Black Swan Society

I would like to make sure people are recognized for their contributions in this lil community. There's already tracking and some accumulation of "Activity Points" which can be used to trigger roles. Roles in grou.ps apparently can also unlock more control over the site. They also need titles designating a rank. So... what would be some levels of being a Black Swan? I mean, on the big side, you're like a Tsunami, but in the beginning, aren't we just whiny or snarky? I kid... Please help me flesh out some roles.

egg hatchling cygnet - or cygnette for the ladies? fledgling yearling Swan (apparently they are not adult 'till 3 so there's room for a couple more) .... I'm sure bird fans can make this more betterer

I like the list, Steve. It's far better than anything I'd come up with. A member of our young group messaged me with this thought, with regard to the privileges that can be assigned with the roles:

A troublesome thought: What would be interesting is to gain privileges without having them as explicit goals and without the gold stars. Evolution and learning are about getting better at things and increasing your capabilities and responsibilities, not getting admiration points. But people seem to react more positively to the latter than the former. Which is it? Maybe we can find out.

What I think our group would appreciate as we grow is active participation (//not just lurking). This is the very same question we're all dealing with (or will have to deal with) as we push things forward in our organizations. What do we expect as far as participation (what kinds of activities; how often) and should we reward the more active with privileges? It seems at some level to fly in the face of flattening the hierarchies, as we create one through a meritocracy (or participatocracy)... On the other hand, maybe there's some merit in just arbitrarily (and quietly) making decisions about privileges based on roles that everyone just discovers as they earn them... I'm all for as many ideas on this subject as I can get.

Thanks! Glad you like it. Other goups I've contributed had fairly arbitrary 'titles' allocated based on number of posts. Not a measure of merit, granted, but at least a measure of length of service or frequency of interaction. It's pretty easy to see who, of the frequent posters, posts great stuff or tripe. You could also have some 'admin' roles - e.g. Cob in charge of (whatever) weekly meetings, Pen in charge of Wiki (oh I like that! ... in case you didn't know, Pen is a female swan) etc. As you suggest, the people who have these roles, and the roles themselves, should emerge over time. I'd also suggest that, like a good committee, they should qualify for a change of incumbent on a specified frequency - annually or whatever. We could probably glean some more heirachical and role-based titles from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swan

I also like the idea from slashdot that your role is not permanent but instead is something that by default has an expiration date and that while you are welcome to earn it back and as many times possible, its not an automatic renewal....

I would say "ugly duckling" would be a good name for noobs, and anyone who gets annoying should be called a goose (those things are so annoying). I also really like mark's suggestion of admin roles cycling. If you want this to be maintained consistently not putting it on one person's shoulders is a good idea. PS Does anyone else find Steve's knowledge of swans disturbing? j/k

LOL - in my defense, I'm British and swans are somewhat revered in Britain. They are a pretected species and things like 'cob' and 'pen' are somewhat common knowledge. I swear it's true, officer!