Rank inbetween Legendary and Mythical

[dragononcrypto]

Based on: https://www.altcoinstalks.com/index.php?topic=183665.0

Rank              Required Activity (+%)
Jnr. Member   46
Member           90 (+96%)
Full Member   136 (+51%)
Sr. Member   312 (+129%)
Hero Member   700 (+124%)
Legendary   1200 (+71%)
Mythical           5000 (+317%)
Padawan           10000 (+100%)
Jedi                   15000 (+50%)
Jedi Master     20000 (+33%)

Has anyone noticed how the gap between Mythical and Legendary is 2x+ that of other rank differences?

What do you think of having an additional rank around 3100 activity?


Option 1: New rank would fit here, in between Legendary and Mythical:

Legendary   1200 (+71%)
New Rank       3100 (+158%)
Mythical           5000 (+56%)

Option 2: As suggested by dkbit98, reduce post requirements above Mythical:

Legendary       1200 (+71%)
Mythical           3100 (+158%)
Padawan          5000 (+56%)
Jedi                  10000 (+100%)
Jedi Master      20000 (+100%)


If yes, would should the name of the new rank be? Or should Mythical and above have lower activity requirements?

Fyi at present there are only 15 Mythical members, but if I had to guess, there are a fair few members with 3100+ activity, myself included 

Edit: Based on this badge, there are 53 members with 2,500 posts, so i imagine it would be many of these members.

[Findingnemo]

It's a valid argument, why there's a huge jump only for mythical while others are in the similar range?

Maybe admin can give the valid reason for that.

But as a user I support the new rank proposal which may encourage Legendary users to post more if the next rank is within reach.

[dkbit98]

We don't need to have more ranks, just adjust activity numbers needed for legendary and mythical rank.
Having new ranks doesn't mean much for most people, unless it unlocks something in forum and gives more game-like features.

[dragononcrypto]

We don't need to have more ranks, just adjust activity numbers needed for legendary and mythical rank.

Makes sense, can't imagine anyone would complain about a rank increase. Though it's only Mythical+ that would need adjusting to fit better.

Ie if Mythical were reduced to 3,100, then the other ranks would have these requirements:

Legendary       1200
Mythical           3100
Padawan          5000
Jedi                  10000
Jedi Master      15000 20000

I think Jedi Master should be 20K posts though, given that again the gap between Padawan and Jedi is 2x. Meaning MrSapsybo as Jedi would remain a Jedi.

Having new ranks doesn't mean much for most people, unless it unlocks something in forum and gives more game-like features.

Mythical and above unlocks rating topics, among some other smaller details, so there is that.


Edit: Have amended OP and poll to include reducing post requirements for Mythical+, and changed settings so users can change vote...

[bitmover]

Ranks should be based in quality of contributions, not time or number of posts.

I am against it.

We will see members with little knowledge of crypto and very little understanding getting high ranks just because they write a lot of nonsense...


Should be karma based.

[examplens]

I'm not sure this change would change anything.
Otherwise, what is the difference between Legendary and Mythical rank?

Ranks should be based in quality of contributions, not time or number of posts.

Time should play a role in rank progression. That's why now, for example, we have spammers who want to reach Legendary in a short time, and this is possible because the only condition is a certain number of posts. So in theory, if he writes 1200 posts in a week, voila there is a Legendary rank.

Again, these things are vaguely defined. I see that you @bitmover have been on 2000 activity for quite a long time, even though you have enough points, posts, and karma points... maybe you should ask the admin about what is happening there.

[DYING_S0UL]

Ranks should be based in quality of contributions, not time or number of posts.
I am against it.
We will see members with little knowledge of crypto and very little understanding getting high ranks just because they write a lot of nonsense...
Should be karma based.

Agreed!

I think all three factors should be taken into consideration when it comes to ranking up. Because time and post count can be increased one way or another! It won't matter whether you are a quality poster or shit posters. But karma is a different story. Shitposters, bots, and AI posters won't be able to get much karma, and even if they did somehow (by abusing, of course), they'll be caught in the act!

[dragononcrypto]

Should be karma based.

I think it should be both, but otherwise this suggestion doesn't contradict previous discussions about karma requirement for higher ranks as well. It'd be worth testing the waters in the senate with a few options (based on different suggestions that were made) in order to force try and make change happen in that direction. We've had ranking difficulty increase a few times before, so it's not that controversial, but otherwise the results of this could be dramatic.

For example I think in hindight something like 1/10/100 (Senior, Hero, Legendary+) could work, whereas if you were to apply some sort of higher thresold like btt at 100/250/1000 as you've suggested, then this would effect seemingly most user ranks and I can't imagine ever gaining consensus in the senate (nor with the community for that matter). Already a threshold of 100 karma for Legendary would cut these by over half, based on 170 Legendary with 100+ karma (corrected), and otherwise 458 users with 1,000 posts (obviously less with 1,200 for the rank). At 1000 karma, there wouldn't be any Legendary users at all, so for me this is a non-starter proposal.

I'm not sure this change would change anything.
Otherwise, what is the difference between Legendary and Mythical rank?

Not much directly though, it'd just be more logical per original reasoning. The suggestion of shifting Mythical and above to lower requirements I like the most, as it would make the 6 Padawan members Jedi's and 8 Mythical members Padawans (which based on the users in question, I think is pretty fair). Not too many XX number of Legendary members into Mythicals, but a lot of Legendary would be closer to a new rank at least.

(Part of reply removed as off-topic)

[Lucius]

I'm somewhat of a divided opinion about this, because even though the gap between Legendary and Mythical is quite large compared to the other ranks, I still think that for such high ranks, you need to make an extra effort and that lowering it to 3100 activities would somehow be unfair for everyone those who started from scratch versus those who were teleported.

Some new rank that would be in between makes more sense, but I don't really have any meaningful idea what to call that rank - maybe Super Legendary or Legendary Master?

[dragononcrypto]

I still think that for such high ranks, you need to make an extra effort and that lowering it to 3100 activities would somehow be unfair for everyone those who started from scratch versus those who were teleported.

Another way to look at it would be: if teleported users have gained 1,200 activity at btt and another 1,900 here, then that should be enough for a Mythical rank.

I think if you have been here for 6-7 years, and haven't reached 3,100 activity already, then you probably don't deserve a higher rank either. For context, if registered at the beginning you'd need ~1.2 posts per day for Mythical., or ~1.4 ppd if 6 years old, ~1.7 ppd for 5 years old, etc. Say you teleported a year ago as a legendary member (like many did), you'd need ~5.2 ppd or otherwise ~2.6ppd if 2 years old, etc. To me this means that Mythical rank would still heavily favour original members of the forum much more so than teleported still.


Edit: Also realise the irony that although 3,100 is inbetween Legendary and Mythical, it'd realistically make more sense for it to be 2,400 or 2,500:

Legendary       1200 (+71%)
Mythical           2500 (+108%)
Padawan          5000 (+100%)
Jedi                  10000 (+100%)
Jedi Master      20000 (+100%)

Then it's not a 150%+ increase, and more like 100% like the other higher ranks.

[admin]

ranking is based on activity
activity is not based on post count

[Freemind]

My opinion is that things should continue as before. It wouldn't be fair to users with higher ranks to make the requirements now lower, and it wouldn't seem fair to give those same users (with higher ranks) a higher rank than they have now by lowering the overall requirements. Each user's activity includes all the decisive points.

[dragononcrypto]

ranking is based on activity
activity is not based on post count

Thanks for reminding me, have amended original posts to clarify activity rather than posts. My other calculations were based on post requirements that contribute towards activity, so although not guaranteed to grant rank X, Y and Z, it's a fair barometer to go by when assessing how rank changes would affect forum users.

[dkbit98]

Ranks should be based in quality of contributions, not time or number of posts.

You can't have set up exactly like that in any forum, even bitcointalk forum have a bunch of legendary accounts who didn't contribute much.
System only counts activity of users and number of posts written, with karma added on top.
That is unless admin sets up some new AI to rank users, I know he loves them 

[Zed0X]

Keep it as it is. This would have been a good proposal if everyone was starting from scratch or if it was still a new rank that was about to be introduced. Now that there are already members that achieved it, it's only fair for them that everyone else that wants the same rank to go through the same process/effort.