Why do you want to get rid of Retired?

Link · **Posted:** Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:25 pm

GoopSauce wrote:

I hope that the ones that say I'm nothing but a troll understand that because I'm retired I can have a little more freedom with joking around

Why do you say that? I'm more curious to hear. We all have freedom of speech so I wonder what you're trying to say here.

Jimmah wrote:

GoopSauce wrote:

Mr.GoldGames wrote:

Just going to put this here..

Mr.GoldGames wrote:

The retired rank was a thing that was created in my time as a Staff member. At first we were looking for a substitute to the Supporter rank, which in my eyes was a good rank because it showed who gave their time and help to the community (it was just given way too much power, and people whined about not getting it). So we came up with the rank retired in which described people who left the community and didn't want to be apart of the clan.

Though the retired rank was abused and its meaning when it was created was distorted to give the clan an upper hand (this being one of the many reasons I stepped down from Staff). PUBG was very popular during this time, and the rules were if your clan had large numbers, you could get a server to play on for your community. So some higher ups (name calling at this point is dumb, they know who they are) decided to change everyone to retired to make our clan member numbers go up so we look better (and by everyone, i mean even people still here have the retired rank. Go on, check your groups in your profile. You have the rank, and so did all the registered users at the time who were never in the clan to begin with. Thus making people who never quit the clan/never joined, retired). So now you have a clan members number thats fake and also treating retired like shit while still considering them members. Thus making a mockery of the rank, thus making it the worst rank in the community today. The supporter idea would sound like a dream rank compared to the Retired rank.

Retired should be removed, because its intentions are toxic to this community, and it serves as a reminder of when the community would do anything to progress. If you are going to honor the people who left with a rank, make it so that they dont contribute to the success of the community, but as an honor to their service. Dont benefit from someone leaving the community, thats not the right way to think about it. It might be a minor and unnoticeable problem, but its the idea behind all of it and how it was created that bothers the hell of out me. You cant fake numbers, and it makes the community look bad when we say we almost have 700 members and no active servers.

Having 200 members and low activity on the servers will make people say "Oh wow they are unpopulated", but having close to 700 members and low activity on the servers makes people say "Yep, they died".

So yeah, retired rank needs to go or be revamped. Make the damn rank like we talked about, and not off of a hunger to grow our numbers.

I was going to put your reasoning in my post but forgot. If it was really was for faking numbers then the rank is pointless and needs to be looked at. My point is don't remove retired just to force some of us non members out of the community.

With respect, in 99% of cases no one is “forced” to leave the clan. They do so of the own choosing.

I find it odd that people who elect to leave the community insist on any kind of rank. If it meant that much to you, the why leave?

This is why I supported removing the “supporter” rank (which was absued) and also support removing the retired rank.

Jimmah explained enough right here. If you really care to see our opinions then you would read the thread Gold made.

Cooper · **Posted:** Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:45 pm

octo wrote:

Cooper wrote:

I personally think the rank should be kept but with 0 perms and pretty much be the same as registered user instead only for people who were at one point in the community.

I also think people who get banned / kicked out shouldn’t be given the rank cause they didn’t really “retire” by choice.

There are a lot of toxic retireds who just come here to troll and talk shit and cause problems but there also are members who act the same way. The rank shouldn’t be completey gone but definitely shouldn’t have any special perms, just a way to distinguish between people who signed up and people who were in the community.

looks like we're just dead bodies then lmao

So why would someone who willingly leaves the community be entitled to anything special? When leaving the community it’s your choice and you should be aware what you are giving up. If losing the ability to post on LoA’s and in the shoutbox is really that important to you then maybe you would reconsider. If Retired is pretty much member with less involvement and responsibility then who would want to be member?

J-Dawg · **Posted:** Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:06 pm

Cooper wrote:

octo wrote:

Cooper wrote:

I personally think the rank should be kept but with 0 perms and pretty much be the same as registered user instead only for people who were at one point in the community.

I also think people who get banned / kicked out shouldn’t be given the rank cause they didn’t really “retire” by choice.

There are a lot of toxic retireds who just come here to troll and talk shit and cause problems but there also are members who act the same way. The rank shouldn’t be completey gone but definitely shouldn’t have any special perms, just a way to distinguish between people who signed up and people who were in the community.

looks like we're just dead bodies then lmao

So why would someone who willingly leaves the community be entitled to anything special? When leaving the community it’s your choice and you should be aware what you are giving up. If losing the ability to post on LoA’s and in the shoutbox is really that important to you then maybe you would reconsider. If Retired is pretty much member with less involvement and responsibility then who would want to be member?

No one has answered my question. Why the hell does it matter if they have these things?

Needy · **Posted:** Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:11 pm

J-Dawg wrote:

Cooper wrote:

octo wrote:

Cooper wrote:

I personally think the rank should be kept but with 0 perms and pretty much be the same as registered user instead only for people who were at one point in the community.

I also think people who get banned / kicked out shouldn’t be given the rank cause they didn’t really “retire” by choice.

There are a lot of toxic retireds who just come here to troll and talk shit and cause problems but there also are members who act the same way. The rank shouldn’t be completey gone but definitely shouldn’t have any special perms, just a way to distinguish between people who signed up and people who were in the community.

looks like we're just dead bodies then lmao

So why would someone who willingly leaves the community be entitled to anything special? When leaving the community it’s your choice and you should be aware what you are giving up. If losing the ability to post on LoA’s and in the shoutbox is really that important to you then maybe you would reconsider. If Retired is pretty much member with less involvement and responsibility then who would want to be member?

No one has answered my question. Why the hell does it matter if they have these things?

Might increase our members if we were to remove a rank that practically has the same privileges around member. Won't be guaranteed but a consideration to take into account.

highkey doesn't answer your question either but tyvm

Cooper · **Posted:** Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:14 pm

J-Dawg wrote:

Cooper wrote:

octo wrote:

Cooper wrote:

I personally think the rank should be kept but with 0 perms and pretty much be the same as registered user instead only for people who were at one point in the community.

I also think people who get banned / kicked out shouldn’t be given the rank cause they didn’t really “retire” by choice.

There are a lot of toxic retireds who just come here to troll and talk shit and cause problems but there also are members who act the same way. The rank shouldn’t be completey gone but definitely shouldn’t have any special perms, just a way to distinguish between people who signed up and people who were in the community.

looks like we're just dead bodies then lmao

So why would someone who willingly leaves the community be entitled to anything special? When leaving the community it’s your choice and you should be aware what you are giving up. If losing the ability to post on LoA’s and in the shoutbox is really that important to you then maybe you would reconsider. If Retired is pretty much member with less involvement and responsibility then who would want to be member?

No one has answered my question. Why the hell does it matter if they have these things?

Because as they have said themselves, it's a rank where they don't have to care as much but still get the same benefits of being a member. In other words, they can pretty much talk shit or "have fun" as long as they aren't harassing or breaking any rules and have fewer consequences or obligations. And like Needy said it would incentivize people to be members or stay in the community if these things were really that important to them.

J-Dawg · **Posted:** Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:23 pm

Needy wrote:

J-Dawg wrote:

Cooper wrote:

octo wrote:

Cooper wrote:

I personally think the rank should be kept but with 0 perms and pretty much be the same as registered user instead only for people who were at one point in the community.

I also think people who get banned / kicked out shouldn’t be given the rank cause they didn’t really “retire” by choice.

There are a lot of toxic retireds who just come here to troll and talk shit and cause problems but there also are members who act the same way. The rank shouldn’t be completey gone but definitely shouldn’t have any special perms, just a way to distinguish between people who signed up and people who were in the community.

looks like we're just dead bodies then lmao

So why would someone who willingly leaves the community be entitled to anything special? When leaving the community it’s your choice and you should be aware what you are giving up. If losing the ability to post on LoA’s and in the shoutbox is really that important to you then maybe you would reconsider. If Retired is pretty much member with less involvement and responsibility then who would want to be member?

No one has answered my question. Why the hell does it matter if they have these things?

Might increase our members if we were to remove a rank that practically has the same privileges around member. Won't be guaranteed but a consideration to take into account.

highkey doesn't answer your question either but tyvm

They aren't equal to member. Members get to look at even more parts of the forums, gets the benefit of the doubt in a vague he said/she said situation, and are given a platform in the meetings (I'm pretty sure)

I just don't understand why people have an issue with this. The only difference between them being retired and them not being retired is that they can use the Network Chat and the LOA, which is barely any extra "power" than a random ass person who wanders into EgN and makes an account for shits and giggles.

Why is that so much power to warrant removing the rank all together?

I feel like I'm bringing up good points but that I'm being completely ignored by people who are on the other side of the coin. I want to understand these things but people are just agreeing with each other that it should be removed and ignoring my questions

Why does retired have too much power?

Why can't we just not count them as members and keep the rank?

Where is the "toxicity and trolling" that I haven't seen?

Why does the "toxicity and trolling" put the rank at jeopardy? Why can't this "toxicity and trolling" be dealt with individually?

GoopSauce · **Posted:** Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:05 pm

J-Dawg wrote:

Needy wrote:

J-Dawg wrote:

Cooper wrote:

octo wrote:

Cooper wrote:

I personally think the rank should be kept but with 0 perms and pretty much be the same as registered user instead only for people who were at one point in the community.

I also think people who get banned / kicked out shouldn’t be given the rank cause they didn’t really “retire” by choice.

There are a lot of toxic retireds who just come here to troll and talk shit and cause problems but there also are members who act the same way. The rank shouldn’t be completey gone but definitely shouldn’t have any special perms, just a way to distinguish between people who signed up and people who were in the community.

looks like we're just dead bodies then lmao

So why would someone who willingly leaves the community be entitled to anything special? When leaving the community it’s your choice and you should be aware what you are giving up. If losing the ability to post on LoA’s and in the shoutbox is really that important to you then maybe you would reconsider. If Retired is pretty much member with less involvement and responsibility then who would want to be member?

No one has answered my question. Why the hell does it matter if they have these things?

Might increase our members if we were to remove a rank that practically has the same privileges around member. Won't be guaranteed but a consideration to take into account.

highkey doesn't answer your question either but tyvm

They aren't equal to member. Members get to look at even more parts of the forums, gets the benefit of the doubt in a vague he said/she said situation, and are given a platform in the meetings (I'm pretty sure)

I just don't understand why people have an issue with this. The only difference between them being retired and them not being retired is that they can use the Network Chat and the LOA, which is barely any extra "power" than a random ass person who wanders into EgN and makes an account for shits and giggles.

Why is that so much power to warrant removing the rank all together?

I feel like I'm bringing up good points but that I'm being completely ignored by people who are on the other side of the coin. I want to understand these things but people are just agreeing with each other that it should be removed and ignoring my questions

Why does retired have too much power?

Why can't we just not count them as members and keep the rank?

Where is the "toxicity and trolling" that I haven't seen?

Why does the "toxicity and trolling" put the rank at jeopardy? Why can't this "toxicity and trolling" be dealt with individually?

You've basically hit every point that I feel. I think people that are in favor of removing it can't answer because they can't really answer your questions. Same as mine. I'm just speculating but it seems they think we have some like given powers and we dont have to actually be in the community which I think makes them jealous and they feel we should either be in the clan or out and can't contribute. It's really weird to me that you would want to run outside people that dont really want to be in any clan like me because I'm too busy but would still like to be around and have conversations with people and feel like you're wanted around here still. To me it's a non issue but again that's why I'm trying to get responses here to understand the issues

AJtheGreyBeard025 · **Posted:** Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:39 pm

Actually I can answer it. Its because when you "retire" you aren't apart of the team. Goop and JDawg, conversely you haven't given me any good reason why it shouldn't be the same as registered user. Its you're either on the team (in the clan) or that you are in the bleachers watching the team play (registered users). Want more? Join the team.

GoopSauce · **Posted:** Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:45 pm

AJtheGreyBeard025 wrote:

Actually I can answer it. Its because when you "retire" you aren't apart of the team. Goop and JDawg, conversely you haven't given me any good reason why it shouldn't be the same as registered user. Its you're either on the team (in the clan) or that you are in the bleachers watching the team play (registered users). Want more? Join the team.

Ok if you want to use that analogy I can do that. Imagine the Chicago Bulls telling Michael Jordan no sorry you can't come to any of our games, you can't talk to any of our fans or current players, you can't be apart of anything new even though you contributed in the past and did some amazing things for our organization but you got older and had to retire so you're out for good. No organizations would bar former members that contributed from still wanting to contribute in their own way.

Roaxes · **Posted:** Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:51 pm

The secret pessimist I am, I do get the feeling that SOME not all, but some of the members just want to be able to talk about retired members/exmembers without being seen by them on the chatbox, and so are arguing for it to be wiped. Cause thats like the only permission I can think of them even having other then LOAs for it to really be a big deal, not enough to feel like they have "too much perms".

But I just go with the flow whatever the decision.

Register

Login

Why do you want to get rid of Retired?

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Who is online