Regular Status Improvement


yes, in retrospect I should have replied to vocino’s post and quoted yours or at least @ him… I was just so intrigued by the idea I forgot how to forum


I figured. It made me feel important for one single second. <3


I would think having an idea someone thinks is so amazing it makes them forget how to forum would make you feel important for more than one single second :wink:


The time period is a rolling 100 days and there’s a 30 day grace period (so you can’t flip back and forth within that period). The grace period is what you’re talking about extending, I think.


Sure, lets go with that.


This is not the case; anyone and everyone who earns it gets it. The ratio you might be thinking about is the ratio of Leaders to Regulars.

I honestly think the participation requirements are pretty fair. I can’t check into every detail of an account and see how the algorithm weighs it, but in terms of post activity you only had 12 posts/replies within the last 130 days (100 days plus 30 day grace period). Going back to the previous 130 days (where you had regular status) you only had 19 posts/replies. I know there are other factors involved in determining Regular status, but I feel like the metrics must favor other factors like visits, posts entered/read, likes given/received, etc. over just making tons of posts/comments.

And I agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly; no system is perfect, but I think we’ve got something that’s about as close as it can be right now. I believe any adjustments would create a bloat of Regulars containing some who probably shouldn’t be rather than address extreme outlying cases.

In this instance, what do we think is fair; maybe 50 days to allow for folks that have a patch of inactivity because of real life or other factors to retain their status? I think anything more than that would be quite excessive.


100% agree.

This is kinda what I am saying:

Basically some aspects of “regular” status are more beneficial as one time unlocks where other portions are better as incentives.

It all falls back to what kitty was saying tho, what type of community does Strats want to be?

I don’t wanna get #moderated again so I’ll say that the topic of the community and its size is a topic for another thread.



After thinking a lot and many revises on a post I’ve realized maybe it would be better if there was something in between member and regular? I am pretty regularly here but not super active with the posts. I know and am friends with people and feel like I shouldn’t be losing access to our lounge but as I am not super active with the posting I don’t necessarily need access to the other abilities that being a tier 3 regular would afford me. Maybe it would be way too big a deal to create another tier but I think this might fix the problem for people who are here mainly in a social-casual way like I am. We show up, we read, we just don’t actively participate by making posts as much as some others and I don’t feel we deserve to lose access to things like the lounge because we didn’t feel the need to comment on more than 1 person per week.


I think part of the hurdle there is the forum architecture we’re built on; I’m not sure we can add additional tiers like that. I might be wrong about that, we’ll have to check with the boss-man (cough @Vocino cough).


I assumed that would be the case, while it seems to be the easiest solution to the problem it is also the most inconvenient if not downright impossible to implement.


From the forum creator:

this is what trust levels actually are on the code side.

Have to scroll down a little bit for each tier, goes into deail and our version isn’t 100% the same.


Yeah, that’s what I figured, baked in at 0-4; I know we’ve tweaked the numbers to be specific to our needs here at Strats, but putting in a new Trust Level is probably not plausible (if it’s even possible, which I suspect it isn’t).


Possibly, would likely need to do work to a lot of other strats products too.


If this only happens to a couple of people here and there, and they are people that we know and trust already then can’t someone just do some voodoo and make the problem go away?


I think that really depends on how many filthy casuals we collect who feel they are entitled to regulars status :wink:


Well, in this specific instance, we have the Patreon status going to the wrong email address (I certainly don’t need it; we’ll get that sorted shortly), but in other instances we’d have to be able to determine what is and isn’t fair, and that’s where it gets tricky.


That’s why you, Vocino and Tommy get paid the big bucks. If someone feels they should have status they can present their case to you three tribunal style. A couple fights to the death later, maybe sacrifice a goat to the forum gods and you come to a consensus on whether to grant status or not.

And if other people don’t like it they can learn a valuable lesson about life not being fair.


We actually have a board like this we use for really hard decisions:


I see an idea for the strats weekly reboot. I’d watch that.


What if maybe we just made access to the lounge permanent after someone has been an active member for a certain amount of time? Like say if someone has been an active member for a year, perma-access to lounge granted?