Tags in VS: An Open Letter

[Nunsense]

Thank you.

Sure would be handy to have a pinned somewhere that explains all these mysteries.  Would be helpful for new members too.  I don't know how to do an @‌dUSt for dUSt and for others too either unless this works: @dUSt ..........seems to work ok (Go into hyperlink on URL type @‌dUSt and then in link text type @‌dUSt again)

Followed your instructions ok, nunsense.  Changed my title to "Aussie".........nothing happened, I am still Chummy Commoner.

Should read " am still Part of The System"

Barb

 

I think you are confusing two things. One is the Member Title that is located right under your user name - I can definitely see the word 'Aussie' under yours.

The other thing is the tag that we get which depends one of two things - either the number of posts (automatic tags for this such as n00b or Chummy Commoner) or, if dUSt assigns one, like Church Militant, Church Scholar, Clergy, Religious, etc.  You are a Chummy Commoner because you have not been 'assigned' a tag by dUSt. That seems to be what this thread is about - people seem to want more tags assigned, such as CV or Secular Institute or whatever else, but I think this could get a bit overwhelming for dUSt if there was a tag for every situation in life. 

[BarbTherese]

Thanks again, now I can see that it has changed too.  I don't think that the @‌dUSt worked out either, however it is done.  I knew about the religious, Church Scholar, Church Militant etc. and I think more qualifications will just make things even more confusing than they are already and without being able to check information, anyone can be anyone at all.   One can be anyone at all on one's profile if anyone wants to know.  This is the internet ...........and the mysterious mysteries of Phatmass.

[Gabriela]

"Part of the System" can't be post count, because BT has more posts than me, but I'm "Part of the System" and she's not. And it can't be props (now called "Reputation"), because beatitude has more props than me, and I'm "Part of the System" and she's not.

We've asked dUSt about this multiple times, as well as about the cups and their significance, but he's always silently ignored our questions. I think it's just his secret.

I've often speculated that "Part of the System" refers to those people who helped out during the Great Phatmass Migration of 2015. It seems to apply to people who know "the System" well enough that they're able to help others navigate it, learn it, etc.

As for the cups... Probably it's some way of classifying in which ways we each get on his nerves.

(Actually, on second thought, beatitude has three cups and she's probably the least annoying person on here. So I have no idea!)

Thanks again, now I can see that it has changed too.  I don't think that the @‌dUSt worked out either, however it is done.  I knew about the religious, Church Scholar, Church Militant etc. and I think more qualifications will just make things even more confusing than they are already and without being able to check information, anyone can be anyone at all.   One can be anyone at all on one's profile if anyone wants to know.  This is the internet ...........and the mysterious mysteries of Phatmass.

Normally, the @ function does work. You just type "@" and then start typing in the person's name. Stop in the middle of it and hover your mouse over the name, and there should pop up a drop-down menu-like little window with the person's name in it. Click on that, and it inserts the full name and hyperlinks it, and notifies that person (if they have notifications enabled for that).

But right now, it seems to not be working. @BarbaraTherese

Opa. There it goes again. I must say it can be unpredictable!

At any rate, you don't have to enter the person's name into the URL function to get their name to hyperlink. That's the hard way!

Edited July 9, 2015 by Gabriela

[Nunsense]

 

Gabriela posted:

"Part of the System" can't be post count, because BT has more posts than me, but I'm "Part of the System" and she's not. And it can't be props (now called "Reputation"), because beatitude has more props than me, and I'm "Part of the System" and she's not.

 

 

No, no, no, you misunderstand. When a person reaches a certain post count (something over 3150 or something like that) then they are allowed to change their own title, and it used to be that what appeared under a person's name at that time was the statement:  'I can change my own title now'. When this happened, a person could then edit their profile and change their Member Title by typing in whatever description they wanted. When a person did not type in a new title, it stayed with the statement: 'I can change my own title now'.  

I think the way it works now is that when a person can change their title, and they don't do so, then they either get the statement: 'Part of the system' or they get the cups and glasses. I don't know why the cups and glasses come in - that one is a mystery that only dUSt can answer. BT used to have 'Part of the system' as her title but it appears she has changed it - first to Aussie, and now it says Chummy Commoner - perhaps she wanted the title and the tag to be the same? 

Try experimenting yourself and you will see. You can either put in your own title or you can then delete it and be a part of the system again. I did it and it worked for me.

Edited July 9, 2015 by nunsense

[HopefulHeart]

The cups and glasses accumulate as your post count increases. For instance, when the cups and glasses system was put in place, I had only a coffee cup. Then, when I made my 400th post, the martini glass was added. I think you keep gathering the icons as your post count goes up, until at some point you can either change your title or become "part of the system." That is how I understand it.

Also, after looking through this topic, I think that it is best to leave the tag system as it is.

Edited July 9, 2015 by HopefulHeart

[Nunsense]

The cups and glasses accumulate as your post count increases. For instance, when the cups and glasses system was put in place, I had only a coffee cup. Then, when I made my 400th post, the martini glass was added. I think you keep gathering the icons as your post count goes up, and at some point you can either change your title or become "part of the system." That is how I understand it.

Also, after looking through this topic, I think that it is best to leave the tag system as it is.

Now that explanation makes perfect sense. The cups and glasses increase as post count does, and then when one hits the magic number, they become Part of the System and can change their own title.

Smart thinking 99!

[Gabriela]

Wait, so BT has "Part of the System" behind her title? I know I can change my title, but I didn't realize "Part of the System" was the new "I can change my own title now".

That WOULD make more sense!

[Nunsense]

Wait, so BT has "Part of the System" behind her title? I know I can change my title, but I didn't realize "Part of the System" was the new "I can change my own title now".

That WOULD make more sense!

Yeah, you can delete your title and it reverts to 'Part of the System' (I tried it) or you can choose your own title.

[Gabriela]

I just got a brilliant idea for a Member Title.  

[marigold]

The cups and glasses accumulate as your post count increases. For instance, when the cups and glasses system was put in place, I had only a coffee cup. Then, when I made my 400th post, the martini glass was added. I think you keep gathering the icons as your post count goes up, until at some point you can either change your title or become "part of the system." That is how I understand it.

Also, after looking through this topic, I think that it is best to leave the tag system as it is.

 

OR, some kind of umbrella 'Consecrated' tag for all religious, CVs, secular whatnots, single vowed people. It can be so catch-all that it becomes simple again. When a noobie asks, 'Hey, am I not consecrated to God?' we can let them know that it's for people in formal vows.

And I'd take a Separated Brethren tag if there was one! The requirement would be to be a non-Catholic person trying to understand the Room of Requirement that is Catholic consecrated life, and I would be the only one ever to need it.

Edited July 9, 2015 by marigold
speling

[Gabriela]

OR, some kind of umbrella 'Consecrated' tag for all religious, CVs, secular whatnots, single vowed people. It can be so catch-all that it becomes simple again. When a noobie asks, 'Hey, am I not consecrated to God?' we can let them know that it's for people in formal vows.

I don't know. Cuz again, this would technically include married people and all other people "living in the world" and having God-knows-how-much formation, which eliminates the whole advantage and use of the "Religious" tag.

[marigold]

I don't know. Cuz again, this would technically include married people and all other people "living in the world" and having God-knows-how-much formation, which eliminates the whole advantage and use of the "Religious" tag.

Oh that's a good point. So it's to identify reliable, relatively well-catechised people as well as literally just people in vows. Hm.

 

[Gabriela]

 

 

I know how we can vet religious:

1. Check the email they used to register on Phatmass. If it's the same as the one on their community's webpage (or is found anywhere on their community's webpage), then they're good.

2. If the Phatmass email isn't anywhere on the community's webpage, then we follow this procedure:

2.1. Tell the religious via PM that we'll send an email to their community's email address, as listed on their website.

2.2. Send the email to the community email with a secret password or phrase or quote or something.

2.3. Ask the religious to come back to the PM system and send us the secret password/phrase/quote/whatevaz that we sent to their community's email address.

2.4. If they get it right, they really are a member of that community.

 

We could do the same for diocesan priests, only using the emails listed on the parish/diocesan websites.

 

Go on. Tell me I'm brilliant. I know it. 

[Nunsense]

 

I know how we can vet religious:

1. Check the email they used to register on Phatmass. If it's the same as the one on their community's webpage (or is found anywhere on their community's webpage), then they're good.

2. If the Phatmass email isn't anywhere on the community's webpage, then we follow this procedure:

2.1. Tell the religious via PM that we'll send an email to their community's email address, as listed on their website.

2.2. Send the email to the community email with a secret password or phrase or quote or something.

2.3. Ask the religious to come back to the PM system and send us the secret password/phrase/quote/whatevaz that we sent to their community's email address.

2.4. If they get it right, they really are a member of that community.

 

We could do the same for diocesan priests, only using the emails listed on the parish/diocesan websites.

 

Go on. Tell me I'm brilliant. I know it. 

Trust issues. 

[Gabriela]

Trust issues. 

Uhhh... Have you read the whole thread? Do you have no memory of the Allie debacle?

___________________

Also: In addition to BT's clever idea to label people in secular institutes, CV, etc., in their profiles, those who have reached a certain post count can put their affiliation/vocation in their member title. By that point, we should know whether they're trustworthy and who they say they are (hopefully!), and if they're not, they'll hopefully have the Phishy tag by then, so whatever they write in their member title won't just be accepted on its face. (Are Phishy people even able to change their title after however many posts? Probably not, but just in case...)

[Nunsense]

Uhhh... Have you read the whole thread? Do you have no memory of the Allie debacle?

___________________

Also: In addition to BT's clever idea to label people in secular institutes, CV, etc., in their profiles, those who have reached a certain post count can put their affiliation/vocation in their member title. By that point, we should know whether they're trustworthy and who they say they are (hopefully!), and if they're not, they'll hopefully have the Phishy tag by then, so whatever they write in their member title won't just be accepted on its face. (Are Phishy people even able to change their title after however many posts? Probably not, but just in case...)

You don't need to be snarky with me just because I disagree with you. Yes, I have read the whole thread but I still think that dUSt has things under the control just the way they are and that we only need the tags that we have now. Yes, I remember the Allie thread but no matter what safeguards are put in place, someone can always circumvent them if they really want to. If dUSt and the Moderators need to spend all their time checking people's credentials, then none of them will have time for a RL, let alone being able to spend time here. I say, 'If it ain't broke ... don't spend time trying to fix it.'

[Gabriela]

You don't need to be snarky with me just because I disagree with you. Yes, I have read the whole thread but I still think that dUSt has things under the control just the way they are and that we only need the tags that we have now. Yes, I remember the Allie thread but no matter what safeguards are put in place, someone can always circumvent them if they really want to. If dUSt and the Moderators need to spend all their time checking people's credentials, then none of them will have time for a RL, let alone being able to spend time here. I say, 'If it ain't broke ... don't spend time trying to fix it.'

I'm not being snarky. And I agree that we don't need new tags. If you'd read the whole thread, you'd know that. You'd also know that Credo—a Mediator of Meh—expressed concern that the "Religious" tag is too easily obtained. In response, I provided a simple, quick way to "vet" religious. If the Mediators of Meh don't want to use it, that's their prerogative. But a Mediator of Meh expressed a concern about a perceived problem, and I responded with a potential solution.

Then you accused me of having "trust issues".

I'm willing to "vet" religious and clergy, btw, if the Mediators of Meh want that done but don't want to have to spend the time to do it.

[Nunsense]

I'm not being snarky. And I agree that we don't need new tags. If you'd read the whole thread, you'd know that. You'd also know that Credo—a Mediator of Meh—expressed concern that the "Religious" tag is too easily obtained. In response, I provided a simple, quick way to "vet" religious. If the Mediators of Meh don't want to use it, that's their prerogative. But a Mediator of Meh expressed a concern about a perceived problem, and I responded with a potential solution.

Then you accused me of having "trust issues".

Well, perhaps you're not intending to be snarky, but you have accused me twice now of not having read the whole thread, which just happens to sound snarky to me. Yes, I read Credo's concern, but I also read dUSt's response to this thread, which seemed to indicate (to me) that he felt we had enough tags already and he didn't express any concern over security issues. So your proposal about checking and double checking credentials just seemed to indicate (to me) that perhaps you have trust issues. I think we have beat this horse long enough however so I am going to withdraw from the discussion and leave it up to dUSt to decide on this issue.

[Gabriela]

I agree that that's a good idea!

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

Rather than putting the responsibility on the Mediators of Meh to prove that posters with the Religious tag are really Catholic Religious, why not put the responsibility on the poster themselves?

Most of the time, the Catholic Religious tag has been no problem, and the Catholic Religious who currently have the tag deserve it. Many of the Catholic Religious who post here are people that at least some of us "know"--even if we have not met them in person. Individual members of Phatmass can vouch for the authenticity of the longtime Catholic Religious members because we have corresponded with them.

I'd suggest that a new Catholic Religious who wants the Catholic Religious tag identify themselves by Religious name and provide a Web link to their Community. Ideally, the Catholic Religious would post the link to their Web site in a public post. Most Catholic Religious already do that anyway, because an important part of the reason they take the time to post on Phatmass is to be accessible to possible discerners and to anyone else who wants to ask them or their Community for prayers. However, personally, I'd be fine if the Catholic Religious, for whatever reason, chose instead to identify themselves privately by Religious Name to @dUSt, along with a link to their Community's Web site. @dUSt could then pass the task of giving the Religious tag on to one of the Mediators of Meh if he was not available. I'm pretty sure @dUSt now has a Contact link on the main Web site, so the poster would not need the PM system to contact @dUSt. This way, the Mediators of Meh don't have to put in the work of identifying Web IDs etc. 

I go along with @nunsense (SOOOO good to hear from you!!!! ) and others such as @Gabriela in "voting" (not that this is any decision but @dUSt's) that we stick with the tags we have. The tags we currently have cover the most common types of Religious Life to which VS members are discerning. As others have said, anyone is free to use the "About Me" section of their profile to describe themselves more fully. Those who have enough posts to change the title directly below their name can pick a descriptive title if they want.