I feel that you may have explained this in another post but I'm not exactly which one, so can you tell me what specifically is flawed/unfixable about it?
Well, a couple things.
First of all, I feel like the very definition of Role Model is kind of nebulous. The HK criteria have done a decent job of trying to define it, but again I don't feel it's satisfactory. People will interpret it their own ways make it fit the mold of whoever they want to be an HK. True, the HKs have weeded out a lot of those undeserving people we had a while back but down the road I fear it could happen again. All it takes is one person with power to mess things up again like a few years ago. The nebulous definition and the idea of a role model in itself also create the feeling that HKs are to be treated as higher and better than other members. It doesn't help that the voting process is highly secretive and no one really knows what goes on in it.
I guess the short and simple of my first point is that I think it causes unneeded division.
I also think it discourages people to continue to write good posts once they get the rank and they become complacent. I think an award system could be a decent idea to try. I mean at least then if you keep posting well you can keep winning awards etc. I think awards at least seem to convey a different feeling then a rank does, as the award member is still just a regular member. I don't know, this is just kind of stream of consciousness here.
I also admit part of it is my own misgivings, I don't like the idea that people can make threads about me to judge if I am worthy of some elite club of theirs or something. But that's just a bit of a paranoia thing on my part
I still don't like the idea of giving someone a rank for being a "good member", but if it were more public and everyone had an input I could probably stomach it a little better.
