Comments and Suggestions.

In which direction have we swung? Seems to me there's probably more non-Bond than Bond discussion on this site right now.

I still dont see why you're getting so worked up, Sharky - you dont have to get involved with the blockbuster discussion, and if we get a few guys who love their James Cameron and Christopher Nolan, so what? Chances are they'll add to the regular discussion as well, they've got the multiplex area to hang about in and more people provide more flavour to the forum - personally I think we should be welcoming almost anyone we can get, and if they prove a nuisance, then you crack down.

I also put out a link on the Simply Classics forum (was the first time I've posted there in 2 years), so we'll see what that turns up.

Ed Tom Kowalsky wrote:

In which direction have we swung? Seems to me there's probably more non-Bond than Bond discussion on this site right now.

You're right, but most of them are devoted to franchises and blockbusters.

I'm in favour of casting the net wide, so long as we're not afraid to cull new users who disrupt the place. We have a solid userbase but we lack activity (although I guess I'm not really one to preach when it comes to that), but I'd hate to lose the general quality of content in searching for greater volume. The worst thing about the old MI6 was seeing a handful of infantile cretins drown the place in their own dribble and not be dealt with.

colly wrote:

I still dont see why you're getting so worked up, Sharky

I suppose I'm still angry at Harms and Ambler for abandoning their posts.

FieldsMan wrote:

I have to say I'm not sure if I like the blue. But at least it's not a radical change... if you know what I mean.

I'm able to restore the forums back to their original colour at any time with the click of a button, so any changes can always be undone if they don't go down well. Like you said, it's not a radical change. My intention was just to to perk things up ever so slightly with a bit more colour without deviating too far from the previous silver layout rather than go radical with it and run the risk of it being really divisive.

Everything feels a bit Catch 22 around here at the moment, so it's difficult to know what to do for the good of the forums with things such as the layout and the "to log in or not to log in" dilemma.

Sharky wrote:

Ed Tom Kowalsky wrote:

In which direction have we swung? Seems to me there's probably more non-Bond than Bond discussion on this site right now.

You're right, but most of them are devoted to franchises and blockbusters.

Like I said, things feel a bit Catch 22, but if Lazenby, Colly or anyone else can bring in a pile of new members, then those members would be able to take up recommendations from people here to watch films other than blockbusters, not to mention that some potential new members may already be interested in "higher brow" kinds of films anyway. But I'm sure most of us started out with Ghostbusters, Back To The Future, Indiana Jones, Star Wars or another blockbuster we loved which led to a longtime passion for film, so not only do these forums present an opportunity to introduce blockbuster fans to different kinds of films, it also gives those people a chance to interact over their favourite blockbuster films as well.

Sharky wrote:

Sure, but the beyond is in the forum's name for good reason. It was meant to transgress 007 for those who'd lost interest in the franchise (i.e. Harms and Ambler), providing a hangout for broader discussion.

With that in mind, I've already tightened up the forums ever so slightly to better represent our Bond And Beyond title. The forums are now (following the welcome threads) clearly divided into two distinct sections, with the Fan Creations section now fully incorporated into the Bond section.

Sharky wrote:

Right now, I think we've swung too far in one direction.

From what I can see, quite a few of the same people who post in the non-blockbuster sections are also posting regularly in the blockbuster sections (Star Trek, Star Wars, Superman, Batman). Again, it's Catch 22, we can't solve the problem of too much blockbuster talk by actually adding to it, and people can't solve the problem of not enough non-blockbuster talk by simply leaving the forums altogether.

Sharky wrote:

I have faith we can still fix it, but it'll take a lot of work.

It's worth the work though, as there are a lot of really good members here and the forums are very flexible which enables us to always try and make sure everyone's needs are catered for. A healthy amount of new members could make a really big difference to the forums right now, so I'd hope that we can all channel some energy into making that happen and spreading the word. I can always remove any rotten apples if mass promotion leads to any troublecausers straying into here.

Sharky wrote:

colly wrote:

I still dont see why you're getting so worked up, Sharky

I suppose I'm still angry at Harms and Ambler for abandoning their posts.

I am, too. Especially Ambler.

I like the new format/layout. I thought the Fan sections were a bit drawn out, we're a small site and will probably not get the same kind of activity MI6 got in its heyday so it makes sense to put em together in the meantime.

Yes, having sections compacted -chiefly the fan section, helps a lot. As for more members, so long we get some that contribute Bond (particularly when Bond 23 comes out) so much, perhaps, the better.

Ed Tom Kowalsky wrote:

I think ranks are a good idea, but make them difficult to achieve. Sort of defeats the purpose to give out the title "Lord High-God Supreme Basileus Most Holy" after 100 posts.

Can anyone suggest a good ranking system that we could all agree on, using something similar to the seven-tier system below?

0 posts = Rank title?
20 posts = Rank title?
250 posts = Rank title?
500 posts = Rank title?
750 posts = Rank title?
1000 posts = Rank title?
2000 posts = Rank title?

Or, if seven tiers seems like too much, feel free to suggest a shortened system.

All I'm looking for is rank titles, but hopefully within a system whereby people will be motivated to reach the next tier but at the same time not be too disheartened by the rank they currently have, if that kind of balance would be possible.

0 posts = David Arnold
50 posts = Monty Norman
250 posts = Marvin Hamlisch
500 posts = Michael Kamen
750 posts = Éric Serra
1000 posts = Sir George Martin
1500 posts = Bill Conti
5000 posts = John Barry

Or something similar.

Hardly as funny as Sharky's suggestion, but perhaps slightly less subjective:

0 posts = Cypher Clerk
250 posts = Cut-out
1000 posts = Field Operative
4000 posts = Intelligence Analyst
6000 posts = Controller
10000 posts = Spymaster
15000 posts = Section Chief

I'll probably give all suggestions a go at some point, just to keep things fresh. I like both the above suggestions, so I've just set up the first one and we'll see whether people like it or not.

M wrote:

I'll probably give all suggestions a go at some point, just to keep things fresh. I like both the above suggestions, so I've just set up the first one and we'll see whether people like it or not.

That's an interesting way of doing it, refreshing the titles every few weeks or whenever. Here's another suggestion:

0 posts = Barry Nelson
50 posts = David Niven
250 posts = George Lazenby
500 posts = Pierce Brosnan
750 posts = Timothy Dalton
1000 posts = Daniel Craig
1500 posts = Sir Roger Moore
5000 posts = Sir Sean Connery

Based upon seven classic Fleming characters who have yet to appear on screen:

0 posts = Sir James Molony
250 posts = Junius DuPont
1000 posts = Ernie Cureo
4000 posts = General Grubozaboyshchikov
6000 posts = Fidele Barbey
10000 posts = Willy Krebs
15000 posts = Sluggsy Morant

Ed Tom Kowalsky wrote:

Hardly as funny as Sharky's suggestion, but perhaps slightly less subjective:

0 posts = Cypher Clerk
250 posts = Cut-out
1000 posts = Field Operative
4000 posts = Intelligence Analyst
6000 posts = Controller
10000 posts = Spymaster
15000 posts = Section Chief

This one.

Damn, I envy MP's "Michael Kamen". :|

Still, could be worse. If I was a newbie, I'd probably rather resign than have that rank. ;)

M wrote:

All I'm looking for is rank titles,

Sorry, but all that goes through my mind is most of the script for Life of Brian. :D

It looks like they've already been picked.

Since Bond is a Navy man, something like...

0 posts - Ensign
100 posts - Sub-Lieutenant
200 posts - Lieutenant
500 posts - Lieutenant-Commander
1000 posts - Commander
5000 posts - Captain
10000 posts - Admiral

M wrote:

I'll probably give all suggestions a go at some point, just to keep things fresh.

In which case, I guess I can pitch in....

0 posts - Michael Apted
1 post - Lee Tamahori
10 posts - Roger Spottiswoode
50 posts - Marc Forster
100 posts - Martin Campbell
200 posts - Guy Hamilton
300 posts - Lewis Gilbert
500 posts - John Glen
1000 posts - Peter Hunt
2000 posts - Terence Young

Ravenstone wrote:

M wrote:

All I'm looking for is rank titles,

Sorry, but all that goes through my mind is most of the script for Life of Brian. :D

0 posts - Whore of Babylon
100 posts - Very naughty boy
200 posts - Leader of the People's Front of Judea
500 posts - Naughtius Maximus
1000 posts - Biggus Dickus
5000 posts - Brian
10000 posts - Messiah

0 posts = Recruit
20 posts = Analyst
250 posts = Officer
500 posts = Agent
750 posts = Special Agent
1000 posts = Section Chief
2000 posts = 00 Agent

Sharky wrote:

200 posts - Leader of the People's Front of Judea

Splitter!

I like the ones where the intervals between milestones are bigger.

100
500
1000
2500
5000
10000
15000