|
These are the bulk of my responses to ranking in the past. This explains all that you need to know about the ranking system.
Those who are knowledgeable and adept ranked rank you. It is part of our "job description" as knowledgeable and adept ranked people. There are several of us, and we rank several different ways, I won't begin to explain how other people rank, because I just don't know.
Ranking works based on an averaging system of what we think of you. This means if one person ranks you novice, and another ranks you fluffy, you get a beginner ranking. However, if there is only one ranking on you, it can show up as anywhere within those three rankings. A knowledgeable ranking won't show unless you are ranked knowledgeable by several people.
All these rankings are viewable, except for fluffy and unranked (which knowledgeable and adept can see). Once ranked, you will remain ranked, unless the person who originally ranked you removes their rank from your profile (which we can).
You probably were ranked as Novice by one person, due to them seeing you speak fairly intelligently, and then either reranked lower, or ranked lower by another. It happpens to everyone at some point, and I won't say, "Don't worry about it". Personally, if you want to worry about your ranking, you can, I'm not going to tell you not to. I'll tell you how to get a higher ranking like you want.
If you want to gain a beginner ranking, show us you are a beginner in your practice, show us you aren't a fluffy, that you are willing to learn. If you want to gain a novice ranking, show us you are a novice in your practice, show us you know enough not to be a beginner. Do this through posting and chatting. Sitting around, complaining about why your ranking disappeared won't show us any of that. If you were to mail those who are knowledgeable and/or adept, and ask us to rank you, we will most likely rank you fluffy instead.
If you want to know whether you are ranked as fluffy, or unranked, feel free to mail me. I'm more than willing to tell anyone their ranking, but if you ask me to rank you, I'm going to hit the fluffy rank.
This is the way Pet had it originally lined up:
http://www.spellsofmagic.com/read_post.html?post=329556
The scale of ranking is a sliding one. I am more likely to rank a person higher than say, Lark, because Lark is more knowledgeable than I am in certain topics, and Lark may be more likely to rank a person higher. It's not a matter of us all constantly ranking people the same, it's a matter of us ranking based on our own opinion and knowledge.
This is how I personally rank:
Fluffy: This person may have posts in the forums, usually doesn't have articles, and possibly has chatted before. They don't show any knowledge at all, or if they do, it is false. They tend to pretend to be teachers, but then turn fluffy in the middle of it. They can also be people sitting in chat, messing around constantly, even when a magic topic is brought up. It can take me an hour to a few days to mark a person this.
Beginner: This person has made some posts in the forums, may or may not have articles, and has chatted before. They don't show a vast amount of knowledge through their posts, articles, and chats, but rather show an overall lack of in depth knowledge of magic. If they have many posts and articles, they come from other sources, and may or may not be cited (but usually aren't). They don't show any real experience within their path, or are unsure of their path. It takes me about a day to rank someone this.
Novice: Thjs person has made a fair amount of posts in the forums, may or may not have articles, and has chatted with knowledge a few times before. They aren't necessarily always knowledgeable in their chats, posts, or articles, and some of their information may have come from other sources, but they are cited. It takes me seeing a person do this for around a week for them to gain this ranking from me, and I've ranked several people thusly.
Knowledgeable: This person has made a lot of posts in the forums, has several articles, and has chatted with knowledge many times before. None of the information they have presented is entirely or directly from another source, rather they cite sources they've used or have brought the information entirely out of memory. It takes me seeing a person do this for around a month or two for me to rank them this, and I can count on one hand the number of times I've ranked a person this.
All of my rankings are constantly in flux, and I've gone back to rank a person several times, only to find the ranking already in mind is the same as my original ranking. I don't keep track of who I've ranked what, or why, but when a person shows they are worthy of a higher ranking, I rank them higher. I change my rankings to increase the person's rank about 1 out of every 30 ranks I make, and about 1 out of 40 is to rank them lower.
|
