New SuperElite membership

Discussion in 'Feedback' started by candletrader, Feb 20, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. In view of the fact that we are not in agreement, I vote to maintain the status quo... if it ain't broken, don't fix it...
    #11     Feb 20, 2003
  2. I thought it was funny a while back when someone suggested that having a extraordinarily high posts per day number would give you "Aphex Member" status. :D

    #12     Feb 20, 2003
  3. ROFL!
    #13     Feb 20, 2003

  4. IMPROVEMENT candle, it's about IMPROVEMENT.
    #14     Feb 20, 2003
  5. I don't think that there should be any more separations in status setup. But I am an advocate of the Chit Chat (and a few other areas) not counting towards the overall posting number. Several occupants in the higher class currently would lose quite a few of their counted total too. That would then make the significance of the "Elite" at this site really mean what it should. :)
    #15     Feb 20, 2003
  6. Whether or not it is improvement is debatable.... its only an improvement in your view... ROFL!!
    #16     Feb 20, 2003
  7. Member rank should be based on audited trading returns. :p Members could be ranked by their profitability. Rank #1 would be the most profitable trader. I'm kidding, of course. However, that would be cool though. :cool:

    F. PeBBLe
    #17     Feb 20, 2003
  8. "Elite" is about participation, irrespective of which forum you are participating in... posting in one section over another doesnt enhance or reduce the post quality...

    To repeat, Elite Membership is about participation, not quality... who is to judge if a post made in one forum is of higher or lesser quality than in another forum?
    #18     Feb 20, 2003
  9. I agree... if such an idea could be implemented, that would be way cool...
    #19     Feb 20, 2003
  10. yes, you're right. it's an improvement from my point of view.

    but the point was that these ideas SHOULD be put forward and discussed; not simply defer to the status quo.
    #20     Feb 20, 2003
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.