When editing wikia articles, should we...
a) put all users at rank 29
b) put all users at the ranks they were before the alien rankup
c) put all users at the ranks they were at before the post req was lowered
d) put all users at the ranks they were at before the minutes req was lowerd
I vote d.
a votes: 3
b votes: 9
c votes: 2
d votes: 6
Put all users at the ranks they were before the Alien rankup.
Can someone clarify the difference between B, C, and D? Because I know one of the rank changes was in Janurary and another was on the 23rd of Feburary.
I have the same question. 
</noscript>
A, but include their last known rank
TheShadowAssassin wrote:
The crux of your argument is for recording "achievement" as if that's a big deal. I think what BCGirl said sums it up — we are here to record facts, not twist them because we dislike them. The rank tab says "Alien" and they are Alien. That's why Benboy et al. still have their ridiculous ranks despite it being a publicly-known fact that they cheated.
Yes, but the ranks existed to reflect the accomplishments of the user depending on what they accomplished with their time on the MBs. For example, in this case, the Alien rank is a not an accurate reflection of someone who only accomplished being on the boards for 3 weeks, posting several hundred times, and receiving a few thousand likes. It is an accurate reflection of someone who accomplished being on the boards for several years, posting tens of thousands of times, and receiving hundreds of thousands of likes, and they should be attributed with the rank. If we simply leave everyone at "Alien", it completely defeats the purpose of having a rank in the first place, and will no longer have any relevance to the history of a user.
And for the record, I do not condone cheating in any form, and believe that fair action should be taken to rectify the issue with Benboy's rank and the ranks of others who cheated. But that's an entire other topic to discuss, because we're not talking about cheaters; we're talking about people who actually achieved their rank.
Considering that I only cheated to even the field with users who had 600,000+ extra minutes because of glitches, you're going to have a big problem with truly figuring out who actually earned what.
Again, though: at the time of the MBs' closure, they held the rank. Nobody could feasibly hold the rank given most estimates; it would require as much time of activity as the MBs had existed, hundreds of thousands of posts, etc. We cannot simply ignore that the rank was given to all users because we dislike it on principle. I still support the idea of including the fact that the user held a different rank previously.
I never said that we should ignore the fact that all users were given Alien during the closure of the MBs. I do believe that we should include it somewhere; however, because I believe their rank prior to the "invasion" should still take precedence, that should be the rank that they are officially recorded at.
Considering that I only cheated to even the field with users who had 600,000+ extra minutes because of glitches, you're going to have a big problem with truly figuring out who actually earned what.
Okay, then we have to draw the line somewhere. If this is truly the case, then I support recording your rank at what it was just prior to the Alien invasion, as we should with every user. We can't tell when a user achieved a rank as a result of glitches or cheats, but we sure as hell can tell when (a) user(s) achieved a rank simply because it was just given out to them willy-nilly, and that's the difference to me and where I draw the line.
Tbh it'd be mostly impossible to record the ranks most people got on February 23, unless someone has a sizeable archive, because I do not.
Not including the Alien rankup, The Mods did 2 changes, one where they changed the post requirements and one where they changed the minutes requirements. B would leave users at where they were aftrer the second change, C would leave users as they were after the first change, and D would leave users as they were before any changes were made.
Make sense? :P
Make sense? :P
When did those two changes occur?
Again, though: at the time of the MBs' closure, they held the rank. Nobody could feasibly hold the rank given most estimates; it would require as much time of activity as the MBs had existed, hundreds of thousands of posts, etc. We cannot simply ignore that the rank was given to all users because we dislike it on principle. I still support the idea of including the fact that the user held a different rank previously.
Considering that I only cheated to even the field with users who had 600,000+ extra minutes because of glitches, you're going to have a big problem with truly figuring out who actually earned what.
I'm pretty sure most everyone agrees with you dude, the only reason I put the option to leave everyone at alien was for the sake of it. :P
