Ok, I finally found this thread (why is it in the lounge instead of in notes in announcements? Because of the post counts?) and have a few comments.

I don't really care about the post counts, although it was nice to see yourself advancing through ranks as you went along. I don't believe in useless posts and a lot of people do it (I find it alot in general chat). I agree that some room for growth needed to happen but to appease the CBN'* who had worked hard to get there should have been promoted to CBN to stay there (how many were there who werent staff? < 10?).

As for Merlin'* stats there is only 1 person above 3000 that isnt staff. There is only 1 person from 2000 to 3000 who isnt staff or otherwise mentionsed (res ghead). There is only 5 who are between 1500 and 2000. Out of how many thousands that are signed up who is going to get to CBN in a years time, id say 3 if your lucky and that includes Jason? It'* like tax breaks, its only good for the wealthy. I agree with the ranks and extra stars and the need for growth but I think CBN is unatainable for the masses. Hell i've been here almost a year and im not even half way to half way and im number 31.

My 2 cents is the rank system is fine but the advancement percentage is not.

It was probably posted in the Lounge so members could make a reply. Ever try making a reply in Announcements?

how did you decide the numbers to put them at? I would have rather had a percentage based system (top 3% are CBN, next 7% are N*, etc.), but thats just me. I can understand sse1990'* argument, how time on the forum doesnt count for anything. I could make worthless posts in forums 'till i drop if I really wanted to, but that just stupid. After reading this post, it makes it sound like this is the system and we need to get used to it, cuz the admins are budging at all.

You have a good point, Mike. Setting up a statistical 'bell curve' and setting the ranks to fit it would be a good idea, but we also had to account for future growth, and post counts that are constantly climbing, all at different rates.

The posts that are constantly climbing at any substational rate are the same top 2 percent of the club. Why keep raising the bar for 10 people when 1990 others will never even come close?

let me make a correction to what I said earlier: make the curve out of the ACTIVE members of the club. If you go through the memberlist you will find alot of inactive screennames, some with zero posts! Its probably safe to say some of these people will never come back, and you could delete their sn.

That'* a good point... and macho_mike has another one (although we shouldn't look at deleting members, unless it'* a strain on the database).

FYI.... I just hit 800 posts... now just another 400 more to the next level.
That seems kinda wrong... I need 50% more to goto the next level.
Where I only needed 33% more when I was at L27 to go to L36.
And from L67 to Northstar it'* only a 25% increase in post counts.
There are only 3 other places where you need 50% more to goto the next level... and they require 50 posts, 100 posts, and 200 posts.

IMHO, the distance between ranks should increase as the post counts get'* higher.
IE, if the difference between 1 star and 2 stars is 100 posts, the difference between 2 stars and 3 stars should be 100 posts... or more.

The current rank system does follow this... until the jump from L36 to L67.
I believe the L67 post count should come down to 1100. That way the difference between L36 - L67 is 300 posts, and the difference between L67 - Northstar is 400 posts. Which would keep in the scheme on things...

Again, just my 2cents....

The general consensus is that most members like the new ranks, but not the distances between them.....Don and I are working on an update. Stay tuned for details.