SEARCH The Web  GameSpy   GameSpy Forums  

GameSpy Forums » Legacy GameSpy Forums » [GSF] Clan Business Proposed adjustments to GSF membership
1   2   3   4   5  
Topic: Proposed adjustments to GSF membership
Board Guest
Posts: 954
Join Date: Jun '02
As long as I remain in the clan, I agree with all changes. GG to all.

 

-----signature-----
~Zayin Ba'ayin~

Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History | Report Post,Report
The Prodigal Ogre
Posts: 32,581
Join Date: Apr '01
In Reply To #1

I like Taco Prophet's sponsor suggestion. It would make the applicant more willing to get to know other people in the clan and viceversa. Either one or two sponsors would do it for me.

The ranges for inactiviy and expulsion sound reasonable (*notes that he would have been kicked out if these rules had been in effect 2 years ago :-)*)

The voting rule sounds ok... we've had this discussion about the usefulness of the N vote before and really gotten nowhere. Maybe we can finally decide, once and for all, what to do with it.

I think a side-effect of not having an N vote would be for the active members who care about the process to become more active in the forums and learn about the up and coming posters so that their vote is really either a positive or a negative rather than a 'I don't know you that well, so I'll give an N' vote (hehe, I also fall in this one happy

 

-----signature-----
=-Ruler of the Planet Baldur's Gate Forums-=

Give me a sane man and I will cure him for you

Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History | Report Post,Report
Guest
Posts: 5,691
Join Date: Apr '02
As much as I'm all into becoming harsher with active memberships and recruits, I too would be in Parena's situation (not that bad, though), my post rate at GSF has gone way down, most of my posting happens at the mod forums, and since I'm the only one posting on said threads, they don't even count.

 

-----signature-----
_______
Art

Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History | Report Post,Report
Private
Posts: 1,020
Join Date: May '03
In Reply To #13
Fishbaugh posted:

In Reply To #10
I really hope people don't vote based soley on spam forums and IRC. I know I don't. I've voted minus for people I really like on many occasions because they don't offer anything of any substance on the main forums.


Seconded. My opinion would be that posts on the main board remain the main indicator. That is the root of [GSF] and it would keep nitwits out that picked up on a few running jokes on BTFzoR or whatever and pass of as 'cool'.

And since this would be the main indicator, all members that whish to remain active should have a minimum amount of posts on the main board per year. This would benifit the main board, because these people bring added value. Even if this would require some members to make an effort. I guess 100 posts or so would be nice. Excluding the RPG part, I think.

If inactivity requirements would indeed be 2 or 3 months and voting requirements would be at least every 6 votes, I suggest adding some kind of absence notice. Example : if Medium_Tom goes trekking Australia, he should not be kicked. I one's Pc crashes and he's off the net for two months, he should be allowed to warn Parena and be allowed a fixed period of absence.

 

-----signature-----
----------------------------------
Maybe God wanted to make something ugly but in great shape Admiral Freebee

Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History | Report Post,Report
I am the One.
Posts: 31,352
Join Date: Apr '01
In Reply To #1
Tech_Paradox posted:

Note - this is a direct copy & paste from my post in the Initiate Approval thread.

.

I was discussing something similar with someone else... Many clans require you to actually BE active to maintain your membership. We seem to let people wander in and out and never remove them from the rolls.

Proposals:

1. Reaper the members list. Instead of people clamoring for a re-vote every N months, we institute an activity count. You must vote to remain active in the clan and you must regularly post to remain active in the clan. Miss X votes in a row (6 seems like a good number, as that's about how many initiates we have in any given month) and you're inactive. Don't post on the main board in six months and you're inactive. Spend six months on inactive status and you're out. Send an e-mail to their address registered on the clan site and PM out to all members notifying them of this - if you get no reply or it bounces, they automatically get put on inactive. For e-mail bounces, they must immediately contact Parena to get it fixed to be moved back to active. Voting in any initiation round gets you put back on active status and/or wipes your missed vote count. Inactivity due to lack of posting can only be rectified by posting - voting will not remove that strike.

2. Revamp the voting. Remove the Neutral option - you either want them in or you don't. If you want to remain neutral on someone, you don't vote (but it counts against your "Missed Vote" count). Up the required percentage to 75% so as to not have people skating in.

3. Bump the membership requirements up. Jack the required posts up to 500 and require a minimum of six months of activity on the main board, so as to keep the spammers at bay.

Any thoughts?



1. Good, but there's a lot of people who hang out just in IRC, how would we handle this? Maybe include that as well?

2. Good, agreed.

3. I think the limit at the moment (post wise) isn't too bad, but a lot of people don't post over there so they don't know who is who.

Maybe with (1) that could change.

 

-----signature-----
The Turtle Moves...
Moon Base to Ground Control

Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History | Report Post,Report
Cyrris  9061 posts
28813_1056129-icon
Woei!
Posts: 9,061
Join Date: Mar '01
Removing the neutral option is something I supported for a long time, because it's completely useless. Initially it was never meant to exempt people from being counted in the overall percentage. If there was one plus vote and two neutrals, that means your approval would be 33%. Now it'd mean 100%, which is, of course, crap.

Negative votes were initially negative, so one + and one - vote each would give an approval rating of zero. I can't remember how the status of neutrals and negatives changed, but I was never too happy about it.

I think that, and a sponsorship requirement for each initiate are great ideas. I remember a whole bunch of us lobbied for [P] to join the clan however long ago, he didn't apply himself out of the blue. It was better that way - you know that the person who's joining is someone you all really want to wear the tag with you.

 


Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History | Report Post,Report
Guest
Posts: 1,879
Join Date: Mar '01
Cyrris posted:

Removing the neutral option is something I supported for a long time, because it's completely useless.


I'll go further and say it's not just useless, it's harmful.

Re: [P]'s recruitment, that's how things should be. The clan is in too passive a role now regarding its membership, and application can (and often is) viewed as a popularity barometer. I think the lack of votes is a good indicator of the problem... lots of people apply who really have no chance, because nobody knows who the hell they are. Having to vote on them wastes people's time.

Instead, it should work the way you described: the clan notices somebody posts well, adds something good to the community, and goes out and gets them.

Having too many sponsors required could push things back this way. The initiates should not come seeking the clan and begging to get in. The clan should go find the people it wants.

If that means that by the time someone goes up for voting they're a shoo in, that's fine. If enough thought went into applying now, it'd be that way today.

 

-----signature-----
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I beat the internet; the end guy's hard.

Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History | Report Post,Report
Board Guest
Posts: 2,755
Join Date: Feb '02
I was going to make this topic yesterday myself so thanks for giving me extra time to get my thoughts together. A lot of the old ways just don't work anymore and need to be changed. Here is what I think absolutely needs to be done at the very least to correct current problems.

Eliminate the neutral vote. Voting n is the same as not voting at all. I've been saying forever (and waiting for anyone to listen) that if you don't know someone enough to vote + then you ought to be voting - for them. The n vote is pointless and has allowed more than a few people to slide in. The default vote should be - and to change it you have to sign in. I also feel that if you can't be bothered to take a whole two minutes out of your week to sign in and vote then you shouldn't be in either.

The percentage needs to be higher. 66% just doesn't cut it. It needs to be bumped to at least 75%.

The initiate process needs an overhaul. Having people apply when they want and how often they want is ridiculous. How many people have tried over and over every two weeks, getting rejected again and again until finally after 5 or ten times enough people feel sorry for them and they squeek in. People who do that are pathetic and shouldn't be let in.

Initiates should be sponsored. Each member can sponsor, say, 1 initiate every so often (six months?) and only when you are sponsored can you be added for voting. If that person does not make it in then they should not be allowed to be sponsored again for at least a few months. Every two weeks is way too short a time.

200 posts is also too few now. It used to be that there were few enough people so that a person could really stand out in that many posts but now that's no longer the case. There are so many forum members that 200 posts isn't enough for people to even remember yor name, let alone form a solid opinion. I would raise the bar to at least 500 (I would prefer more like 1000 but I'm likely alone in that).

And now we come to the one that everyone wants to skirt but it has to be talked about. A revote. Go look at the member list. I'll wait. Go.

How many people did you see on it that haven't been here for months or even more than a year? How many people on it that have vanished? These people have moved on so why does everyone here want so badly to hold on? I like some of those people, hell I like a few of them a lot but they have gone away so why should I not move on?

I want very much to raise the percentage and then have a revote with the new percentage. People who have left will be eliminated and people that, let's be honest, shouldn't have made it in the first place can be booted too. When we list 80+ members and only 30 or so vote it's time to clear the deadwood and not by some overly complex plan. A revote is simple and effective and I know some of you just don't want to admit it. It needs to be done.

Perhaps more later. Stay tuned.

 


Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History | Report Post,Report
Guest
Posts: 1,879
Join Date: Mar '01
In Reply To #24

Under new activity requirements (should they be defined and accepted), some may not be eligible for revote. Though, I would suggest a grace period to allow anyone who's inactive but still interested to either become more active, or be made officially inactive.

Speaking of which, the inactive list needs to be clearly defined. How long can you stay there? How do you get there? What exactly does it mean? Etc.

 

-----signature-----
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I beat the internet; the end guy's hard.

Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History | Report Post,Report
Board Guest
Posts: 2,755
Join Date: Feb '02
In Reply To #25

After a revote at the higher percentage (you all know we need one) we should put guidelines into place. Inactive for, say, a month and you are placed on the inactive list. If you stay on the inactive list for six months or so then you get kicked. If you come back you can always reapply.

I also wanted to say something about voting in general. This is [GSF]. Gamespy Forum Clan. It is not the IRC clan or a second BTF clan. People should be voted for based on what they do on /gamespy and /gsf which are the forums we are based on and our home forum. People in IRC you like but they don't post a lot on the forums? Make an IRC clan. Someone coming to BenTest a lot? You have a clan there already.

This isn't a "Down with the enemy" type thing. I talk to people who frequent IRC and people who do most of their posting on BTF these days. What I'm saying is that those places are NOT where it should be decided who gets in and stays in this clan.

This will probably be ignored but damn it when you sign in to vote stop and think for a damn minute. This person idles in IRC and spams it up on BTF so I'll vote for them for [GSF]. No damn it. Keep that shit separate. It's annoying as all fuck to sign in and see someone with hardly any posts on /gamespy (and about zero posts worth a damn) being voted into this clan. Use some sense people. Three different things, let's keep it that way.

 


Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History | Report Post,Report
osoboe  1365 posts
5039_945576-icon
Board Guest
Posts: 1,365
Join Date: Sep '02
In Reply To #1

- Agree to the higher vote percentage (75%)

- Agree to the elimination of a neutral vote

- Agree to the activity count (Flip's idea of 2 - 3 months sounded alright)

- Agree to the sponsorship (just one person sounds good enough)

- Disagree to a revote (because, honestly, I'm a paranoid bitch.)

I'd also like to say that as I've now got a decent internet connection (not connected to a decent computer though) I'm now active (or as active as I'll ever be) again.

 

-----signature-----
___
no.::

Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History | Report Post,Report
Covert Agent
Posts: 8,180
Join Date: Feb '01
I agree with most of this topic. Mostly Taco's and Coyote's suggestions; these are things I've felt are long overdue, particularily voting reform, sponsorship, and active membership. There's a topic we haven't touched on, though, which is the issue of leadership. All of this is nothing new, of course. We've had the revote, we've gone through my (successful?) plan to revitalize the main forums, we've had many an argument about reform before... so it's fairly obvious that this is a recurrent problem. The clan stagnates, bickers, votes in too many people who don't seem to belong. And right now, even in these reforms, there may not be enough to prevent that in the future.

My question to you is: do we need some sort of leadership in the clan? That is, a person or group of people, similar to moderators, that have the final say in disputes and can even kick people out? A control to keep the clan on track? You can say this goes against the original 'democratic' spirit of the clan... but let's face it. [GSF] is not what it used to be. Not even close.

 

-----signature-----
[P]aradox

Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History | Report Post,Report
Board Guest
Posts: 2,755
Join Date: Feb '02
In Reply To #28

I was going to touch on this myself. I would not be opposed to some form of leadership but the question remains (as it is each time it's mentioned) how to go about it and who would it be? There are those that would want the position/s and these people should on no account be allowed to have it/them and then you have those that would be great at it that would have to be dragged kicking and screaming into it.

Of course now that I've said that, those that want it will come running to say they don't want it. Anyway, I have a few ideas on this subject and maybe I'll post them if the idea isn't dismissed out of hand (which it shouldn't be).

 


Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History | Report Post,Report
Real Talk
Posts: 348
Join Date: Jan '02
In Reply To #1

Just bear in mind that some of us (me, as far as I know) are active in IRC, but not on the forums.

 

-----signature-----
National Center for Missing & Exploited Children
http://www.missingkids.com/

Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History | Report Post,Report
Board Guest
Posts: 2,755
Join Date: Feb '02
In Reply To #30

Any chance you could read the whole topic? Multiple people have touched on that very issue.

 


Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History | Report Post,Report
1   2   3   4   5  
GameSpy Forums » Legacy GameSpy Forums » [GSF] Clan Business Proposed adjustments to GSF membership
© 2012 IGN Entertainment, Inc (9.02.17.2300, MEDIAPRDBOARD01) 0.094