BLKTOPTRVL

Mods are selected for various reasons. One may be a deep knowledge of the Rotary Engine/RX Car; BUT IT IS NOT NECESSARILY SO. There may be some mods who don't know much more than the average member.

Threads are started and filled with a lot of technical information by members; some of it good, a lot of it bullsh*t from members who do not know, but instead are just repeating what they have heard - with no first-hand knowledge.

I think it would be a benefit to the forum if we created a Technical Rating Board (TRB) that is NOT filled with political appointees or people who are well respected for their personal popularity; but only for their technical expertise.

There should be about ten of these TRB members, and they should be a self admitting group, meaning that you cannot get into the board unless you are elected by a 80% vote of other members of this board. You can only be kicked out of the board if 90% of the board think you are full-of-sh*t. (This would mean that something went wrong with the election to the board, but has been fixed), of if you have not rated a thread within the last 9 months. If this happens a new person should be nominated by the membership.

Once this board is created, then those members alone would have the power to rate any post positive or negative based on the technical information contained within – kind of like a star rating. Posts that have a positive technical rating would be shaded green; those that are negative would be shaded red. This rating of posts would be the only duty/power of the technical board members. The name of the TRB member who rated the thread should appear on a popup.

My personal opinion is that this would help us weed out bad information and help members find good solutions to their problems faster.

The initial board would include – for example (this list is not an all-inclusive list of the most knowledgeable members – but those who seem to me – someone who is not technical - to know what they are talking about. If you disagree, post your own list of nominees. If you are not there, it may just mean that I have not noticed that many of your posts)…

1. RotaryResurrection
2. Mr RX7-TT
3. IceMark
4. Mahjik
5. Dgeesaman
6. Jimlab
7. Evil Aviator

Members with more than one screen name should not be elected more than once for all names (Maybe the mods/admins can control this?)

Any thoughts? Comments?

87 t-66

iTrader: (133)

sounds good to me. I think Hailers should be on that list too

spot_skater

Aaron Cake, too.

SLOASFK

iTrader: (5)

Mahjik stepped down from being a mod last year. I don't know the circumstances behind it or his reasons, but I doubt he'd want to be a mod again this soon.

If RR why not IR Performance or BDC or BNR? They are all very knowledgeable and known for their vast ammounts of knowledge. I think your system is flawed

BLKTOPTRVL

I think you missed the point.

SpeedOfLife

iTrader: (16)

what do you mean with the 80% and 90%? because I'd be VERY surprised if even 50% post even yearly, so how could they contribute to such a thing? not to mention extra and spam accounts would be counted in the member list unless those accounts were deleted.

BLKTOPTRVL

I am not sure how anything you wrote relates to what I posted. Please explain.

My5ABaby

iTrader: (7)

From the 2nd gen section

1. HAILERS
2. Aaron Cake
3. Ddub
4. Icemark
5. NZConvertible
6. J-Rat
7. Evil Aviator
8. Rotary Resurrection

All I can think of for now.

BLKTOPTRVL

I thought I had posted this in the seggestions section, but it is in the lounge.

https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.php?t=679112

Richter12x2

iTrader: (1)

Mostly because I see RR help a LOT of people out, but not so much from BDC and BNR. +1 for Aaron Cake, because I've found his writeups on NA to TII very helpful, as well as his fabrication stuff.

edit: I do, however, think you've got your work cut out for you convincing those people to take MORE time out of their day for a thankless job.

SpeedOfLife

iTrader: (16)

^^^ that's what I was referring to.

Richter12x2

iTrader: (1)

You're bashing on other people for reading?

10 people on the Technical Rating Board - Self-Admitting Group - you get on the board when you are elected by 80% vote of other members of this board (the Technical Rating Board, not the entire Rx7club Forum). You can only be removed from the board (Technical Rating Board again) by 90% vote of the board (Technical Rating Board)

Goofy

Four out of five RX-7 gurus agree...

Richter12x2

iTrader: (1)

The downside is that if there are less than 10 members of the board, noone can get voted off the board unless that person votes themselves off.

SpeedOfLife

iTrader: (16)

Oh I see, I misunderstood the term 'board', sorry. I thought you meant the whole membership of the RX-7club message board, not the board of 10 tech guys.

SpeedOfLife

iTrader: (16)

On the upside of this, those with a competitive nature might work really hard to learn the cars really well so they can get into this honored group, meaning we might have a slight increase in the average knowledge about our cars here. That certainly couldn't hurt.

Richter12x2

iTrader: (1)

I don't think I'll hold my breath for a sudden increase in competence and helpfulness across the entire forum.

rogrx7

iTrader: (11)

isn't that the point of the archive?

Rousuke91t

^+1

BLKTOPTRVL

Unfortunately, when reading through posts in an archived thread, you can still run into bad data.

What I would like to see is the posts themselves that are GOOD or BAD rated and shaded so that if I am looking for information, I can find a rated thread, and then look at the background color of the post to know instantly if it is BS or not.

SpeedOfLife

iTrader: (16)

doing it by post would be too time consuming I would think...

BLKTOPTRVL

Why?

If I were on the board and I read a post that I thought was technically on-the-ball or one that was not, I would click a positive or negative button.

Done.

Phew, that was a lot of work!

Richter12x2

iTrader: (1)

And RedR1 would BE the board for the Lounge forum.

DrKillJoY

Any updates?

DrKillJoY

Thread closed due to lack of response.