OK, lets have some fun with one of the options on the new board. There is a place to put titles relative to the number of posts you make. Right now they are at a default of

0.. to.. 149 posts.. JR.Member
150.. to.. 1500 posts.. Member
1501/+.. posts.. Sr.Member


This is one of the things everyone was asking (when can I not be a Jr.Member?)
Except for Administrator, Moderator and Forum Owner anything can be a title......So lets see what everyone wants and we can go from there...I would say about 5-10 levels is how many we will want.....but it's very open right now....

0-100: Single A
101-200: Double A
201-500: Triple A
501-1000: Rookie
1001-5000: All-Star
5000+: HOF

Just a thought........

For levels, we could do baseball related (i.e. "A Player","AA Player",AAA, Majors, HOFer, etc.) or vintage baseball card related (anything from "T206 User" to a "4 Base Hits User"); I'd imagine that last one will need some discussion

ETA - Phil beat me to the first option.

Yeah, I meant to add HOFer.

Maybe in my post, you change Veteran to All-Star
and All-Star to HOFer

I'll edit the first post

5000 edits = A Cycleback

just a thought.

I would like to become a Grand High Exalted Mystic Ruler...like Morris Fink!

Barry - is that the low or high end of your scale?

we could use T206 player values - Abbattichio at the low end to Wagner at the high end or T206 back scarcity - Piedmont on up...

Matt- haven't figured that out yet. And it's a pop culture reference- can you identify it?

Google tells me I'm not old enough to know the source of that reference.

0.. to.. 149 posts.. armpit
150.. to.. 1500 posts.. Post-pubescent armpit
1501/+.. posts.. hairy armpit w/scent

Hint: it's from the 1955-56 television season.

Barry - I know - that's why I said I'm not old enough - but, one of these days...

Okay, you got me...but I'm not old enough either (I was three years old in 1955).

So would the Group start out as a Penultimate user? Then, since that is really the 2nd to last (by definition) he could work his way up to being the last...

Barry,

I was unaware that you were a member of the Brotherhood of Racoons!

Leon - how about a Benjamin Button approach - you start out as an "expert", and as you post more and more you realize you know less then you thought you did and eventually end up a "novice" or "ignoramus."

That's an every day occurrence...We can't go with that...

btw, so far I like Phils post about what they should be....but we could also go for type of hits...single, double, triple, HR, grand slam.....then the cycle....

Woo-woo...woo-woo!

these are user titles, so they should describe a user - I think having the titles "Single User" "Double User" is confusing, although I'm not sure "Piedmont User" and "Uzit User" make much more sense...

ETA - actually I think The Group should be perpetually stuck at "Double User"

I would vote for not including this at all--it was one of the things I did not like about the "new board".

I'm not sure we really do need to be rated based on the number of posts, like the stars you get with ebay. Also, if I'm at say 145 posts and I'm close to the next level, I might do 5 "bumps" just to speed up my promotion. You know, I've got no patience whatsoever.

Barry/Jim - I tend to agree on this - I'm not a fan of rankings based on post count - you could have a Peter Chao come in and rack up the posts and be a "Hall of Famer" and then have some very knowledgeable lurkers who post very rarely (say DoctorDave in the E121 discussion) be "Rookies."
Much more telling to me (but also with it's flaws) is how long someone has been a forum member, and that's already displayed with every post.

Since I've been accused of being a socialist, I might as well go all the way. Everybody, except for the moderators, should be equal.

(And Lichtman should start "sharing" more of his cards (and I don't mean images!) My mailing address is available on request.)

I agree Matt--I don't have a problem with how long someone has been a forum member.

I would like to be known as the "Thread Killer" since I actually write the last, most irrelevant and least helpful post on a disproportionate number of our threads...or perhaps, I could just be known as "Crickets" for the silence after my poorly conceived and executed jokes.

although I do like the use of penultimate...perhaps I should become "The Amazing Penultimate Something!"
but that sounds more like a Superhero seeking self-aggrandizement.

honestly, though...I don't think the idea of ranking the writers is a great one - promotes activity for activity's sake....unless I'm first, then it's just cool and I'm getting a jacket made up!

0-100: Piedmont
101-200: Polar Bear
201-500: Cycle
501-750: Hindu
751-1000: Carolina Brights
1001-2500: Broadleaf
2500-5000: Uzit
5000+: Ty Cobb




just a thought

No Lenox?

No Coupon?

I know there are others....perhaps make the levels easier to obtain the other backs


Lenox
Old Mill
Caporal
American Beauty
El Principe
Sovereign
etc

Underprint?

I don't see why you guys would not want this feature. We all know that posting more doesn't make you more knowledgable. It's just for fun. I like the A, AA, AAA, etc. idea.

0-100: Piedmont
101-200: Sweet Caporal
201-300: Polar Bear
301-400: Sovereign
401-500: Old Mill
501-600: El Principe
601-700: American Beauty
701-800: Cycle
801-900: Hindu
901-1000: Tolstoi
1001-1100: Carolina Brights
1101-1250: Broadleaf
1251-1500: Lenox
1501-2000: Uzit
2001-3000: Drum
3000+: Ty Cobb

Please believe me, I am for fun, even though i'm a year older than Barry Sloate.
I have been on a board or two that had individuals who vociferously maintained that those who didn't post frequently were truly not committed to the board and did not want to
experience collegiality or be friends. I have found that competitiveness can
become pathological even on the best of boards.Obviously, I tend to be one who posts less often than some unless the precious topic T206 arises, then I'm a wee bit crazy.

Having offered this caution, I would be happy to jump to the new board and become a rookie or whatever esteemed title I receive. I am just grateful to
have buds who love these beloved cards as much as I do and who continue to teach me. I am also very grateful that there are colleagues willing to create our board and provide the fine leadership.

best,

barry

I'm sure there would be debate about whether it would be a low-level ranking or a high one, but I think "Legendary" has a nice ring to it.

I do agree that members would starting bumping or giving short comments on posts just to increase their number to get to the next level.

0-100: Rube
101-200: Bucketfoot
201-500: Hoosier Thunderbolt
501-1000: Duke of Tralee
1001-2000: Flying Dutchman
2001-3000: Iron Horse
3001-4000: Big Six
4001-5000: Sultan of Swat
5001+: Georgia Peach

haha I love this thread - I'm voting for the rare backs as the basis of the titles...as for numbered posts for the backs, I'll leave it up to ya'll.

I like Todd's breakdown of:


0-100: Piedmont
101-200: Sweet Caporal
201-300: Polar Bear
301-400: Sovereign
401-500: Old Mill
501-600: El Principe
601-700: American Beauty
701-800: Cycle
801-900: Hindu
901-1000: Tolstoi
1001-1100: Carolina Brights
1101-1250: Broadleaf
1251-1500: Lenox
1501-2000: Uzit
2001-3000: Drum
3000+: Ty Cobb

Well if you have to lose out to someone for the the top spot, I guess Ty Cobb is ok.

So here is what we can do for this one....easy enough....Since there seems to be some good reasons not to do titles associated with the number of posts I will leave it the way it is right now. So everyone will be a jr.member to start....We will quickly do a formal poll on the new board and see how it goes. I think even a small majority in favor of having the titles would not be enough to have them. In other words if say, 35% didn't want them, then I think that is enough to not do them...however, if 80% want them then I think we go that way. I am fairly neutral on the whole subject and just thought it could be fun. The posts will be counted on the new board anyway though......with or without title....Not a big deal to me...best regards

I was pretty close to making Sultan of Swat the top title - if we used player nicknames and that one was top I couldn't really argue.

I much prefer player nicknames to the T206 backs though...it better represents the entire sport that we collect rather than a single set (and frankly a single set that bores me a bit - no offense T206 collectors).

Edited to add:

I really can't understand why instead of having fun with something like titles, people feel the need to raise objections or scenarios why they are a bad idea. Seriously...if someone bumps threads just to raise their post count it will be obvious to everyone and will only expose that poster as a total dork.

you can go with post counts correlating to the different eras...

19th century sandlot/cap anson
deadball era/ty cobb
ruthian years/babe ruth
golden age/joe d or ted williams
???60-80s forgotten years/nolan ryan???
steroid age/bonds or selig

the more you post the more disconnect there is to the board's main theme...IRONY! or you can go all benjamin button and work backward era-wise.

Do people have too much time on their hands to take something that is just plain fun on a message board and turn it into a discussion on the theory of post bumping and how that will be bad for the board. Come on guys...loosen up!

If someone is post bumping should we really care? I believe the new board had a "ignore" feature that you can use to ignore a poster. Lets get over ourselves and look at the new board like a shiney new pickup truck that is meant to be driven and the new features meant to be played with!! Lets get over ourselves and remember we are all talking about a hobby here and the message board that goes with that hobby...not life and death!

Geez!

In my opinion, board is silly enough as it is and does not need to be even more so--I think it detracts from being able to have discussions on serious subjects such as the couple that were on the board recently. Count on a number of threads about who is what kind of member and post building comments to increase ones "stature". Net effect will be to keep serious posters away.

Just my opinion.

Jim

I think if we stay away from terms like "Junior" "Senior" "Expert" "Novice" etc. then there isn't much of a stature issue. I don't see anyone feeling upset that they are a Tolstoi back and not yet a Carolina Brights.

My Trade/Sale Page

"So everyone will be a jr.member to start.."

Its bad enough that my wife knows about my junior member status...
does the entire message board have to know too?

So having fun on a board devoted to a hobby that is supposed to be fun should be deadly serious at all times? In between posts about grading scams, deceptive auction house practices, and dissertations about contract law I think we sometimes forget why we started collecting in the first place.

If anything Jim it is your post that is not serious...it shows a complete inability to discern what subjects are worthy of serious discussion and which are not. In fact, the only way for your post to be less serious would be if you posted it while wearing a clown wig and a red nose.

Nice one....

And even though I said I am neutral, and to that effect won't cast a formal vote, I think it could be fun. Maybe we can have a poll on what percentage constitutes enough of a percentage to have the titles? And maybe we can have a poll to do a poll.

Jim C. - to me the idea of collecting is to have fun, mainly. Who really cares if a few guys want to make it to Broadleaf 460 instead of Carolina Brights, and oh my gosh, have a thread about? I think we might have to close the board down for good if that happens. Or if they want to go from double AA to triple AAA? It's freaking baseball cards we are collecting not embryonic research. But most importantly you can have your opinion and cast your vote.

When a new user figures out how to post their first message on the new board, we could say they "Lost their Crand-inity."

If we use the T206 back designations as titles I would propose that Polar Bears not be allowed to vote

I'm all for animal rights, but I would draw the line at suffrage

I think we can take that into consideration. I think I have my wife convinced to let me keep a stray dog I brought home on Easter Sunday. It's always a good day for animal rights. (lets don't get political please...and Dan, we know about the baby seals, it's horrendous)

Greg,

Everyone can have an opinion--no need to be nasty.

Speaking for myself, I am on the board to hear about serious subjects that relate to collecting graded cards and throw in an opinion where I feel I have the knowledge to do so. If I wanted to have fun there are a million other things I would do first. In my opinion board is not serious enough and this would no doubt make it less so...but I suspect others will disagree and it will happen. Its a social thing for many people which is fine....just not my thing.

Jim

I like the T206 idea but since not everyone is T206 diehards...

I think the single A, Double A, Triple A, Rookie etc option is better.. but what ever works.

 

marty

Jim,
You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I wouldn't try to deny you that...IMO though it is a lousy opinion that would be a negative for the board, and I expressed that.

There is nothing wrong with coming here for the serious topics, but allowing who come here for fun to have that fun does not in any way detract from the serious topics when they come up.

Greg,

I would disagree respectfully.

Often times serious posts are turned frivolous and many times posts start being frivolous. Junior members and categories add nothing to the card discussion and take the board further away from what I enjoy it for. I think it affects the whole tone of the board.

Jim

Jim,
In a way you made one of my points, and I agree that I have seen good serious topics turned frivolous, but doesn't that speak to the insignificance of the title issue?

People that steer topics off course or who don't contribute in the way that you are looking for will continue to do so, regardless of whether they have a title next to their name.

I would think that rather than resisting the new board you would welcome it...on the new board you will have an "ignore" feature to filter out people who contribute things you don't care to read.

My suggestion is to name the various levels in honor of the great collectors of the genre. And limit it to those who are no longer with us. So, in no particular order:

Lionel Carter
Buck Barker
Jefferson Burdick
Barry Halper
etc

2 levels- not sure on the breaking pt...

Peanut
Cracker Jack

I would suggest naming the first level "Yankees fan" and after that, the level is based on whatever the persons favorite team is(Yankees not being one of the choices),since it will encourage most people to post a lot but will keep Yankees fans from posting often which is never a bad thing.

Jim

Were you not the one who will not be coming to the new board because it was too difficult to navigate??

I guess your comments are moot at this point right??

Gilliam Squires. He doesn't get his name on slabs or in books, but his name is on a lot of cards.

?226x183

P.S. Email me if you have any of these for sale

I've been AFK for a couple of days. Are we going back to the new board soon? I miss it...

Thanks
David

Barry - This one is for you:

Ralph:

"That call was from The Grand High Exalted Mystic Ruler, I bet he never calls you"

Ed:

"He doesn't have to, he works right next to me in the sewer"

My favorite Honeymooner's sequence.

How about giving us guys on the memorabilia side our own scale, low end would be a 'Morales' and high ranks would be a 'Stinson' or something. :p

Although status is a very strong American ideology, I spent enough time in the miitary(and I'm still playin with the them ,

"I respectfully request to remain a "Jr Member"."

Althought I dig the Back thing(I'm kinda partial to Soveriegn Backs),
I beleive that I will always be in the learning mode.

So, Just call me "Junior Denny" from now on. The Cleat fits, so I have no problem wearing it...........




Life's Grand,
Denny Walsh

Jerry- remember that line well. My favorite:

RALPH: Alice, this could be the biggest thing I ever got into.

ALICE: The biggest thing you ever got into were your pants.

Whitehse,

Probably so although I would say that the new format that Matt sent me looks a lot like the old board--looks like he is putting a lot of work into addressing concerns.

Jim

Posts #1-10 = Hobby Gypsy

All other levels: Naming rights granted to highest bidder per level

What if we determine status by the number of PSA 8s somebody owns?
Sorry. I couldn't resist.
JimB

JimB - Don't you mean PSA 8.5s?


Jantz

0-149 minnow
150-1499 dolphin
1500+ whale

0-2999: Mortals
3000+: Barry Sloate

If a may offer a slight change:

0-2999 Mortals
3000-5000 Chuck Norris
5000+ Barry Sloate

Anthony- I had myself in mind when I came up with this one:

1-150= complete idiot
151-500= partial idiot
over 500= genius

Barry - I suggested such a system way back on top and I still like it - I think you should start out as an expert and as you post more and more you become less knowledgeable. Aside from it being true, I think it would avoid people post bumping and feeling bad about their rank - imagine - all new users are experts!

My Trade/Sale Page

Matt- the possibilities are limitless. What will be tough is picking the winner.

Maybe that should be the next Net54 contest. Whoever picks the winning rankings will get Leon's Red Cross Buck Weaver. That seems fair.

0-50 = T-ball
51-100 = Coach Pitch
101-150 = Little League
151-200 = High School Ball
201-300 = Rookie Ball
301-400 = A Ball
401-500 = Double A
501-1,000 = Triple A
1,001-10,000 = Major Leaguer
10,001 + = Hall of famer

Barry...I like your suggestion with one addition

1-250= dunderhead
251-500= complete idiot
501-1000= partial idiot
over 1000= genius

Greg- it's all good!

Dunderhead (tm) is copyrighted by Jay Behrens and I don't think he'll let us use it.

I call dibs on "His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor, VC, DSO, MC, Conqueror of the British Empire."

Or

"The all-powerful warrior who, because of his endurance and inflexible will to win, goes from conquest to conquest, leaving fire in his wake."

Either works for me.

Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc

Hmmm.... I'll have to modify the software since right now all that won't fit in the space provided...

My Trade/Sale Page