Google may make all known unto you, but...
(hopefully not offensive? I'll gladly remove it on request.)
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MacRumors Demi-God
- Thread starter cmcbridejr
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Google may make all known unto you, but...
(hopefully not offensive? I'll gladly remove it on request.)
I don't see why it's important to portray gender in a title. I like the mystery. For all you know, I could be a boy...
...But people might start thinking you're the product of my seed.
...But people might start thinking you're the product of my seed.
Keep in mind, this may not be a subject most new users would think of looking up in the FAQs, because many of them will feel that "obviously" the Demi-Gods are specially chosen in some way. Likewise, when reading through the FAQ upon their joining the community, they may not notice the section addressing user titles as they have yet to see them in "the real world."On the other hand, there is a very nice FAQ page about this, and one could reason that if there was confusion, that would be the first place to look.
...
The (Moderator) title makes things pretty clear I think. If someone is willing to judge the entire community based on the response they receive from one demi-god, and they have simultaneously decided not to read the FAQ, then perhaps they deserve the fate they bring upon themselves.
Besides, aside from the occasional fluke, most demis aren't going to be blatantly rude because they know the importance of the site and its on-going success (hence why they contribute). There are only a handful of truly rude and unhelpful members on MR anyways, and I doubt the preponderance of them are going to be demis (especially considering the investment demis have put into the site in monetary and temporal terms).
Also, this really isn't just a fluke occurrence. It may not warrant a thread each time, but it's not uncommon to find comments in threads that clearly reveal the fact that the poster believes Demi-Gods are moderators.
I think a lot of the confusion also stems from the fact that there are two official titles (Demi-God and Contributor) which carry the exact same meaning. In fact, I remember asking that very question as a "newbie."
We already have those threads. One step at a time...
If people want to skip past sections of the FAQ or simply make presuppositions about how the site works, who are we to stop them? Would changing the user titles really be that conducive to increasing the user experience? In the grand scheme of things, is this really something that needs to be given more thought over other things?
It seems to me that the pattern of behavior which your solution addresses is rampant across many and all forums on the internet. People don't like to read the rules or the FAQ and simply want to post. At times this produces disastrous results like a thread which breaks several rules. In other situations it can produce harmless misunderstandings ("how many posts do I need for an avatar?" for example). It can also produce minor problems like the one you described in your original post (demi-gods being misunderstood for Moderators).
I'll go into the specifics of that next:
This isn't necessarily a bad thing in all situations. The only time a "harm" or other negative effect is produced is:
As this ad hoc table shows, the only harm that can be prevented with your suggestion of different nomenclature is the one in which the new member assumes that "demi-god" means Moderator and in which the demi-god is wrong.
Now, here we can postulate a few things. Firstly, if someone comes on the internet and is satisfied by the advice of only one person, then there is nothing that even an amended nomenclature system can do for them. Threads generally generate numerous responses, and if a demi-god is the only one to put forth an alternative opinion, then it would be wise for anyone, not just new members, to consider the advice of the majority.
Furthermore, an amended nomenclature indicates that the moderators will have more technical knowledge than non-mods, which is not always the case as mkrishnan informed us.
A new member could just as easily fall into the trap of believing something only on the basis of authority whether or not that person happens to be a mod. Savvy forum users will aggregate many opinions and consider them all before making a decision (it should be noted that savvy forum users will also make their own decisions and not simply rely on what a stranger on the internet tells them to do).
Considering these factors, would an amended user title system be any better than what we have now? How well would you estimate its effectiveness at reducing questions about user titles?
This is meant to provide supporters with an option as to what they'd like. I think it's a nice little way of saying "we'll give you a few options because you're helping out the site."
We already have those threads. One step at a time...
Then their frequency will only increase as all non-mod site supporters are relabled as "contributors."
This entire problem is reminiscent of a hamster's wheel. No matter how hard you try, you're still just running in place.
Calboy, you're putting way too much thought into this.
This is obviously a frequent topic of discussion, and it's something the mods and admins have discussed. We haven't yet decided whether any changes are or are not forthcoming, but the confusion we sometimes see is an issue we're aware of.
This is obviously a frequent topic of discussion, and it's something the mods and admins have discussed. We haven't yet decided whether any changes are or are not forthcoming, but the confusion we sometimes see is an issue we're aware of.
Calboy, you're putting way too much thought into this.
I actually just finished a 25 page research paper on a topic similar to this (how to reduce harms and injustice) and so I've got that whole body of work fueling my right now.
Besides, I happen to like my user title.
Sure Cal, you were working on a "report"
That's what all the cool kids are calling it these days.
That's what all the cool kids are calling it these days.
And you're just trying to be one of them
Lets look at how other sites do this:
This person is clearly not a moderator and you don't have to read the rules or FAQ to see that, now you may not know what an "et Subscriptor" (subscriptor is actually a link to the "subscribe page") means but still...
Calboy, you're putting way too much thought into this.
and that's something new?
I think it's a bit bloody obvious here, too. Moderators have "moderator" under their username. Is that not simple enough?
That's true, at least once you've seen a moderator post, but there are a lot more demi gods than moderators.
If this issue of titles and what they signify is not such a big deal, then why have we all gone back and forth for so many pages?
From what I have read, I am not the only person that has posted confusion on this matter.
From what I have read, I am not the only person that has posted confusion on this matter.
Because people enjoy taking about nothing. Look at how successful Seinfeld was.
If a person is so interested in "titles" they can find the information in multiple areas INCLUDING using the very simple search feature on the boards which brings up dozens of threads. People are simply too lazy to read around. It's that simple.
For that issue, perhaps it would make sense to make everything consistent -- that is, make the capitalization on all the titles that have MacRumors in them the same (some of them are lowercase right now, and some of them are uppercase... sorry for being obsessive-compulsive
), and have the god title consistently include the administrative role as well?MacRumors God (Administrator)
MacRumors Demi-God (Moderator)
MacRumors Demi-God(ess)
MacRumors Contributor
Or what have you...
In all honesty, I guess I wouldn't exactly cry if it changed more significantly, but at least that change would make the current system consistent.
Exactly that makes it look like is that Calboy is a less senior member than Wildcowboy, in fact it makes him look more like a moderator than ever.
Another option is to just append subscriber (or possibly sponsor, EDIT: There are other possibilities like Benefactor, but they sound fairly pretentious IMO) to the titles as according to the built in Mac OS X dictionary they don't have a cross-meaning to someone who writes for the site like Contributor does.
MacRumors God (Administrator)
MacRumors Demi-God (Moderator)
MacRumors Demi-Godess (Moderator)
MacRumors Demi-God (Subscriber)
MacRumors Demi-Godess (Subscriber)
MacRumors Contributor (Subscriber)
Though they are all getting a bit long winded, so maybe just:
MacRumors Subscriber is better...
Whatever...
*runs off to finish a "report"*
Isn't that what the men say when they get caught with all that porn on their work computer? Or was it writing a book?
Boy, some serious navel-gazing going on here. Taking a look at some other special-interest forums, I find the member titles in most of those are no plainer or self-evident as to the member's relative position than MR. Other than a vanilla Member, Senior Member, Moderator, Senior Moderator, Administrator, Senior Administrator--which I note has lots of chiefs and not many indians, most forums use naming conventions that are unique and relevant to the interest. None of them, other than the aforementioned example, are indicative to the casual viewer the "rank" of the title-holder. And at that, not knowing how these things work, is one to assume that a Moderator is more or less than an Administrator? To a complete neophyte, it may not even be that apparent.
There's no need to over-analyze for some supposed failure on the admins' parts for clarity in the naming conventions. The names are, well, what they are, until Arn decides that he wants to call us something else. At least MR has a FAQ where these things can be learned, most other forums don't. As it applies to the confused masses, are we really talking about more than one or two for every thousand? I would think that if one is to be a continuing member, they'll figure it out; if they are a sub-five poster, well, what difference does it make, then? In either case, it's not something that should be all that jarring to the general membership (how often do we change names to clarify even more?).
All that being said, I will grant that to the casual observer, the Demi-God/Demi-Goddess titles do seem to infer some level of authority (of whatever type you imagine), which may or may not have been intentional. With that in mind, I suggest that we carry ourselves appropriately, not doing any damage to the membership nor reputation of MR. As you have the Hippocratic oath, "First, do no harm," and Google, "Don't be Evil," there should be the MR Motto, "Don't be a Twunt."
There's no need to over-analyze for some supposed failure on the admins' parts for clarity in the naming conventions. The names are, well, what they are, until Arn decides that he wants to call us something else. At least MR has a FAQ where these things can be learned, most other forums don't. As it applies to the confused masses, are we really talking about more than one or two for every thousand? I would think that if one is to be a continuing member, they'll figure it out; if they are a sub-five poster, well, what difference does it make, then? In either case, it's not something that should be all that jarring to the general membership (how often do we change names to clarify even more?).
All that being said, I will grant that to the casual observer, the Demi-God/Demi-Goddess titles do seem to infer some level of authority (of whatever type you imagine), which may or may not have been intentional. With that in mind, I suggest that we carry ourselves appropriately, not doing any damage to the membership nor reputation of MR. As you have the Hippocratic oath, "First, do no harm," and Google, "Don't be Evil," there should be the MR Motto, "Don't be a Twunt."
Are you saying that Calboy is easily confused?
Do moderators need to be considered demi-gods. I would assume that just being called Moderator would imply more power on its own.
- Status