as a result post only short messages, and I also think its perfectly ok to post the ' Great job on your dio ' type line, its common courtesy in my view.

The day we start dictating what folk can talk about or how they should talk will be a very sad one.

Again, apologies Jim, no offence intended.

Rob

 

[theBaron]

Fellow Forum Membership,
With all due deference, and as a mere “ranker” in this lash-up, might I humbly recommend that somehow there is a balance struck between quantity and quality in the posts. Understood that this would open up an entirely new issue of subjective versus objective judgment as to a given post. However, I would hope that the majority of forum members can differentiate between a substantive and/or informative post, and mere “prattle”. It’s my understanding that’s why the forum has moderators. I believe the majority of the forum membership already has empirical evidence from some of the more recent “challenging“ threads (was seriously considering listing the Forum amongst a list of battlefields I have visited), and the benevolent intervention of the moderators to restore civility to some potentially “mutinous” (perhaps disruptive or counter-productive would be more p.c.) elements within the rank and file. I’m certain that there are many others who would have thoughts on this subject, even to the extent that they might offer candidate criteria for a table of “guidelines”, beyond those that already exist and are in use. Will be anxiously awaiting other members thoughts on this subject.
Arnhemjim
Newly Re-liberated Arizona Territory

Deciding quality puts us on a dangerous path, and if I'm not mistaken, the moderators are really to make sure that the forum rules aren't violated. But to decide quality, that's a very subjective observation to make.

However, I think you're on to something, that is often mentioned in forums like ours, and that's to distinguish between posts that do include some content, like a post about a newly-painted figure, and response posts that contain a lot of information, and those posts that consist of "Atta boys!", which increase counts, and are nice to receive, but don't really contribute to a discussion. I've seen some forums implement things like a Like button, and/or a Thanks button, and users are encouraged to use those, in place of leaving a post that says, "Great!" or "Thanks!"

If our software has that functionality, maybe it would be worth it to test and implement it.

Prost!
Brad

 

[Rob]

Speaking as someone who has posted three dioramas so far on this forum, I must say I got a huge kick of getting a reply whether they were three words, three lines or three paragraphs. If someone takes the trouble to say ' nice dio Rob' I am very grateful and very pleased to read that, I would absolutely hate it if those folk felt they could not pass a short courtesy for fear of offending someone. It costs nobody else any trouble and in my view would be stunningly mean spirited to attempt to stop it.

Rob

 

[Mitch]

I just don't think that would work either. I think its nice to have a comment or two from people when they have spent substantial time either building or painting something. This removal of interaction is another unwelcome addition IMO. Its common courtesy to actually speak with someone rather than leave a stupid icon

I have never thought of just saying great as a way to rack up posts again, I think people must take this whole rank thing to seriously, scrap it all and make everyone a private. I think a discussion forum should be just that not, a pile of smiles or thumbs up as that just takes away another aspect of the enjoyment and IMO is imposing another arbitrary rule because some see 'prattle'' as somehow unecessary.
Mitch