I am going to give some thought to the whole "founder member" thing. I do not know how many we have it must be 30/40 or more, some of whom haven't even posted. The title was just given away to the first members that joined, initially as just a bit of a giggle. I quite like the term and it does reinforce the message that it is a members forum. But...I do not know if it might put new members off joining or posting if they see this as a big "founder member clique" I know it isn't, and you guys know the same, I am just trying to get a handle of a newbies perception. So should we keep the founder member tags or choose something different to make it look a little more inviting say. We need to sort this before we open and maybe we can discuss it at the grand opening if we are sober for long enough:BigGrin: Most forums have a simple grading system, based on number of posts, our vanilla out-of-the-box setting at the moment is 0 to 100 posts = member, 100-200 = senior member 200 plus life member. Ranks like reputation can can add some kudos to the advice we give or the stories we tell. But just the join date and number of posts can add kudos, and we already have a reputation system that seems to be working. So questions to discuss, should we keep the founder member tag, if no what could we replace it with that was newbie friendly? What ranks should we adopt re member, senior life etc? Or should we bin it and just all be members? Over to you guys..