Quote:
Originally Posted by Plan9
Rank, by its lay definition, is a personnel management tool. You can't get anything done in a timely fashion using any kind of democratic process.
Everybody knows that.
...
Somebody manages tasks. Somebody manages people. And somebody does the grunt work. And that's almost always the hierarchy.
|
Well, I'm not everybody and I don't know everything.
That's why I make silly posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ourcrazymodern?
Upright was satisfying, though undescriptive.
Crazy was appropriate.
Insane was inaccurate, but fun.
Tilted came soon enough as the elements worked their magic.
Then you choose your own. I'm curious about your objection to titles, bagatelle.
|
In forums, I know, the title (or rank) is tied to your post count. Isn't it here? I know there are ranks, forum staff can give and they could be seen as negative ranks, since these rank holders may have limited access to forums and features.
The ability to change your own rank is used as a reward of sorts for good or long membership. I think in a forum it's something to look forward to when posting regularly. Otherwise the mere post count tells nothing about the person really.
In general I am wary about labels given to people, even in form of nicknames. Maybe it's just my attitude about English language, I can't be sure when someone is insulted. I don't think I EVER call people names, unless I know them very well.
I was offended myself, when taking part years ago in one forum, which had a subforum with pretty much autonomy to run it. The subforum was inhabited by members, who had been there longer than me, yet none of them had any owner relationship to the forums, they were regular members like me, just happened to be there already.
So, I didn't understand that forums work as communities, it was not given that I could come there and post freely, unless I first had fallen to the right place in the forum hierarchy. They had their leading characters, one woman in particular had named the place one sort of kingdom, a fairy tale castle represented their imaginery abode, she controlled the hierarchy by giving titles to members.
Her rank was princess of that place, there was a queen, ladies, knights and king even. These weren't actual ranks, since these members were sort of playing a role game, none of them were moderators. Just how they (or some of them) called each other. So, I got the wench title, lol. I had a poor dictionary in use then and the only translation I got was 'slut'. Anyway, even being compared to 'maid' as a wench showed me my place: which was lower than others.
What I'm trying to say is, there is always some kind of ranking going on anywhere you go, even though it wouldn't be official. Even mentioning the marital status can be used in belittling tone in certain context, at least in Finnish.
I've been surprised to see class distinction at working places stick so hard. You go to a coffee room and think there you could be equal with others, even though your tasks in work would be lowlier, but often the rank has followed you there as well. You can't sit at any table.
Not longer than about 13 years ago I started at a small newspaper. The offices were in five storeys: first floor was for customer service, second floor for preparing ads, third floor for layout personnel and those reporters, who had to cooperate with layout personnel, while the higher ranked reporters generally had a day job on fourth floor. Management, marketing, IT and billing was done on fifth floor.
All floors had their own coffee rooms, until more progressive editor in chief wanted to unite the whole personnel and they made room for one bigger coffee room. There were still people, who reluctantly mingled with others, because there was the gap between academic and craftsmen education.
I guess it makes you feel safer belonging to a smaller group of your peers by title or rank, even though you can't always place certain groups at work top to bottom. Apparently it makes some of the higher ranked people feel better about themselves.
Sorry, long post...
