You simply think I did not read your post because I told you I was too lazy to do so. If I in fact did not read your post, how did I address your points?
Your goal for CM, and what CM is/"was" is quite frankly the same, but different words. I really do fail to see the clear difference you're trying to make with the suggestion. You don't want it to be a popularity contest, yet you want the general populace vote.
You say my statements are smart ass comments, but I assure you, they are quite well thought out. If most members only really create an account to gain access to the rsps boards for downloads and to use the toplist and whatnot, then how can they be the deciding factor in a vote for someone who is dedicated to the community when they have little to know experience or effort put to the community themselves? That could be the equivalent of allowing, and only allowing, first day immigrants from Uganda to vote for United States congressional seats. Obviously quite an exaggerated example, but I hope you see the point there. I can understand your desire to broaden the vote to the entire community, but as I said before, there was a reason we kept it a closed vote that admins had the final say on.
You could say I'm making assumptions or what have you, but I can say with running this site along side Ikiliki, sometimes during his long vacations completely by itself, that I know how this stuff goes. I was on moparscape forums for a long time before I even came to runelocus, so I've seen the best and worst communities offer. In the end, it wasn't the members with the big shiny Community Member rank that helped further the rsps technologies, but the community as a whole. Everyone made their own contributions and advanced the community and the world of RSPS in their own way. Not many of the major players wanted, nor even cared about obtaining the "Community Member" rank. As I said, ranks do not build communities, communities build themselves with active members who contribute positive things.
I would appreciate if you would actually read what I was trying to tell you with the "smart ass comments" I made. When you give us numbers, that's all we can work with. We cannot make up better numbers because this is, in truth, your suggestion thought up by you. You gave us a 25:10 figure to work with and critique, and so I did. I feel the OP was not very well thought out. It doesn't seem enough effort went into designing a "new Community Member" rank and criteria for obtaining such a rank. The core reason for [I]any[/I] rank is to single out members, making them stand out and seem more important concerning the specific area of the rank. Here's an example of this: A moderator is a dark blue color, with a crown. This is meant to single out this member as an important member that we should take seriously. They are given authority over members to enforce a set of rules and guidelines defined by said moderators and Administrators. "But of course we single out a moderator, they're mods!" Lets use a new example, one without so much authority, shall we? Graphics master, or what ever it's called or equivalent is. This is a rank to show members that this specific member is one of the best in the community at digital graphics, and especially in graphic oriented boards, their word is like a word of a deity. People hold them to a higher standard, and they themselves hold themselves as higher then ordinary members because they are in fact, technically better because they have a shiny badge. See where this is going? No? Still think "Well [B][I]MY[/I][/B] CM is supposed to be different!" Let me explain.
[quote name='Blake']...[COLOR=#333333]but rather a reward for people who constantly help out new members and promote a positive atmosphere in the community[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
You said this exact line, yet, you say it's different then the "old" CM.
[quote name='Marc'][COLOR=#333333]The original point of the CM was that, a member who contributed to the community in such a way we wanted to recognize them so they may stand out. This was to show ordinary members that they know what they are talking about when it comes to certain things and can be trusted.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
I don't see much difference there. You specified a tiny bit of what would be expected of them, but in a nutshell, that is quite frankly the same thing. Please correct me if I am mistaken.
I feel you do not take well to constructive criticism. This is all fine and dandy, but does not show very much in leadership skills. Criticism, whether positive or negative, as long as it is constructive is a great thing. In my humble opinion, I'd rather get negative criticism rather then positive, as this allows me to assess the situation, amend and/or correct, and apply said changes to improve on the goal I was trying to accomplish. I came and replied to your post with no hostilities, nor sarcasm. I simply wanted you to think about what you said having read my constructive criticism I provided. I've been a community oriented individual for many years, and I would like to think that I am well versed in the concept. I hope you take that into consideration when you draft your reply, as once again I have not instigated any hostility, nor unnecessary comments from you.