Future of the forum

[french frank]

I've got a lovely picture of myelf. I'ts in my profile. How do you get it on here?

You need to Edit Avatar, link on the same page as Edit Profile. Lars Porsenna has instructions on this thread .
NB it should be no more than about 80px x 80px.

Edit: Amended link to message. Hope it's correct this time.

[3rd Viennese School]

Dun it!
3VS

[french frank]

Dun it!
3VS

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Well, as the old quip goes: "You can call me what you like as long as you call me in time for tea."

We can have any set of 'ranks' if we want (deacon(ess), curate, vicar/rector, rural, canon, dean, bishop??). Personally, I'd rather see us all displayed as 'members'. (I can make my other functions 'additional' rather than 'primary'. Perhaps I will ... )

Ooh, and I was just beginning to like the status of "Senior Member"

[french frank]

Ooh, and I was just beginning to like the status of "Senior Member"

I think it might be possible for everyone to choose (within certain rules ) their own 'title' - which has a certain pleasant anarchy about it.

Edit: Just to acknowledge GT's offer - it slipped in when I was looking elsewhere!

[johnb]

Rebellious thought:

I don't like 'titles' and think that everyone should be a 'member', though it is important to be able to identify people who are moderators/hosts/aministrators. (Sorry for being boring with this.)

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Seriously, I wouldn't worry about it. I doubt whether the present titles really upset anyone, and you can't please all the people all of the time.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

...but on reading johnb's comment, perhaps he's right.

[johnb]

EA,

The trouble with posting on a forum is that sometimes things come over more strongly than intended - this isn't something that I feel particularly strongly about - it's more of a personal inclination.

[Simon]

it's more of a personal inclination.

Well, johnb, you could be a Leaning Member then.

I really must behave: it was me that started the slide off-topic yesterday.. sorry!

[french frank]

Rebellious thought:

I don't like 'titles' and think that everyone should be a 'member'

That was my personal view in Msg #39 - I don't really like the idea of different ranks. We're all equal members but some people voluntarily put in more than others. A bit like life, really!

[antongould]

I'm pleased you are settling in so well salymap - yes Mr. Gould was a man of many idiosyncrasies singing along was perhaps the most infamous, but he also used the same piano stool/chair all his career even though it was falling apart, gave up live performance in his 20s etc. etc.

Edit: Hmmmm: Is this really the RUNNING OF THE FORUM thread? Just asking ... Not aimed at you, antongould, well, no more than at me

Oops, administrative error here - I clicked on the wrong button, please excuse me, antongould, unpardonable mistake barging in on someone else's message

[Curalach]

Rebellious thought:

I don't like 'titles' and think that everyone should be a 'member', though it is important to be able to identify people who are moderators/hosts/administrators.

johnb, I completely agree with you. One of the reasons that I was never attracted to R3ok was the ranking of members based on the number of posts. Quantity does not necessarily mean quality.
I agree that those who have a specific role, administrator, moderator etc., should be identified but I do think that the rest of us should just be members. In any case, the number of posts is displayed beside every message if anyone is interested.

[David Underdown]

Most forums find it necessary to least have some sort of cut-off at around 5-10 posts to prevent people registering accounts for spamming and the like.

[french frank]

I agree that those who have a specific role, administrator, moderator etc., should be identified but I do think that the rest of us should just be members.

It's a little bit down the list of priorities at present, but if it's the prevailing view, it can easily be changed.