MEMBERSHIP UPGRADES & DOWNGRADES

Ghostly Decibels · Mon Feb 06, 2012 6:42 pm

Spiked wrote:**sigh** There was a time that being "blue" meant that they were people such as Crone, Alex Caiyros, Ellen, Princess, Sage of Aquarius, Mohgrella, Tammy "Dragonlady", Phil "Dragonkeeper", Faerie Whispers and others, who EACH had DECADES of hard work, intensive training under Mentors not to mention considerable spent - Magnolia & Ash know how that works - and never once expect instant gratification or instant knowledge. THAT is what I call commitment and passion worthy of recognition, not just to be dismissed out of hand as "helpful".

Sadly, now it has been devalued to be officially someone who posts on the Internet for 18mths. If there's anyone out there that doesn't see that as a Decline - I feel sorry for you. Very, very sorry.

Uh, not to throw off the issues here but for someone who denounces "status" and the status that the tenuring system confers upon others based on color and longevity on the board, your statements about these long-departed elders and their wealth of knowledge is directly contradictory to what you claim with respect to your distaste for status.

Personally I have no issues with Noc moderating - she is by far one of the most objective people I have ever met and I hold her in extremely high esteem. I honor how everyone feels individually about the tenuring system; however, I can't but feel like there's too much over-analysis of waht doesn't need to be over-analyzed. Magnolia has already eloquently stated the reasons for such a system which have nothing to do with conferring a type of elitism or creating separation in this community.

Ghostly Decibels · Mon Feb 06, 2012 6:43 pm

And to clarify, not trying to jump on you, Spiked, just realized I came off as a bit abrupt. I just find these objections to the tenuring system strange, is all.

Ashino Tsume roshi · Mon Feb 06, 2012 6:43 pm

If there was a moment and in that moment I am Arthur Rimbaud, sitting with Paul Verlaine, Cezanne, Marie Valadon; Rachilde; Baudelaire; Bram Stoker; Gertrude Stein, Julius Caesar; Lou Gerig; Hugh Ferris; Beethoven; Robert Johnson, Billie Holiday; Nikola Tesla; Wild Bill Hicock; Annie Oakley; Joan of Arc, and may more.....

Do you think that any of them would be jealous of me or anyone else, if I or they wore a flaming red hat instead of the more traditional black hat?

Sincerely, folks, the issue would never come up, so why here?

I will add that these days competition thrives everywhere and I find competition ugly, mean, and stupid. basically, I prefer cooperation with strength, Kindness, and communication.

People will always be known by who they are and their public works,
Caiyros

Morag Rockwind · Mon Feb 06, 2012 6:44 pm

:drama: The Drama lamas have attacked NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! :superman:

Ghostly Decibels · Mon Feb 06, 2012 6:45 pm

moonwind wrote:Just because someone wants to be blue does not mean they do not posses all of those great qualities you wrote. Perhaps some do and we just did not find CH in the early days.

Exactly. For instance, we have some newbs like AstralD who know quite a bit more than those of us who are tenured orange. In time if she continues to devote to this forum, she'll be upgraded.

It's almost frustrating to continually hear about the supposed "Glory days" of CH prior to the current orange crowd...

Orchid-Dragoness · Mon Feb 06, 2012 6:58 pm

As I've said I do understand because I have been inactive, I am demoted. And I also understand that I'll have to wait till next round of restructuring to get my blog back. I've also stated that I don't really mind what colour I will be and why as long as I get to use my blog then. However one of the reasons for demoting inactive members from any status to just registered is security. So...(I didn't and am not going to mention names, as it is quite easy to find out if you just do a bit of research) I've tried to mention earlier in reply to Mag's explanation to colour system...

Orchid-Dragoness wrote:What I don't understand is...there is at least one member who hasn't even logged on or posted since 2009, and that person is still tenured...so...yea.

I'm sure Mag knows about this but if someone chooses to be not active shouldn't such a case be treated just like the rest of us and be demoted to merely registered members? And the reason for this should probably be because we are still here but they are gone or have become merely readers, and therefore for security measures they should not be allowed access to any of the more private boards?

Spiked · Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:18 pm

Terror Misu wrote:And to clarify, not trying to jump on you, Spiked, just realized I came off as a bit abrupt. I just find these objections to the tenuring system strange, is all.

Not a problem.

Perhaps another day you may think "ahhhh..., I see.."

Spiked · Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:20 pm

CaiyrosArlenLeStrang wrote:If there was a moment and in that moment I am Arthur Rimbaud, sitting with Paul Verlaine, Cezanne, Marie Valadon; Rachilde; Baudelaire; Bram Stoker; Gertrude Stein, Julius Caesar; Lou Gerig; Hugh Ferris; Beethoven; Robert Johnson, Billie Holiday; Nikola Tesla; Wild Bill Hicock; Annie Oakley; Joan of Arc, and may more.....

Do you think that any of them would be jealous of me or anyone else, if I or they wore a flaming red hat instead of the more traditional black hat?

Sincerely, folks, the issue would never come up, so why here?

I will add that these days competition thrives everywhere and I find competition ugly, mean, and stupid. basically, I prefer cooperation with strength, Kindness, and communication.

People will always be known by who they are and their public works,
Caiyros

Exactly. That's what I meant.

Spiked · Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:24 pm

Orchid-Dragoness wrote:As I've said I do understand because I have been inactive, I am demoted. And I also understand that I'll have to wait till next round of restructuring to get my blog back. I've also stated that I don't really mind what colour I will be and why as long as I get to use my blog then. However one of the reasons for demoting inactive members from any status to just registered is security. So...(I didn't and am not going to mention names, as it is quite easy to find out if you just do a bit of research) I've tried to mention earlier in reply to Mag's explanation to colour system...
Orchid-Dragoness wrote:What I don't understand is...there is at least one member who hasn't even logged on or posted since 2009, and that person is still tenured...so...yea.
I'm sure Mag knows about this but if someone chooses to be not active shouldn't such a case be treated just like the rest of us and be demoted to merely registered members? And the reason for this should probably be because we are still here but they are gone or have become merely readers, and therefore for security measures they should not be allowed access to any of the more private boards?

I can understand that in you case, it's particularly galling, after you spent hour after hour after hour in unpaid moderation of the chat room, when a short absence gets you "demoted" and others are "promoted" for their commitment.

Magnolia · Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:29 pm

It's almost frustrating to continually hear about the supposed "Glory days" of CH prior to the current orange crowd...

The "Glory Days" are sometimes greatly over-exaggerated. I remember some very interesting people, BUT I also remember some flaming forum fights, one that actually turned into a WAR among two groups while Ash & I were out of town for 2 weeks and when I finally got to an internet connection had so much drama to sort through that it led to me completely losing my temper and going off on everyone... and some of the active members of the "Glory Days" were banned for their behavior... it was the single, largest incident on this forum... so the "Glory days" are not all they're cracked up to be. Some of the time it was Camelot, some of the time it was the beaches of Normandy. The cliques then were bigger & more "at war" with each other than they are now. So, it was the good with the bad. No one needs to be throwing the "Glory Days" around at all, I remember exactly what went on back then because I & Ash were the ones who had to deal with the forum fights, the accusations between members, ban people who otherwise were reasonable people, and back then some members took their fights off the forum onto other websites... so I remember the glory & tragedy of those days.

Orchid, I'm not sure how you could see the member list, but I'm not sure who you're talking about, but I'll go look now. If I know someone is going to be gone, or if I know someone is taking a hiatus and plans to be back, I don't mind holding their place, but when someone disappears for awhile and I don't hear from them at all (email, HD, etc) then I assume they are gone. When they come back they can participate and they'll be restored.

I can understand that in you case, it's particularly galling, after you spent hour after hour after hour in unpaid moderation of the chat room, when a short absence gets you "demoted" and others are "promoted" for their commitment.

Orchid volunteered to be a moderator, just like the other moderators, none of them are paid, at this point in time. They volunteer to help because they want to help. And, Orchid has had other absences, fore-warned, where she didn't lose status, but this last time she was gone for a long time and I had no way of knowing if she was going to be back or not. I don't think the decision, which was just made one month ago, mind you & magickally coincided with her return, was strange given the facts I had to work with.

If you guys would like to turn this thread into a play-by-play call on my decisions or actions as an owner of the board, it's going to be a long thread.

MEMBERSHIP UPGRADES & DOWNGRADES

Login • Register