MS Update: Week Ending 9/8/04

If someone is no longer making icons, they should not have the title, bans or not.

And I wasn't trying to single out Icon artists. Anf, of course, we're ignoring FF titles, since those are controlled by their RSA and GSA.

Titles represent a group. I know in FF that multiple bans might get your JC title taken away, because you're respresenting your FF with that title. Same thing with Icon Artists, Banner Makers, etc. They are members of a group, given a title, and when they get banned, they can reflect poorly on their group.

EDIT: basically what I am asking is if there is any precedence for this, or if bans have no impact on title holding whatsoever.

 

For the icon community, as long as you occasionly update you'll keep it. But if youre posting all over, but only rarley updating your icon page, you'll loose the tittle WAY quicker than if, say, your PC dies and your off of the boards for a few months.

 

The way I see it, everyone contributes to the community and forum in one way or another. Some do it with excellent and insightful posts in the movie forums, or in the Senate, or in any of the other forums. Others do it by cropping, resizing, and occasionally adding transparency to pictures. Others do it by combining pictures into a banner. Some did it by being part of a council of users who advised the administration. Others have by being moderators. Others may not make particularly insightful posts, but they may make funny posts, and the laughter could help brighten someone's day. Others do it by hosting a trivia contest or game, others by winning or participating in that event.

There are people who put more time and effort into posting insightful posts in the forums than some icon artists do creating icons, or that banner artists do for creating banners. Where are their titles? Why should, for example, a banner maker get VIP status and a title for months, simply for a few days worth of work, when there are people who put just as much time into actual discussion every day - without any sort of reward?

I sincerely hope these people do this things because they enjoy it, and want to be helpful. It's pretty sad if people only do things for the titles or VIP status. Just about everyone contributes to the community, but everyone doesn't need a title. I could have had VIP status and a title, but I chose not to. I didn't do it for the status, and I don't really think I'm that important.

I've typically been against excessive VIP'ing and adding excessive titles. If you're the EUS Supreme Chancellor (whatever that is), add it to your signature. That's what members of the various social groups usually do. The signature field is there specifically for users to attach custom information to their posts.

I do think that everyone with colors should have a title, simply because it helps explain why the person has the colors. Also, titles should be straightforward and relevant. If you're a moderator, I'd like to see "Mod" or "Moderator" there (along with the forum you moderate), not some other not-so-clever title.

Frankly, I think the title feature has been used in many instances in the past where a short line in the signature would suffice.

Yeah, it'd suck if some people had to have their title taken away because of new rules. However, I feel that it would be a bad decision to "grandfather" these people in, as it would simply cause more confusion. I personally think that seeing your banner, icon, or posts in the forum should be enough of a reward. I made an icon or two in the past, but I did it because I thought the icons were necessary, not because there was any sort of reward. The only reward I needed was to see someone using the icons, which actually happened.

If I'm not mistaken, icon artists get titles regardless of what percentage of their icons get uploaded. Yet, in banner contests, everyone who submitted a banner doesn't get a "Banner Artist" title. Is that fair? Isn't it possible that someone who lost the contest could have actually spent more time on their banner? Don't those people deserve some sort of recognition too?

In summary, titles are overused. I feel that 90% of the board members positively contribute to the boards, in one form or another. I don't feel that titles are necessary, as a simple "thanks", or seeing their work throughout the forums should be sufficient reward and thanks for their contributions.

 

Welcome to the club Yoda Jeff, I started making icons casuse my favorite EU characthers are sorta shafted in the icon department.


All I got was this crummy tittle, and no icons. (well, I did get a few uploaded icons, such as this one, but one of the characthers I wanted.)


But still, the fact is taht banner artists and icon artists make something tangeble that the form uses, and were granted titles/colors for said reason.

Do I cherish my title that much ? No.

But it's the principle of the thing, dont take away something that people worked for and earned just because others are whining, instead aactualy DEAL with those that wine for tittles.


EDIT, clarification

 

I think Icon and banner makers should get colors. As Wes said he doesn't cherish his title, and I am not sure if many do, but I know some would cherish colors.

 

The only way to get colors is by promoting someone to at least a VIP status. And that's not going to be the case here.

 

"But still, the fact is taht banner artists and icon artists make something tangeble that the form uses, and were granted titles/colors for said reason."

But, as I stated in my somewhat long-winded post, there are people who create insightful threads, or make insightful posts. Isn't that worthy of recognition too?

"But it's the principle of the thing, dont take away something that people worked for and earned just because others are whining, instead aactualy DEAL with those that wine for tittles."

I think everyone should agree that removing a title doesn't remove the hard work that people put into the icons. If I'm not mistaken, the "Icon Artist" titles were handed out without much, if any, discussion. People shouldn't work to earn an Icon Artist title, they should work to see their Icons added, or because they want to help out. That is what they truly earn by creating icons, and that isn't taken away if they don't have titles.

I don't see too many people whining for titles. I see people complaining that titles are handed out for too many ridiculous things, but I think the complaints are warranted, and at least deserve looking into. Not every complaint should be discarded as "whining". Instead of dealing with those that are whining, it makes more sense (to me, at least) to focus on the reason they're complaining.

I know I focused on Icon Artists in this post, but it also applies to a lot of the other titles out there.

"I think Icon and banner makers should get colors. As Wes said he doesn't cherish his title, and I am not sure if many do, but I know some would cherish colors."

ARGH! Again, they should cherish seeing their work around the boards, not any lame title or VIP status.

 

It really is comments like that that tell me there's more to creating icons to some than the satisfaction and recognition that comes from seeing them uploaded.

 

they should cherish seeing their work around the boards, not any lame title or VIP status.

I agree. But there might be more if people get than a title. Persoannly, I would love to see my work on these boards, but I don't know how so I can't.

 

Why would we need colors ? We dont require a title either, but it's something icon artists have had for a good while, something that was given as a courtesy to the service we render free of charge, Ive read the entire thread but still havent seen a good reason as to WHY the mods want to remove our tittles, other than certain people whining about how they deserve a tittle.

 

Well, here's the difference between banners and icons.

We have a billion icons. We honestly need very little new icons, and the ones needed are mostly ep III icons. We could literally appoint one responsible person to be jc icon creator, and the boards would continue to run perfectly fine, probably with very little complaints from anyone except the icon makers. I am not saying we SHOULD do this, I am just making a point.

On the other hand, banners are more necessary.

Moderators of a forum decide they want a new banner for their forum. They need to have multiple submissions and GOOD submissions to really have a proper final banner. Banners take a lot more work and time than icons, and those banner makers need to be inspired to participate in the contest.

If offering, say, 1 months VIP ship for the banner winner greatly increases the number of entries, I am all for it.

But what we have now is people keeping VIPship loooong after their banners have dissappeared. Partially this is due to the moderator purging of Wisegate, and a lot of information didn't get properly transferred.

The Administration needs to rethink and revise the VIP/title rules (which they are) by starting from scratch. As YodaJeff said, we need to stop the grandfathering of certain titles. Or, at least, reevaluate all the titles and decide if they really ARE pointless or not.

Taking away titles will upset people of course... but we just need to do what is better for the long run.

 

I would like to be able to make banners and such, but Idon't know how. Would anyone please direct me to a banner making tutorial or something like that?

 

Here: http://boards.theforce.net/Communications/b10006/15616242/?80

 

Thanks. I didn't see that.

 

"But there might be more if people get than a title."

But is there really a shortage of icons or icon artists at the moment? I don't think so.

"We dont require a title either, but it's something icon artists have had for a good while"

Yes, and they somehow survived without titles for an even longer period of time.

"Ive read the entire thread but still havent seen a good reason as to WHY the mods want to remove our tittles, other than certain people whining about how they deserve a tittle."

Again, a lot of people aren't saying that the titles should be removed simply because they can't have one. I already stated that I could have a title and/or VIP status, but I don't want it. Therefore, there is no form of e-jealousy, at least in my case. I personally feel that seeing their icons uploaded and used should be enough of a personal satisfaction, and that titles aren't necessary. I maintained a thread index before, and helped out in other minor ways, yet never thought that I deserved any sort of title for it.

However, if the new title restrictions are going to be limited to the JC side only, and not FF, then they're essentially useless, since FF seems to have more useless titles than the JC. The majority of the people who have titles could easily put that information in their signature.

"On the other hand, banners are more necessary."

Then why don't banner artists who lose get titles? If icon artists can seemingly get titles for their work, even if none of their icons are added, then why not banner artists? Would giving out titles to people who consistently participate in banner contests, but always seem to lose - the Susan Lucci of banner contests, if you will (if you ignore that she eventually won) - help get more people to participate? Or would it only raise the quantity, and not the quality?

That's the problem with giving out titles for minor things, everyone thinks that they deserve one for some reason or another. Some may have valid reasons, others don't.

When titles were first introduced, the administration decided to limit them to moderators, VIPs, City Reps, and the like. The AC eventually got titles, under the assumption that it would help them become more visible, which would make them more useful to the JC (whether or not that's the case is probalby arguable). Then, Fan Force started handing out titles in an apparently random fashion. From there, things deteriorated. What once had been a straightforward rule on when titles could be given away had decayed to the point where it wasn't clear. What the administration needs to do is to clearly define what criteria are required for titles. Once it is defined, there will be less questioning about who gets titles, why they get the titles, and how other people can get titles. If we had stuck with the original plan, we wouldn't be in this mess now.

 

Ive read the entire thread but still havent seen a good reason as to WHY the mods want to remove our tittles, other than certain people whining about how they deserve a tittle.

For me, I can point to 2 instances why this entire topic was re-started.

Both revolve around normal users bringing their concerns to my attention.

1)I received a request from a Senate poster who wanted to explore the option of getting the title of "Senate News Anchor."

His idea was actually a pretty good one, where he would organize daily news stories and such and present them. Beyond some actual logistical concerns I had, I also told him probably a no-go on the title.

Well, he came back with "but icon makers have titles, what is the difference?" It wasn't a whine per se, but I really didn't have an answer.

Why DO icon makers* have titles, when their work is reflected in the icon, not the title?

And how do you determine "relative work" on an internet message board? Does making icons require more work than collating news stories?

2)And I don't want to single anyone out here, because it is not my forum, but the second concern was over the Fanfic "summer challenge" or whatever it was called.

A person was appearently looking for a mod, but all she could find were colored "summer judges" or "challenge winner #10," etc..

If people are finding the amount of non-mod colored names distracting, then maybe the amount needs to be re-examined.

Again, these are just two examples that were brought to me, and I'm supplying them to illustrate some of the issues I raised in the MS discussion.

Other mods have other concerns, and that's why the policy is being discussed.

**=and icon makers aren't be singled out here, but I think they were the first example used, so the term kind of stuck as an example.

For this purpose "icon makers" represent general titles etc..

 

other than certain people whining about how they deserve a tittle.

That's the third time in as many posts as you've made that point and you're the third or fourth person in this thread to do so. Please show me anyone in this thread who has whined because they don't have a title. People are arguing that titles are given out excessively. Hardly the same as people whining because they don't have them.

It seems to me that the real whining is coming from people who are in "danger" of losing their titles.

Titles have been a slippery slope since the feature was first added. If things had been kept at official-use only (just like HTML was originally intended, but that rule has hardly been adhered to either), there would be no problems.

Amazing.

 

Titles have been a slippery slope since the feature was first added. If things had been kept at official-use only (just like HTML was originally intended, but that rule has hardly been adhered to either), there would be no problems.

Yes, amen. That's why I never personally gave them out in the 3SA. And because our group, myself included, allowed this to grow uncontrollably we are now dealing with the ramifications we brought upon ourselves. We deserve it because we created it. That does not mean we aren't going to remove titles and pull back hard in an effort to issue titles as the tool in which they were intended. But I wanted everyone to know that we accept responsibility.

 

THen why not allow groups that have tittles for a legitimate reason to keep them ?

 

Well, it's the legitimacy piece of the tittle that we're discussing.

 

Can someone who was a mod at the time clarify whether or not there was any discussion about giving Icon Artists titles prior to the titles being handed out?

 

From talking to GS at the general time, I don't think that it was discussed with the rest of the MS.

 

I don't believe there was. I'm pretty sure it was just done and so it was.

 

Thanks.

So, it probably could be argued that the titles were never "authorized" by the MS as a whole in the first place. Granted, by allowing them to stay for months, they have been given indirect support, at least for the time being.

 

I'd say the way that's written is accurate.