Ranking System Info...

thanks for the helpful information i did really really did need thank you so much for this bless your kind heart. :) :)

That answered a lot of questions!! *phew. thanks! (:

This thread has been moved to General Info from Comments.

Cool I get it now! :)

I had to take my time reading this (and other articles, granted) to fully understand the rank of "fluffy" and other ranks as well. This is the most basic, simplified, and very understandable explanation given, and I must thank you for writing this.

*claps* Excellent.

This is a incredible post! It is Well informed, and easily read. The thing I would like to add, is that some members are extremely knowledgeable on the site, and sometimes members get ranked fluff for sometimes one question, or answers wrong.

In my opinion the ranking system is beneficial, however it is a weird solution. Some of the higher ranks, due to their rank can be a little harsh to the youngsters. I think in terms of knowledge this ranking is, good. In terms of fairness, many are knowledgeable but do not have the full rank, A) for ranked members do not rank, and B) Haven't fully proven themself. Yes it can be helpful to know which sources are accurate, but most important is that their evolution to help others. I don't always see these two together anymore.

Overall I think it is a good post, and possibly I suggest making this one into an article, if your know council.

It's about time something like this was pinned. Hopefully it will prevent duplicate threads.

I googled phrases from OthalasWind's rank descriptions within the spellsofmagic website, and discovered that those descriptions are not found anywhere else on the site, meaning that they were written by him alone. I have extensively studied the definition of the term 'fluffy' and what it includes, and I see that OthalasWind's definition of 'fluffy' has little to do with the actual definition of the term, which indicates that OthalasWind made-up his definition with deceptive intent.

Furthermore, OthalasWind's definition of 'fluffy' is overly vague, sounding more like a description of subjective perceptions than objective criteria, and his wording (such as 'disrespect', 'attitudes', 'refuse to listen', and 'lack the willingness to accept ... common and basic concepts') strongly suggests that he has a desire for collective dominance-assertion in general, and orthodox belief-pushing in particular.

I note the irony that OthalasWind's definition of 'fluffy' includes the word 'immature', and yet it is a very immature thing for him to do to redefine the term 'fluffy' to mean essentially 'anyone who I hate'. The true definition of the term 'fluffy', stated as briefly and concisely as possible, means both 'light and cheery' and 'believing in the ridiculous', and those two characteristics often overlap.

Contrary to the first sentence of OthalasWind's made-up definition, it is oftentimes some of the most non-fluffy people who are the most tempted to be insincere, for the purpose of humorously parodying the fluffy material on this site.

Notice that OthalasWind uses the phrase 'credible sources of information', yet nothing within the magical/supernatural field is a truly credible source (except perhaps skeptical investigations thereof by outsiders), since none of these beliefs are particularly supported by real science (you don't see treatises on magic in scientific journals, do you?), but require faith. Only in the case of the history of religious/occult groups should supernatural-believers look to outside secular scholarly sources (i.e. the most credible sources) for information, because there are some religious/occult group leaders who propagate gross lies about the history of their religion- pseudohistories that falsely claim religious lineages that extend far further back into the past than they actually do. People who propagate and/or believe in such pseudohistories are indeed included under the true definition of 'fluffies'.

Lydia, I don't think you are realizing the full concept of the ranking system. Yes, he may have put it into his ''own'' words, but, SoM membership rules are known, to not ''copy'' or, ''plagiarize''.

He broke it down formally, and I thought it was an exceptional post! When you said, that he explained fluffy, improperly, did you really try to, understand what he was saying from his, point of, view?

Its true, fluffs, usually are considerably overwhelmed, and therefore, usually have a ''I am superior person'' attitude. Almost all fluffs I meet, end up being young, claiming impossible things. However, when the members, or moderators end up trying, to guide them along the correct path, to say. They reject it, and bash them. This was a good explanation, and therefore, I think it was explained exceptionally. Moving, on.

I read your profile, and you not only seem, to be stating the names of mods, who say, are ''taking their power for granted''. You also seem to be trying to bring them down. Specifically, five names were listed. No means, am I telling you what to put on your bio. However, you must take into account how, people can veiw you. I would highly suggest taking the names of the mods, down.

Overall, this was a good post, but there are many of them. While this one, was well explained, there are many others, some are articles, ect.