Revised Parameters for the Voucher System

[Inquisitor]

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.

[M.Steiner]

All sounds good to me now

[Inquisitor]

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

[Futile Resistance]

All sounds good to me now

Ditto

[NF]

No quibbles from me

[BlackDove]

Fine with me.

[esd]

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.

[Inquisitor]

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?

[c]

Absolutely no objections to the first post.

[Inquisitor]

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

[c]

Agreed.

[Inquisitor]

Communication, communication, communication

[SSX Fahd]

Drive-by-posting: I agree vouching system, especially the flexibility stuff (stops a one shoe fits all situation) .