Redleg

I know you are a busy man and I love these forums for better or worse (lol) but a long time ago you said you would go over the rank structure. Some of that was including 5 star rank and an increase number of posts for that. I have some ideas. Why not make the Flag Officers club an area that you cannot just "postuyourwayinto" but a promotion where the mods would look at your posting career and decide if you deserve to get general or not? And if that is a good Idea, or not, make the requirement for Brigadier General at 1000 posts. That way you would have had a lot of time to figure if the person deserves to promote that high or not. If not then let them stay Colonel until they improve or not. Even if that Idea does not fly then make the system with higher posts. 10000 for 5 Star,
8000 for 4 Star, 5000 for 3 Star, 2500 for 2 Star and 1000 for 1 Star, 500 for colonel and then whatever scale the bottom would be.

I know you are a busy man

you have NO idea... 8)

But I'll try to look at this tomorrow, getting late here now.

Originally Posted by USAFAUX2004

Redleg

I know you are a busy man and I love these forums for better or worse (lol) but a long time ago you said you would go over the rank structure. Some of that was including 5 star rank and an increase number of posts for that. I have some ideas. Why not make the Flag Officers club an area that you cannot just "postuyourwayinto" but a promotion where the mods would look at your posting career and decide if you deserve to get general or not? And if that is a good Idea, or not, make the requirement for Brigadier General at 1000 posts. That way you would have had a lot of time to figure if the person deserves to promote that high or not. If not then let them stay Colonel until they improve or not. Even if that Idea does not fly then make the system with higher posts. 10000 for 5 Star,
8000 for 4 Star, 5000 for 3 Star, 2500 for 2 Star and 1000 for 1 Star, 500 for colonel and then whatever scale the bottom would be.

I agree with that idea because some people have been spaming on the boards lately trying to get a better rank then someone els.

I am supportive of a rank change...if that matters any

Yes good idea.

Let me think for a minute... Ok...

On some of the other forums that I visit regulary the posts done in the "off topic" secions (or general chit chat like here) are not countable - that is they are not added to your total number of posts on the board. This for avoiding people getting higher profiles since it is "easier" to post something in the off topic than in the down to earth sections.

Second of all, if people just post to get a higher rank - why exactly do they do it? It is just a rank - you don't become moderator or receive Paris Hilton as special cargo over night (Okay say what you want to say... 8) ) - if someone believe that.

If the rank system is to change - I'd say making some sections "non profitable" or multiply the rank points by 10.

Just my opinion.

sounds like a good idea to me, even if i do get busted down.........


way down

I'm fine with changing the rank structure if you have the time and it's important, but it really seems like an issue for "generals" more than for "newbs." Is there really a problem with the rank structure, or are a few frequent posters just trying to remain elite? Don't know. Just askin'.

Originally Posted by ironhorseredleg

I'm fine with changing the rank structure if you have the time and it's important, but it really seems like an issue for "generals" more than for "newbs." Is there really a problem with the rank structure, or are a few frequent posters just trying to remain elite? Don't know. Just askin'.

Well I remember that at first I tried to get to Colonel pretty fast (and I did) Took me about 2 months to get to Brigadier general. Another forum that I am on has a promotion to general at the Mods discretion, which means that even if you get 500 posts does not mean you get promoted at 500. I saw a colonel with a 1000+ because he hasn't been promoted.


This is their Chart

Originally Posted by GruntsMilitary

"Enlisted Member Rankings:

E-1 ------- 0 posts
E-2 ------- 1 post
E-3 ------- 3 posts
E-4 ------- 5 posts
E-5 ------ 10 posts
E-6 ------ 20 posts
E-7 ------ 30 posts
E-8 ------ 50 posts
E-9 ------ 70 posts
E-9 ------ 90 posts

Members will remain at the rank of E-9 until reaching 120 posts, at which point they will automatically be promoted to the "Commissioned Officer" member group. This group contains the following set of rankings:

Commissioned Officer Rankings:

O-1 ---- 120 posts
O-2 ---- 150 posts
O-3 ---- 190 posts
O-4 ---- 240 posts
O-5 ---- 300 posts
O-6 ---- 400 posts

After reaching 400 posts, a member's rank in the forum will be capped at O-6. From this point, selections will be made on occassion to allow certain members with exemplary records in the forum to be included in the "Flag Officers" member group. Members within this group will not receive caps on their rank level, and may continue their promotion scale up to full general. The remaining ranking scale may be found below:

Flag Officer Rankings:

O-7 ------------------------- 500 posts
O-8 ------------------------- 600 posts
O-9 ------------------------- 700 posts
O-10 ----------------------- 800 posts
General of the Forum -- 1000 posts.

This is what I was thinking about, just with bigger numbers like 10000 posts for General of the Forum

That's cool and all, USAF, but I guess my question is, "What's the big deal with rank on the forum?" I mean, being a general doesn't give you any additonal benefits or anything, does it? Isn't it just kinda bragging rights?