Should we formally vote on adding new groups?

Post by **Inquisitor** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 3:50 pm

Should the entire membership vote to let a group form for a game?

Futile Resistance · Post by **Futile Resistance** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 4:08 pm

The 5 minimum people rule has worked before. So long as there's interest in the game the group should be allowed to exist.

BlueFlames · Post by **BlueFlames** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 4:28 pm

It doesn't seem necessary, since we have a pretty standard metric to judge the formation of a group. I don't see why the SSX as a whole would want to deny players a game anyway.

Post by **Inquisitor** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 4:39 pm

I was thinking it might be useful to avoid creating groups that vanish as soon as they form. Best way to know whether or not that will happen, is to ask

So I asked

Post by **M.Steiner** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 4:56 pm

I agree with Fut, so long as there are at least 5 peeps then it should go alright. Don't think we've had any probs doing it that way before have we?

I see where ur comin from tho Quiz...

c · Post by c » Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:00 pm

I dont think it's necessary. It's quite obvious whether a game has group potential or not -- if a lot of people play it, it's only natural to form one, but even if it isn't, the main forums are always there for it

Kon · Post by **Kon** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:13 pm

I don't think thats needed. The 5 person thing usually worked well before.

Post by **Inquisitor** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:47 pm

Well, not everything worked that well before

Seems pretty unanimous so far, though.

I like having a sounding board for this stuff

BlueFlames · Post by **BlueFlames** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 6:39 pm

Yeah, some divisions came and went within a couple weeks, but I don't think the failure of the Red Faction division was what tore apart the SSC.

Kon · Post by **Kon** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 8:34 pm

There was a Red Faction division?

Didn't even notice. Of course if it came and went before Nov. '02, I wasn't there yet.

Scikar · Post by **Scikar** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 9:49 pm

Say 5 minimum is enough to start a group, with a vote if someone raises an 'objection'? I can't think of a better word for it, objection is a bit harsh, but basically say let it start unless someone believes it will die quickly or whatever, in which case a vote is held?

BlackDove · Post by **BlackDove** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:07 am

I don't see the harm in it if it fails.

If it fails, it fails.

Post by **Inquisitor** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 3:29 pm

Fair enough. This is hardly a critical issue. Like i said, it's good to have a sounding board.

The Baron · Post by **The Baron** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 5:20 pm

Mmm, should we revise the 5 person rule?

Post by **Inquisitor** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 5:26 pm

In what way?

Not sure we need to codify too much, but, toss out the idea big man.

BlackDove · Post by **BlackDove** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:51 am

I'd put it as

5 people
3 weeks (that's the new part)
Active threads in General. (so is this one)

You need to need a new forum in order for one to be created. Just my opinion.

Padishar · Post by **Padishar** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:13 pm

Not much to say here that hasnt already been said

Post by **Inquisitor** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 7:54 pm

Looks like a no.

The Shattered Star

Should we formally vote on adding new groups?

Should we?

Should we formally vote on adding new groups?