In other words this is, some abused the privilege so now everyone who doesn't meet a certain standard doesn't get it. I could care less with the label but a regular is not suppose to be a moderator and in a nutshell it looks like the regular status has been made that.
In addition, I want to present the question of those who maintained their status and the only real perk of being granted regular status compared to member is access to the lounge. Which in my opinion most of those who did lose their regular status used the lounge appropriately.
What irks me is how this forum has gone from the chaotic mess it once was back in August-September, into a fairly organized machine from November-January, into an uptight and power driven community. Would have been far better to not evaluate a person for little to no wrongs done but evaluate those repeat offenders. Also, what constitutes positive attitude and a productive post? That is purely subjective depending on the person.
Now do not confuse this post with me having a tantrum over losing my regular status. I could care less. However, I wanted to contribute some serious questioning to the process and the benefit overall to the process of determining a regular. Furthermore, there seriously needs to be the question of can a small select group be impartial to making a determination for a large group of people when there has been a large interaction between those evaluating and being evaluated. How much is determined from that? How much is determined from DM interaction? Has recent contributions and behavior been judged heavier than long past behavior?