Parameters for vouching for a new member

[Inquisitor]

My proposal:

2 people must vouch for a new member of a game group. And vouching for someone implies that you actually played the game with them.

One of those 2 people MUST be a current moderator. The other can be anyone on the registered member list for that game group.

Individual groups can take this further, and put up voting polls if they wish, so that all members can "vouch" for a particular candidate, but, at the minimum, all groups will do this (provided this vote passes). What I want to avoid is "leaders" making all the decisions.

I see this as having a number of benefits.

1) It ensures that people PLAY together, so we don't get a member who doesn't play

2) It encourages the rotating mods to take the moderator position seriously, and makes them accoutable.

3) It makes sure that at least 2 people think the new candidate is the right fit, hopefully mitigating any potential future conflicts. The SSX isn't for everyone.

4) as a corrolary to 3), it gives us a controlled growth path, installing a bottleneck approval process so we don't grow too fast, which, believe it or not, is a good thing. Controlled growth is desireable.

5) It puts the power in the hands of the right people, the membership.

I would strongly suggest that before the two folks publically vouch, they compare notes. Don't vouch for someone if you don't think they will be a good fit. Keep in mind the above.

What say you?

[BlackDove]

Allirght, we can try.

[c]

A) 2 people must vouch for a new member of a game group. And vouching for someone implies that you actually played the game with them.

B) One of those 2 people MUST be a current moderator. The other can be anyone on the registered member list for that game group.

C) Individual groups can take this further, and put up voting polls if they wish, so that all members can "vouch" for a particular candidate, but, at the minimum, all groups will do this (provided this vote passes). What I want to avoid is "leaders" making all the decisions.

A) Totally agree with you on that point.

B) This can a bit of a problem. The moderators might not be the most active in-game, and might be in totally unsuitable time zones compared to the new member. Since everyone is rotating and gets a mod at one point, there should be absolutely no difference made here (IMHO). The main advantage would be that the new member would most likely be vouched for by the active part of the group. Having it as a rule that one of the members "must be a moderator at the time" would lead to frustration in the long run. Imagine the current mods are all GMT, and someone from say, Australia wants to join. Most of us have a life (or kind of, at least) so it might be practically impossible for him to join. However, we have lots of people from more suitable time zones who play with the new player a lot (and get to know him). Wouldn't it be more logical to have *those who play with the joining person* vouch for him/her?
Just my 2 cent.

C) Here's what I'd propose:

Have two members from the game vouching for the candidate - the current moderators can issue a veto (from talking to the candidate in IRC, etc.). If they do, the candidate gets put up for a group-wide poll. If they don't, it's fine and the candidate is made a member.

I see this as having a number of benefits.

1) It ensures that people PLAY together, so we don't get a member who doesn't play

2) It encourages the rotating mods to take the moderator position seriously, and makes them accoutable.

3) It makes sure that at least 2 people think the new candidate is the right fit, hopefully mitigating any potential future conflicts. The SSX isn't for everyone.

4) as a corrolary to 3), it gives us a controlled growth path, installing a bottleneck approval process so we don't grow too fast, which, believe it or not, is a good thing. Controlled growth is desireable.

5) It puts the power in the hands of the right people, the membership.

I would strongly suggest that before the two folks publically vouch, they compare notes. Don't vouch for someone if you don't think they will be a good fit. Keep in mind the above.

What say you?

Agree to most of this, but read above
I wouldn't put the power to choose the candidate exclusively to (at least one) moderator, but instead grant the moderators the right to question and veto (--> group wide poll) the decisions the members issue during their rotation period. This would put (basically all) the power in the hands of the membership, and still encourage people to apply for the rotating mod position. The mods should be more of a "moderating hand" rather than anything executive. Of course, this doesn't mean that mods cannot vouch/recruit new members. They're welcome to do so, but if (for whatever reason) it isn't possible, it should be possible for the rest of the membership.

[M.Steiner]

All sounds okay to me, but i'll be honest and say the mod bit doesn't...

In Neocron the only people that recruit new members are the people that are highest ranked in our clan (its just how the game works, only the highest rank peoples are actually able to add people to the clan) If a new member wants his friend to be recruited too, he can ask but the only people that are physically able to are the highest ranked people. This means either myself, Rah or BD are the only people that actually add people to the clan and always have done. If us 3 have to wait for clearence from a mod before we can add someone to our clan - who could infact be very inactive ingame, or play in a different time zone to us 3. We could infact wait weeks to be able to do so.

ATM when either myself, Rah or BD adds someone to the clan the other 2 know about it anyway. I'm personally happy with the way we've been doing it like that tbh, without needing to wait to get hold of one of the mods and get them ingame to give us the okay. eg. Like Blue is a current mod for NC, if we needed to get hold Blue ingame we'd have to wait until Christmas cos he isn't in NC until then... Thats just one for instance, be a lot less hastle without needing to do that.


Apart from the mod bit, i like and agree to the rest.

[Padishar]

I am the no vote

As far as the proposal goes
I just think it needs to be revised a little, Lightspeed broke down well what I feel needs to be reflected more in your proposal b4 being passed first.

[Inquisitor]

That's why this is here

[NightDreams]

Over all i say yes to this, i agree on ligtspeeds point with the mods not always being around, but if anyone can say yes or no to someone joining how are we going to stop ourselves from grwoing to large to fast. Atm i dont see this to be a problem cos we all know each and get on, however in time if anyone is able to say "yes this person can join" we may end up with loads of people joining without ever really knowing them.
With them be vouched by people who are only saying yes because they are there friends and havent really thought about it.

ND

[Kon]

I too agree with Lighty on the things that might need adjusting, but overall I say yes.

[Inquisitor]

Well, to lobby the point, the whole mod thing might help prevent that "just take someone you think is ok" might give the needed day or two pause in the process.

Waiting isn't always bad thing.

After thought, I am still keen on one of hte vouchers being a current mod (given that the mods change, and are pulled form the active roster for a group, I am not sure it's a valid concern anyway).

[BlueFlames]

Also keep in mind that mods are on a three month rotation. I was pondering what effect that would have on the process before voting...

It could generate the problem of a potential recruit playing with a current mod near the end of his/her rotation, only to have that mod rotate out as the recruit is petitioning to join. On the other hand, if by whatever fluke, all the mods for a game go inactive, a potential recruit is not denied membership, instead just having to wait until the next rotation before getting a new mod's approval.

[Rock-n-Roll]

Lets be realistic about this. Just about every game has in game leaders, whether we want to call them that or not.

I think we should have a system where you must have X number of vouches as well as the approval of an in game leader. In game leaders tend to arise due to the fact that they ARE active. When leaders go inactive, either new folks take over or the division dies. One way or the other, the problem is solved.

[Inquisitor]

Blue: That would imply a system paralyzed by red tape. I don't think we'll have that problem

[BlueFlames]

::Ceases casting 'Red Tape Paralyzation'.::

Sorry, Quiz... It's my whole Lawful Evil psychology screwing with me again.

[Inquisitor]

No no, keep reminding me. It's good to remember what not to be

[c]

Just for the record, I didn't vote anything, since neither "no" or "yes" are accurate.

If people feel the originally proposed way is fine, I'm totally okay with that. I'm merely pointing out what I see as potential problems

[Inquisitor]

I'd say if you don't agree with my reasononing, don;t like any part of hte process, vote no.

Just caveat the no, and the next vote (if this fails) will incorprate the modifications

[Kon]

I voted no, but I do agree with most of it. I like Lighty's way. Just to clear that up.

[Blue Star]

Like Blue is a current mod for NC, if we needed to get hold Blue ingame we'd have to wait until Christmas cos he isn't in NC until then... Thats just one for instance, be a lot less hastle without needing to do that.

Hopefully, it won't even be that long - Looks like the council are giving me a hundred quid towards internet connection (just don't ask how I got it though )

But yeah, obviously my current status was an example of a worry. An alternative could be that 1-2 members vouches for a guy, and a moderator has the last word (i.e. registers or vetos). Probably a bad idea to some people but note that like Dan already said, only the highest-ranking members can do the job so technically they end up having the final say

[Inquisitor]

Not sure we need a poll, since it seems to only objection to the parameters is corrected in everyone's eyes by Lighty's suggestion.

Discuss.

[BlackDove]

I'm fine with Speed-o's ammendment as well.

[esd]

I voted no, but I do agree with most of it. I like Lighty's way. Just to clear that up.

ditto

[Futile Resistance]

From the votes, looks like you're gonna have to revise the Mod part. But aside from that, I'm sure everyone agrees.

[Fenavian]

I like the idea of vouching but i am not fond of the idea of moderator vouching. I would like to think that all of us here are level headed and since all of us at one point will become a moderator, it wouldn't make sense to have someone preforme moderator vouching.

[Chimera]

Actually, I like the idea of a moderator "vouching" system for 2 reasons.

1. It lets a party (perhaps outside of those who personally know the pledge) get to know the person and possibly give a more unbiased opinion of the person.

2. I'm operating under the belief that moderators for a division/group are taking an active role in promoting said division/group AND that they would be more willing to hang out with/help out with new members than the average non-moderator member who didn't recruit him.

My opinion.

[Gryphon]

I'm a bit iffy about having mods vouch - but there's no real problem I can see, it would just have to depend on the mod who's vouching - mood and disposition.

In the case of neocron though - I would probably have to change it to clan admins - since they have the power to invite anyway, I think it's a use you best judgement case really.

To make sure not too many people are signed up - you could have a maximum intake number quarterly - or monthly, something to limit intake - if they're commited enough - they won't mind waiting a while to join.