Donors are not distinctively classified

This is not an outcry for wanting more than what we already have, but questioning the missing essential of distinctively separating/classifying donors as a whole.

Look at the Usergroup Legend, why aren't donors on there? Because there is no indication of telling who is a donor and who isn't other by viewing that persons profile or post bit if that user isn't hiding their donor ranks. Not that donor seals were significantly important, but that is just another function out the window that is the closest thing to bestowing your difference of a regular member, behind your donor rank of course. There is no symbolic attribute/sign for a donor, and I think that's discourteous to those who support the site.

 

Donors won't get any special recognition in that form - That is solely for the purpose of staff and OMM's.

 

You are aware how long that list would be if donators were included in there?

 

That wasn't the focal point of my argument. What about the *banned* usergroup? It's there. Usergroup legend displays all usergroups, not just what you listed. Donors aren't on there because of the reasons I gave.

What list are you talking about? All donors would fit into one distinctive usergroup.

 

Yup, it would be exactly one entry longer.

 

Lmao I'm retarded. I don't think it really matters either way. There isn't any special username markup for donors is there?

 

The usergroup legend displays usergroups that have a special markup (Like staff, OMM's, and Banned users) - Special markups don't exist and won't be created for donors, therefor there's no usergroup to display in the in the legend. Simple as that.

 

"Don't exist" does not equal "Simple as that"

Is there any reasoning behind it?..

Your argument stands as follows: Usergroup displays special markups --> Donors don't have special markups --> Donors won't be on usergroup

The whole point of the thread is to add donors to it...

 

Plus if all donors were somehow highlighted on the userlist it complicates finding a member of staff. Sites that highlight donors are generally struggling for donors or are new, in my experience any way. There's no reason for donors to be distinguishable, and I don't see Matthew making a new display usergroup just for 'em.

 

I've seen no issues on any forum that has this established. The user legend group list is just below the online list. Can you come up with a valid reason and not a cop out?

 

That's a valid reason. Staff are quickly identifiable as of now, add in some kind of stupid highlight effect around 40% of the online users and you have a mess that isn't quickly navigated. Just looks cheap and pointless.

It serves no purpose. Unless there's some kind of advantage you think it would serve..

 

Why not just make it bold, not a certain color? Shouldn't be too distracting.

 

Bold is used for staff alt accounts

 

What is the purpose of a staff alt?

You can make donors bold, and not have them bold on the user listing. It's done on many sites where the donors have non bold coloring on the online list, but are shown as bold on their userbit and profile. Again, I'm questioning why donors do not have a distinct usergroup.

 

When staff can't get past 2fa for whatever reason or want to log on a shared PC for whatever reason, etc etc