Revised.
---
Two (2) current members of a group must vouch for a new member of a game group. Vouching for someone implies that you actually played the game with them. Any current moderator (which would include in-game admins) can veto a member.
Individual groups can take this further, requiring more stringent vouching such as requiring a moderator to vouch, or posting a poll for all current members to vote, we will leave this up to the groups.
As with ALL things in the SSX, issues with unfair refusals or innappropriate members being accepted should be escalated to the group moderators first, and the arbiter if those issues cannot be resolved.
-----
Discuss. I don;t want to codify too much, rules make people inflexible. BAsically, anyone can bring anyone in, the only requirement is that people play with the newbie. And if someoen feels they have been treated unfairly, or we let the wrong guy/gal in, then privately tell the moderators or me.
I would like to implement this starting today, for all new members. I think the nominations should be in the form of a forum post if possible.
Revised Parameters for the Voucher System
Moderators: General Forum Moderators, Global Moderators
-
- Posts: 3411
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:46 am
- Location: SSX
No signature
-
- Posts: 6114
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 5:57 pm
- Location: UK
All sounds good to me now
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
-
- Posts: 3411
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:46 am
- Location: SSX
Incidentally, I intentionally didn't make this a poll. My understanding is that all that is left is to discuss some (I think minor) details. So, this is where you make your opinion heard if you have issues.
Also don;t forget, if we find out something is broken, we can always adjust or repeal it
Also don;t forget, if we find out something is broken, we can always adjust or repeal it
No signature
-
- Posts: 1454
- Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 10:44 pm
- Location: FL
DittoMaester Seymour wrote:All sounds good to me now
-
- Arbiter
- Posts: 751
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 6:51 pm
- Location: Manchester, UK
No quibbles from me
NF
-
- Posts: 986
- Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 2:25 am
- Location: Somewhere
I'd add that at least one of the members who are nominating the new member should have been with The SSX for at least (for example) a week. This stops blokes a and b coming in and immediately granting access to blokes c, d, e, f, g, h and i.
""I like my women like I like my coffee. In a plastic cup.""
-
- Posts: 3411
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:46 am
- Location: SSX
I'd say that would be covered by the veto.
I'd further add, that the arbirter, moderators and admins should pay attention to recruiting.
This is not a fire and forget system. If joining were an automated, impersonal process, I'd agree with that stipulation. Since it shoudl be a personal, interactive process, I think it's un-necessary (at least for that reason).
Of course, individual groups would be free to add that stipulation.
I have a feeling, that once this is in place (which is now), that we'll see what works and what groups do with it, the if an "official" modification is required, we make it.
This is a living body, think highly iterative rules and constant introspection.
If that makes sense?
I'd further add, that the arbirter, moderators and admins should pay attention to recruiting.
This is not a fire and forget system. If joining were an automated, impersonal process, I'd agree with that stipulation. Since it shoudl be a personal, interactive process, I think it's un-necessary (at least for that reason).
Of course, individual groups would be free to add that stipulation.
I have a feeling, that once this is in place (which is now), that we'll see what works and what groups do with it, the if an "official" modification is required, we make it.
This is a living body, think highly iterative rules and constant introspection.
If that makes sense?
No signature
-
- Posts: 3411
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:46 am
- Location: SSX
As an informal addendum to this, I'd like to see a post in a group forum regarding a new member, with both the sponsors replying to it (or one of hte sponsors making the post) so we can easily add peeps to the list without going around asking if they have been sponsored
No signature
-
- Posts: 3411
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:46 am
- Location: SSX
Communication, communication, communication
No signature
-
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:39 am
- Location: Cambridge, UK.
Drive-by-posting: I agree vouching system, especially the flexibility stuff (stops a one shoe fits all situation) .
Fahd, IM Prog's: See profile, Linky: TechSnap Video Podcast
"In the computer world few people read the 'readme.txt' files. In the real
world, few people read the signs that say 'Stand on the right'" - Fahd.
"In the computer world few people read the 'readme.txt' files. In the real
world, few people read the signs that say 'Stand on the right'" - Fahd.