I'm certain I read somewhere that they will start you with your FIDE rating, you might also be interested in this:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/titled-players2

You start @ 1200 :) Wanna game? I'm the best in my house,

.... I live alone.

Oh, Ok. I must be mistaken then. I searched the forums and couldn't find nything... Could have sworn, though, lol

See http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-players/why?

The account later turned out to be a fake but the point is, with the proper documentation, title holders do not have to start at 1200.

Well you certainly can't start from your OTB rating here on chess.com, given that the true are almost completely unrelated. On the other hand, one can see where you are coming from - you have a (internationally?) recgonised title (clearly is recgonised by chess.com hence the big IM in front of your name!) so it is clear you are better than most. It's an interesting question...

IM Erlesfar, what rating would you propose you start at?

hmm, again on one hand that's not fair, but if Erik calls in an improvement to the site (that all titled players start higher), I don't think you can complain and appear to be in the right, especially when he throws 'so you're against site improvement?' at you...

Doesn't bother me, if he really is an IM then I'm sure he'll be quite a bit above 2200 soon enough.

I think it's a good rule because it further encourages titled players to join and declare their identity because they won't have to go through a long process to reach their level. Imagine if they only wanted to play 5 games at once and 1 or 2 moves per game each week? It could take months and months to climb up.

I notice he hasn't got a dimond yet though. That's weird - gets the points but not the free membership.

Your OTB rating doesen't count here, start from 1200 like the others. 

You'll probably be able to challenge 2000+ players annyway.

This is a titled player (IM) so 2200 turn based seems reasonable for starters.

Going off topic rather, I would put a ceiling on chess.com grades at 2400, until the given player supplies evidence of otb performance.

>:)

 The purpose of ratings is to provide an assessment of a player's relative strength.  Making established strong players "start at the bottom and climb the ladder" seems spitefull, and it does not alter the fact that they belong high up in the hierarchy.  A person's initial Chess.com rating is an arbitrary 1200, probably because there is usually no method of determining a new player's strength, and 1200 is about average.  If a new player's strength can be determined, and it is much higher than the average, it makes sense to give that individual an initial rating higher than 1200 (again, the value is arbitrary, just higher).  That way, he or she does not have to spend their time playing weaker opponents until they have reached the position where the higher rated players will accept their challenges.

Isn't the rating system set up to fluctuate at the beginning so that when the IM starts taking down 2000+ players it will realize he is strong? Why is a rating on a chess site so important anyway? Isn't the purpose of this game to have fun? If we really need to feed our egos, just spam your profile page with all of your accolades   Maybe there are some real petty people online, but personally, I have deep respect for titled players and I really couldn't care less what their online rating is. Is an IM with an online rating of 1200 not an IM?