Trust Levels - Member Since info

Oh, thanks Robin

Silly me. I thought the author of the thread could edit the title forever in the new OS. I was mistaken.

Depends on the Trust Level.
At level Basic the features are rather limited

The level Member gets you some more features, such as “Edit their own posts for up to 30 days after posting” Don’t know if this also includes the topic title …

At Regular you get more features but not editing of post titles

The Leader level gives you the power to edit titles. I think someone with Leader level corrected a typo/mistake in one of my posts.

Robin ~ how does one “move up” in these rankings?
Is it number of years a member, number of posts, number of threads started???

All the answers are in that link.
Reading posts made by others is one central point …

OK I now see that and have scanned same.

Some comments though:

  • I may well have received all these “Welcome Notices” upon becoming a “new” member. Also all this complex “trust” information may well have been posted elsewhere on the site but . . . .

Please know that I always blow through the perfunctory “Welcome” e-mails received from any site - into the trash can they go - no time for frilly Welcomes. Also the new OS fails to take into account that I have been a member of Armorama for well over 10 years. So from my point of view it is the OS that is at Trust Level #1 and not myself.

I came to model and to share and exchange information on techniques, new model availability and history - not play games.

Personally I feel like you guys are having us play some sort GAME. All this talk of “Trust Levels” sounds more like my kids talking about being on Level 96 in Dungeons and Dragon!

And at the risk of sounding egotistical here - IMHO I have already “cut my teeth” with years of participation, service, content contributions AND money to this site and it is not I who needs to “earn” the trust here.

Also Robin, is there somewhere that I can view the official report on my current “Trust Level”?

  1. We all had the same experience, you, me, everybody else. I’m not moaning about it.
  2. The old site was dying, as in going the way of the Dodo. See Monthy Pythons Dead Parrot sketch for more expressions for deceased, kicked the bucket et.c.
  3. Jim had two options: Let it die without having something new to replace it with
    or find some new, existing, solution. Building something new from scratch was not an option.
  4. The Discourse solution was presumably the one that Jim considered the best option.
  5. Discourse does not support our old post counts, campaign ribbons et.c. so we all start from a blank slate with nothing in our “wallets” except our names.

You provide a lot of content and valuable information to others and I think you have established your callsign.
The past is gone (even if Jim managed to salvage a lot of it to flat html-pages) , get over it.

cheers / Robin

1 Like


However at least give me the credit that now I am complaining about how the new site works rather than how it is not like the old site.

My primary complaint hasalways been that the old contributions (read CONTENT) were/are now delegated to the “Archives” and considerably less accessible to the current (newer) readers. (And totally unknown to visitors and potential new members looking for specific information.)

The one thing I do feel strongly about is that the OS should be corrected to reflect our ACTUAL member enrollment dates. Even if it means paying a small hourly fee to a young family member of your’s to sit at the computer and go back and input the actual enrollment dates of the more long standing members. That would be a number considerably less than the total of the current 2.3K Armorama membership.

The OS as you so eloquently call it isn’t developed or owned by Jim
so you would have to bring that suggestion to those who actually own
and develop Discourse, start at

I checked if Admin access to a member provides an option to change the
creation date for that member. It doesn’t so I strongly suspect that it is deep
down in some database.
I do not think that giving DB-access to anyone except those with deep knowledge of
that DB-implementation would be such a terrific idea.
The risk of minor or major disasters is too big for my taste …


Robin ~ No one said anything about giving access to the OS programming to the general public. I was suggesting rather that Jim S. hire some young fellow for a few weeks, sit him down at Jim’s computer and one-by-one input the correct starting / registration dates for all the Armorama members, or at least the long standing members.

Giving the average member access to the OS/DB programming would no doubt be a disaster.

the date field in our current membership registration is most likely a part of the database included in the discourse SW-package and therefore may not be readily available to Jim or anyone he hires.
Maybe SQL can be used to tamper with it.

Considering everything else that is going on Jim could probably get around to attempting this around the same time that I have finished building my stash …


Just like building your stash ~ it all depends on your priorities and on what is actually most important to you.

That the DB would not accept our actual beginning registration dates sounds strangely like the equivalent of a certain Mr. Gates building a base operating system that’s calendar cannot count past the new millennium.

I didn’t code that DB,
I’m fairly certain Jim didn’t,
if you did it I’m certain that you would have told us
exactly where and how to do
the necessary changes

If it’s OK with you I will just take my dog outta this fight and stop wasting both our times!

That’s a Statement NOT a Question.

1 Like

Just for the record I have ZERO access to the database of this forum. I can’t see the code (it’s compiled code) and essentially it’s beyond my abilities to mess with.

I could… add a field in the custom fields (like the “Modeling Since” field) and allow people to put in the year they originally started using Armorama/KitMaker. That would make it completely on the honor system though.


Jim ~ Thanks for at least giving us a listen.

That entire discussion between Robin and I should be moved out of the “Topal” thread (just as you have done) and/or deleted - that guy doesn’t deserve it. It’s like two guys arguing outloud in the middle of a club meeting where everyone else is trying to conduct club business. Sorry I let it go that far - I think Robin and I just push each other’s buttons.