Forum:Ranking System

Ranking system
I've seen some people say that we should get another ranking system to replace the one we threw out a while ago. I am thus taking the initiative and starting the discussion on it.

So, if we could devise a good ranking system that would only be used for the fun of it and encourage editing in the process, would you be for it?

An idea of mine, since we have to start somewhere, is just basing a lot of it off of that you only get promoted from good editing, and bad editing (vandalism, spam, rudeness, edit whoring, etc.) would deter a promotion or warrant a demotion.

You would also not automatically be enrolled in the ranking system and would thus have to choose to be enrolled, and would be able to leave at any time.

To get promoted, you would either request a promotion which would thus be looked over by someone else (a member of a committee? An admin? One of the highest-ranked members?), or be offered a promotion which you could either accept or decline.

Would we put a limit on the highest attainable rank? I mean, having a General and multiple other officers out of a group of maybe fifteen users isn't very accurate when it would come to organization. We could just increase the highest attainable rank as the userbase grows.

Would we even try to keep it semi-authentic with rank organization? Having five users to a Sergeant would be hard with our relatively small userbase. Especially with something like 100 other soldiers to a single Captain, 800 to a Major, 20,000 to a Major General, and so on. I would expect the ratios to be much smaller if we tried to keep it relative. Maybe something like five soldiers to a Lieutenant. Or something. I don't know.

I guess I'm going a bit far off. Simply put, it would be intended to increase fun output without the possibility of it being abused.

Feeback, input, or other ideas? Discuss below. 20:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Weak Support It seems a lot better than the awards system someone posted about a while back since powers would only be given to admins and high-ranked people. As long as there's a good system behind it, I think it could work. WouldYouKindly 20:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - We write about the video games, not host the games or something. We should be able to call ourselves whatever we want. A ranking system would also take away from the way this wiki feels like Wikipedia: a quasi-encyclopedic source of info. 20:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Ranking systems in general are horrible ideas. All they do is encourage awful editors to make bad edits so that they can get a .jpg on their profile. Darkman 4 01:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - Please make a ranking system! It would really help with getting contributers. 14:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - per Dark. All it encourages is edit whoring-- 15:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral - When I was on the Halo wiki, users could "join" a faction (i.e. UNSC, Covenant, etc.) and they'd get promoted by the admins based on their edit count. Darkman already spelled out the problem with that. To me, the ranking system seemed kind of pointless; I made Sergeant and nothing seemed different from when I started. However, when I was in JROTC, we used a portal that also had a ranking system. That too was based on a post count, but you could only do 10 posts a day. The ranking system can be fun, yes, but do we really need it? I'd go along either way, but I'll let democracy decide.Chief z 15:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)