Mentor title is misleading.

Just a suggestion. The mentor title is a bit misleading since all that it requires is a higher per month/year subscription cost. With out some sort of vetting, no one should be called a "mentor." That is not a title that should be purchased, IMO it should be earned.

I have to agree. If it is only a matter of money and not time put in helping others, the title of Mentor does seem somewhat out of place.

What should it be called then? Users are the free account and supporter is the first tier of subscriptions so what would the next tier be called? Backer? or something else? I do agree with your statement about the mentor title should be earned.

Could do something like the old school level titles. Bit nerdy, but thematic, and it harkens to tradition.

Investor?

Knight was better. Since everyone has their own little 'kingdom' or are, hopefully, playing in one, may want to go along the nobility route, with the r20 being royalty, or, more business wise, the other way around.

I like "Investor" too.

I like "Investor", but I also like the Knight concept, particularly with the art depicting the ranks "Peasant", "Squire", and "Knight" work well. And "Base" doesn't follow the pattern well and people with Base accounts are called Users on the forums so maybe have it as: "User", "Supporter", "Investor" OR "Peasant", "Squire", "Knight"

A word from a mentor... Perhaps the devs have more on their minds to think about than the name of this seemingly misplaced moniker... maybe things that improve the core of roll20, yes? That said, I'd seriously enjoy being called Knight or something more intriguing like that :D

Investor. Mentor implies that they actually know the system well and perhaps know games well. A title you get for paying money gives a false impression of such people.

@ Atticus, maybe they do...But maybe this is a suggestion forum, in which the Dev's invite us to make such suggestions. Thank you for illustrating my point about why the mentor title needs to be changed.

Happy to halp!

i think colaborator sounds more apropiate. since mentors colaborate in the developement of roll20 and have acces to the special forum. and does not use a legal term like investor.

Less flavor, more precision Undo. Collaborator does have a bit of the conspiratorial air however, so perhaps the flavor remains.

@Thraxis:  I completely agree with you there.  I really think that giving a mentor title to someone just because they paid for it shows in fact that they are giving the opposite impression of what it takes to be a mentor.  I really think the dev should change it because of this, and not out of offense, because they could give a far better title to the donaters of this website.  Like, allow the donating members to customize a title next to their name in the website.  A lot of people could really enjoy doing something like that.

It does seem nonsensical and very confusing for new members.

i wasnt confused, but perhaps thats why i am a mentorrrrr      ;).   grinnnn

@ Devs, Thanks for responding.  I understand completely.  The word mentor has more than one meaning and the way it is applied here is dead on one of them.  I just feel the other definition is more powerful to a community, and especially new members.  The inspiration for my OP was the thought that most people might not associate that definition until they realize that mentor status is a monetary investment.   @Sentro, I thought u were a mentor cause you signed up for that subscription level...;) Not trying to be difficult or offensive, just illustrating fact

Well, issue or no, it is a lower priority, correct? One possible, and 'devious', purpose served by the title is to 'encourage' the role/function e.g. "Hi, what is this place? What kind of RPGs do you sell? Sevens? Nines? BRKGs? Oh, hey! There is a mentor, lets keep asking them questions." I'd imagine that at least some of the r20 crew are gamers. Low, cunning, underhanded sorts. "Wretched hive of scum and villainy" : > L

I think low priority is generous.  It sounds like null set priority, which is fine, they have obviously been working awesomely hard, new forums, and campaign forums are awesome sauce.  Put this thread to bed lol ;)  

Well, it is a priority for some, if not the site pers. I for one ruffle enough feathers even with a concerted effort to do otherwise. I hear you though. I seem to recall someone making the point that this is 'suggestions and ideas'. "ahem, cough. rabble rabble grumble 'troublemaker'"

@ Thraxis illustrating... hmm yes. :D isn't that something with drawing? LOL Who becomes a mentor? Why do they do it? The answers are as varied as the people involved. Some of us were lucky enough to have had a mentor and want to repay that. Others just want to help out, be a positive influence, or give something to their community. So in a sense... everyone can be(come) a mentor. Some are good at mentoring and some are not. If you purchase a title and call yourself a mentor well.... thats fine. Howewver it doesn't make you per se  agood or bad mentor... thats always in the eye of the beholder. You can be bthe best mentor there is... if you have nothing to tell... well what does that mean? if you actually have somthing to tell how will you know that someone is reading/listening? at the end... the morale: does it really matter? Perhaps they should add a ranking system to show appreciation (+ or -)  for mentors and supporters. (and it should be validated: if a person has accumulated some points it should add more weight) That way someone who is deemed good in gameplay can boast and attract more easily players for his game. (like Frostchilde, a pbp dm that i know with over 17000 posts since nov. 2009) *** oh and i changed my name into Akimotos ;) ***