Back to Topic Index
So.. new idea.
By Kyle on 05/10/2009
Omar suggested this (DON'T FLAME LOLZ)
But it's actually not that bad of an idea.
(21:10:55) <Havoc> Darth
(21:11:15) <Havoc> go make it so u have to have 80 percent of WG say yes to ur application in a poll in lv 1 forums to be accepted
(21:12:38) <Havoc> This method has been used in various clans and is always deemed successful.
(21:12:47) <Havoc> It would require full member participation but we already have that in forums at least.
(21:13:02) <Havoc> and that darf is sexy beast
I'm guessing more work could be done with it, but as a basic idea to start off with, would it be worth trying?
But it's actually not that bad of an idea.
(21:10:55) <Havoc> Darth
(21:11:15) <Havoc> go make it so u have to have 80 percent of WG say yes to ur application in a poll in lv 1 forums to be accepted
(21:12:38) <Havoc> This method has been used in various clans and is always deemed successful.
(21:12:47) <Havoc> It would require full member participation but we already have that in forums at least.
(21:13:02) <Havoc> and that darf is sexy beast
I'm guessing more work could be done with it, but as a basic idea to start off with, would it be worth trying?
By David on 05/10/2009
Yeah, I wouldn't mind testing it out.
It works for a lot of clans. Generally only people who REALLY fail don't get the needed percentage, but at least at that point there is some validity in regards to the rejection, rather than "bias".
It works for a lot of clans. Generally only people who REALLY fail don't get the needed percentage, but at least at that point there is some validity in regards to the rejection, rather than "bias".
By Randy on 05/10/2009
Not level one. Most people in WG read the introduction (which could be COMPLETELY made up) and automatically think that person is magnificent. A lot of people are completely oblivious to the fact that clans are always trying to get spies in and hide as much evidence as they can. If we were going to implement this system, it would be best off in level two. The elite guardians are wise enough and have enough clan experience to tell for themselves who's legit. Also, the current benefits for being an elite are lacking.
By DZ on 05/10/2009
I would rather see this for a new graduation system (still have the person meet our current requirements for graduation) but have members vote on whether they feel that person was good enough as a trial to become a full member. I think our current graduation system is pretty shitty right now.
I suppose it could work for applications but I don't really think we're in a state right now to be being even tougher on the few applicants we have.
I suppose it could work for applications but I don't really think we're in a state right now to be being even tougher on the few applicants we have.
By Randy on 05/10/2009
|
|||||||
I would rather see this for a new graduation system (still have the person meet our current requirements for graduation) but have members vote on whether they feel that person was good enough as a trial to become a full member. I think our current graduation system is pretty shitty right now. I suppose it could work for applications but I don't really think we're in a state right now to be being even tougher on the few applicants we have. |
|||||||
ya but the name changing thing is going to make apps pretty difficult
By David on 05/10/2009
|
|||||||
I would rather see this for a new graduation system (still have the person meet our current requirements for graduation) but have members vote on whether they feel that person was good enough as a trial to become a full member. I think our current graduation system is pretty shitty right now. I suppose it could work for applications but I don't really think we're in a state right now to be being even tougher on the few applicants we have. |
|||||||
I think Sean is right on this.
Make the voting go towards graduation rather than a chance at getting in.
By Randy on 05/10/2009
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I think Sean is right on this. Make the voting go towards graduation rather than a chance at getting in. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Well but realize a trial guardian has access to all of our information, shouldn't that be the stuff we're safeguarding?
By David on 05/10/2009
I know that, but I think the suggestion at hand has better uses AFTER they've been given a first chance.
Using it at the initial stage of the application process means we're basing it all on what? Whether or not we like them. Not on if we can trust them and their actual capabilities.
I've always said we should tighten up on who we let in as well, so maybe we should start that as well?
Using it at the initial stage of the application process means we're basing it all on what? Whether or not we like them. Not on if we can trust them and their actual capabilities.
I've always said we should tighten up on who we let in as well, so maybe we should start that as well?
Back to Topic Index