Something Was Removed..

It said I was a novice, and now its back to the beggining as if i just joined the sight.. It kind of fustrates me. Ive been a proud member. i dont know why the site would do such a thing to me :(

Login or Signup to reply to this post.

This thread has been moved to Comments from Misc Topics.

The ranking systems not perfect. And its not how long you've been here but how others that are Knowledgeable and Adapt perceive you. They are the ones that rank us.

I'm sorry this happened to you. Its happened to alot of people. Lets just cross our fingers and hope that someday they will get all the bugs out.

Love and Light,
Annamare

The tags will come and go, but your true knowledge is here to stay. Don't worry about what ranking you have, it is just a colorful bar next to your name. In truth, if it was accurate and was used correctly, then we wouldn't have people ranked "beginner" as our priests and priestesses or as editors.

At the end of the day, Spellsofmagic is just another website.

Don't worry about it. I've been beginner, novice, beginner, novice, then beginner again. My comment was that I didn't unlearn anything, and I just chuckled. It is how others perceive you. Don't worry, it's just a colorful bar called a rank. LOL Blessed Be...

Harbringer:

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.

Spellchanter:

As for the people ranked beginner who also lead covens and are editors, Spell, you don't understand how the ranking system, how the editor system, and how the leadership system works. I've already explained how the ranking system works, so now I'll focus on the editor system and the leadership system.

Editorship isn't based on one's rank within the system, nor does the ranking have anything to do with a person's job as an editor. Editors are here to keep the forums and spells clean, and make edits, deletions, and moves as needed. Editors don't have to know the difference between a poppet and a puppet to be an editor; they only need to understand how to do their jobs properly.

Leadership also has nothing to do with the ranking system; it's a totally separate system, that has nothing to do with any of the other systems. Leadership is decided by those still in leadership, aka the former or current priest or priestess determines the new priest or priestess. Once in a long while, Pet saves an inactive coven by placing a new leader in the position. In your coven's case, peaches retained her priestess position, Montebank was promoted by Pet, and peaches placed you up as priest, regardless of your ranking. It was her decision entirely to promote you, regardless of ranking, and 99.99% of the time, Pet won't change the promotion of a coven leader. This is on the coven leaders for promoting beginners and fluffies, not on the knowledgeables and adepts, nor on Pet.

I agree with Kebs's statement .I could not have typed it better .

Keps covered it pretty thoroughly, I believe. And I'll second her statement that asking to be ranked or ranked up is a really good way to find yourself marked as "fluffy".

I agree, a very good response.

I do understand how the different systems work. And in truth they have no correlation with another. To become an editor you apply by pressing a button at the end of an article, and to become the leadership of a coven you're promoted by the former leadership or Pet. The ranking system does not directly affect either of these.

What I meant by saying that, was that if someone truly was "fluffy" (for that is what this account is ranked) then I wouldn't of been promoted to council and then promoted to priest. Obviously I have a good amount of knowledge about some topic, that made me stand out over some of the other members. My point being, the ranking system greatly under ranks, and over ranks, many of the people in either coven leadership positions, council, or editors. For example, Tombstone. She is quite knowledgeable and I greatly enjoy what she has to bring to the table when discussing magick, yet she is still ranked beginner. And although they systems have no correlation, I hardly believe Pet would promote a beginner to an editor position.

I suppose I did not word my last comment right, I probably didn't do a good job wording this one either. My point just being, I understand their is no correlation between the systems, I just find it strange that we have "fluffs, beginners" and even "Novices" leading covens, moderating, or editing. Because at least to me, that means there is either a problem with who we are promoting, or the ranking system is under ranking people.

This is why I say don't worry about it. Because the sad truth is that the system is broken and refuses to mend itself. In the beginning of the ranking system, Pet outlined all the different ranks and what each required to be ranked higher. At least from my understanding, they were originally intended to be like this:

• Fluffy: A member who refuses to accept the truth, constantly causes issues or "trolls." Someone who believes that magick is what is shown in the entertainment media.
• Beginner: A member who knows the difference between real magical practices and the magic portrayed for entertainment. This member wants to learn about real magick, but has yet to find the proper resources to begin and must be trained.
• Novice: A member who can apply the knowledge they have attained and be able to effectively practice magick for themselves. This member is self sufficient and can find the correct resources to learn on their own.
• Knowledgeable: A member who can not only apply what they have learned for themselves, but can also effectively apply and then share their knowledge with other members.
• Adept: A member who is proficient in sharing their knowledge with other members.

At least from the above description, it shows that almost everyone is a rank below what they should be. Tombstone should be "knowledgeable" as she can apply what she's learned and can effectively share it with other members. I hardly think she is unable to practice for herself or unable to find credible resources to learn from. Kebs, you should be ranked an "Adept" as you are proficient, or adept, at applying and sharing your knowledge with other members. My point here, being that we need more people ranked "knowledgeable" and "adept." That way the system is balanced out. It is destined to fail when there is only a handful of people with the ability to rank members when their are over 200,000. And I don't think the problem lays with their not being enough knowledgeable members, I think the problem lays in the bar being set above the standards which causes the rest of the system to fail.

I apologize for my rant, but I felt it needed to be said. Perhaps with enough encouragement we can change the ranking system for the better. I do hope the ranking system one day succeeds, so that it can be a guide for everyone on how to do better. But at this rate it only undermines that by causing "frustration," sadness, and a lack of motivation to continue. Hopefully this post it beneficial, blessed be.

~Spell~

This is the way Pet had it originally lined up:

http://www.spellsofmagic.com/read_post.html?post=329556

What you posted is a good guideline, but it isn't the one Pet made for us to follow.

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.

Tombstone's ranking is probably due to this sliding scale, and due to her showing several levels of knowledge at several different times. Meaning, sometimes she shows the knowledge of a beginner, and sometimes she shows the knowledge of a novice. I personally wouldn't mark her as knowledgeable, because she hasn't shown a consistent amount of knowledge. When she shows she doesn't know much about a particular topic, someone on the site will rank her down thusly, but when she shows she knows more about another topic, she gets ranked up.

As for your ranking, I'm not sure why you are ranked as a fluffy. I've thought a lot about it in depth, and have yet to figure out how you ended up ranked thusly, but I assume it was for a fair reason.