Is there a way the top 20 posters can be listed?

[Graciela]

What about ? -1337??

[Mr. Dick Purple]

Really? I dont care if you can put me into 0 again 

[Skeba]

That's about the most nerd thing I've seen for a while. And where I'm studying.. I see them a lot.

[Mr. Dick Purple]

So no 0 for me?
Kidding, i'll stop spamming now, bye

[AdZ]

Clicking a smiley (emoticon) for a reply should be an instant ban!

I wish.

[knut]

 

[Krispy Kreme]

The whole "numer of postings" is ridiculous. You have people who come onto this board  and do a blitz  of meaningless  postings  just  to get numbers  very quickly. I noticed, for  instance, Skynyrd Girl, who in a matter  of 2-3 weeks went from 0 to over  1500. It is just an example, not to pick on the poor girl whose ambition is to be  a porn star. 

My point: if postings are to meant to measure  some sort  seniority, it fails  miserably. Alternatives  would be  to consider the time one has been registered, the number  of  words posted,  or some other  measure  that gives credence to longevity and not simply  to frequency, which  as I have suggested  can be  fudged.

Just an idea. But I doubt anything will actually happen.

[Skeba]

Well, I think it's the least bad system.

I don't really care about it.

The only thing I've used it for, is to determine whether a poster who's been breaking the rules should know the rules by now (granted it would be cool if everyone would read them before they started posting).

[Krispy Kreme]

My theory is that the more posts you have, the less "real life" you have. Sorry if I offended anyone, it  is just a theory. I know that when I get busy I will go weeks without posting. Only when I am between projects or bored do I post. So in reality, the winners are the losers. 
(I am sure  I will be attacked by all the winners for that comment.)

[SLCPUNK]

My theory is that the more posts you have, the less "real life" you have. Sorry if I offended anyone, it  is just a theory. I know that when I get busy I will go weeks without posting. Only when I am between projects or bored do I post. So in reality, the winners are the losers. 
(I am sure  I will be attacked by all the winners for that comment.)

If your theory is correct, then you have around 4.75 times a real life then I do........

[Deez Nuts]

My point: if postings are to meant to measure? some sort? seniority, it fails? miserably. Alternatives? would be? to consider the time one has been registered, the number? of? words posted,? or some other? measure? that gives credence to longevity and not simply? to frequency, which? as I have suggested? can be? fudged.

I think a very accurate way to determine seniority is the total time someone has been logged in, because there is time spent reading the board.

2 days ago someone started a thread in the main gnr section that may or may not have been true, and everyone was defending him because he had been a member since 2004 and he had high 3 digits of posts.  So all you have to do is do a quick check, and here he had been logged in for only a total of 1 day and some hours, and 85% of his posts were in the bad obsession/jungle sections.   I've been logged in reading for a total of over 12 days in that time (and i'm on dial up so it's not like I just leave my computer on to add up time) and since I have less than 200 posts I would have less seniority than him, even though I can tell you everything about GNR that has happened here the past 4 years and can tell you the personality of most board members. 

[supaplex]

if you leave your computer open it will not add time because after a few mins of inactivity your time online will not be taken into consideration
and i don't think a lot of people care so much about their post no. this board is not hostile to newbies unless they make stupid posts/threads without reading the rules