Jump to content
Rayne

Recruitment

Recruitment Process  

57 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the sG community be able to vote yes or no on recruits?


  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closes on 03/22/19 at 04:40 PM

Recommended Posts

One thing I liked about the previous R&R in terms of ranks was giving an actual, fleshed out reason for voting yes or no. I feel like, while not a fix all solution to that problem, would actually make some people realize that they need a legit reason behind their votes on a recruit so they wouldn't just vote no by seeing someone they don't like or don't know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Rayne said:

Again, if the only reason you have against what I'm saying is "potential toxic circle jerk" plenty of ideas have been given to prevent it.

 

The problem with these ideas is it's not as cut and dry as you're making it out to be. What determines a legitimate vote against?

Like Nau said, it's not worth the hassle (or the drama).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Travesty said:

 

The problem with these ideas is it's not as cut and dry as you're making it out to be. What determines a legitimate vote against?

Like Nau said, it's not worth the hassle (or the drama).

The only person making it not cut and dry, is you.

 

If somebody writes a 5 line, well thought out reason then it's more than likely going to be a legitimate reason. 

 

It's not like you're over burdened with forum moderation anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rayne said:

The only person making it not cut and dry, is you.

 

If somebody writes a 5 line, well thought out reason then it's more than likely going to be a legitimate reason. 

 

It's not like you're over burdened with forum moderation anymore.

 

Let's say it's only one line but they're a friend of a person voting no and haven't been active?

"I don't think they're fit to be a member of this community."

 

Do you take away this members right to vote on a recruit?

 

What about someone just voting no on every recruit?

 

You're making it seem like its easy to moderate troll voting. It's either everyone has a right to vote or you don't. Making people give a reason doesn't stop them from trolling. Plus we want to encourage people to vote. Making people give a reason only deterred people from putting in the effort to vote on someone.

 

 

I'll ask it again. What is wrong with this current system?

Edited by Travesty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course that's not a valid reason for voting no... You have no personal experience with the recruit, you don't vote on then. That's what the current system is supposed to entale, is it not?

 

I'm saying your system is correct, but the inability to put a -1 or a -ref when there is a just reason for doing so, is what the majority of people want back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Travesty said:

I'll ask it again. What is wrong with this current system?

Personally I am not a fan of the ~40+% community vote increase. Unless you are in with the old guard it can be pretty tough to garner enough votes.

 

Overall, I think that the changes are a positive switch that will help discourage people from engaging in rampant shitposting and reward potential recruits for their community interactions outside of the forums.

Edited by chaos4499

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole "must put a legitimate reason" thing has been suggested before and in theory it would work, but in reality it doesn't.

 

Who decides what a legitimate reason is? 

Who decides how lengthy a reason must be?

This will just create a whole bunch of drama, you'll have people voting no on someone because "They are a furry" or "They referred to me as the wrong pronoun". These aren't legitimate reasons IMO, but I know for damn sure there are some people on staff and in the community that would argue that these are legit reason to vote no on someone.

Also if people are required to write a paragraph when voting on someone then I doubt anyone will vote on apps.

 

Staff could change it to where X amount of referrals must be from a vet?

 

Edited by Eddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Eddy said:

 

 

Staff could change it to where X amount of referrals must be from a vet?

 

Maybe one or 2 as well as a few from current staff but any number over 3 you're basically limited to active vets which are basically sean sweetrock and beerman reffing people

Edited by Nau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Nau said:

Maybe one or 2 as well as a few from current staff but any number over 3 you're basically limited to active vets which are basically sean sweetrock and beerman reffing people

Guess I'm a ghost now huh? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rayne said:

Guess I'm a ghost now huh? 

I mean including you and rootbeer makes 5. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rayne said:

I wasn't agreeing with the idea lul.

I know but my sentiment remains the same.

Edited by Nau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, tazmanianxdude said:

 @Wolfshade no offense but the way he was acting when staff was on was different from how he was regularly the problem with us not being able to to vote no is the fact New recruits will put a good show on for staff but once they are off they’ll go back to being toxic.

 

Also on a side note he was not ready to be staff he would abuse it and act like he was right on something when he clearly wasn’t like the SO’s has to correct him on the rules he was forgetting about or rules he was trying to make. 

 

 

Not being able to vote doesn’t stop you from raising awareness to other voters. I dont  remember anyone saying that he was toxic when applying. 

 

Also AFAIK an RO doesn’t have to know all the rules about the server, like an SO. Maybe I don’t understand what you mean by “not knowing the rules” though (I.e. like he was slaying people for a false rule)

Edited by Imperium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I think is it's easy for someone to be good for 30 days, we always pull up we can jp them later I have no idea if that's even an option from my understanding you have to be pretty toxic to do that so idk at what point we let people in and only a handful regret it but some don't so on that side I think there should be system of taking back a referal at a certain point in time because even if they were getting removed for bandwagon reasons don't you have 6 RO's to fucking monitor that, I think it's pretty obvious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Booch said:

 we always pull up we can jp them later

 

Yeah I've never understood why we've had this mindset in the first place. We shouldn't aspire to let shit in, in the first place, to just kick them out later after they've been around for half a year longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

!!!MY ULTIMATE - WALL OF TEXT!!!

 

Being able to vote NO gave interest in recruitment

Giving community members the option to vote no/abstain/yes gave us more interest in who is trying to get into the community (which made us more active).  I would casually read recruitment post just to see who was appling.  A lot of the time it might have been a ZE/MG/War3 player who I had no idea about, but I would learn more about them through recruitment.  Now since I have little power over whether they get in or not, I have little to no interest in looking at them (power tripping am i right?)

 

Circle jerking

Now I do hate this just like everyone else does or should.  Everyone is talking about Nau's circle jerked app, but to bring another one up (in Trav's defense) @Cat-o's app was circle jerked until he decided to withdraw it because he thought his group of friends didn't like him or he just didn't like the circle jerk of his app.  This really pissed me off because he was slated to get in but some people decided to fuck with him and make him sweat about whether he was going to get in or not.  Everyone who voted no said they were going to change their vote back to yes at the last minute, but since he withdrew it was too late.  Cat-O later did resubmitted his app and then got accepted, but that wasn't without a 2nd circle jerk/meme voting to pick on him.

 

Having to give reasons for votes on recruits is pointless

As Trav/eddy and others said, trying to moderate what is a "legit" reason is pointless, and would lead to even more drama about which reasons are legit/illegitimate.

 

Receiving post count for reffing/voting on recruits

No.  Vote because you want to, not for a post count.  I could go on about how many sections (like introductions) are there just for post count, but I've grown not to care about post count other then a really rough gauge on how active someone has been on the forums.

 

Voting Bot / Public vs Private voting

Like @zebra the voting bot was the worst voting method I think we ever had, which tbh is what turned me off of voting initially because of how fucked up that situation was.  In that time frame there were 2 people I remember the most that applied who's apps were stupid.  @slyfox and @krony.  Slyfox was a huge fuck up on the servers.  There were plenty of people that did vote "No" on him but it would have been better if they could speak their opinion directly on his app other than the TMS thread we had.  I know I for one wanted to abstain (instead of "No" because he was getting better) but still wanted to make a comment about his past; the only real place I could do that was TMS though, so that's where I did it.  I ended up getting really pissed at him after he got in because of the shit he got me into regarding "CT rape day", where he ask if it was still allowed on the server to which I replied "I mean if you can get a server vote to pass, i don't see why not". TO WHICH he decides to just have a CT rape day without any admin APPROVAL or SERVER VOTE and then THROW ME UNDER THE BUS.  That is why slyfox is in a dumpster on my airforce map.

Krony was dealing with a different problem.  Krony had so much anti-furry hate on him because of the anonymous aspect of the comment section (which should have been known was going to happen).  All of which could have really turned him off from the community kind of like Cat-O, but thankfully it didn't.

 

Voting yes/no because someone else did

I have a different opinion on this than most everyone else.  I think it's understandable to vote yes/no on someone because your friend did.  If I have a friend like @KiD Fearless who to me has a trustworthy type of character judgement then I can believe his opinion on a recruit is true.  Now if someone like the people who circle jerked Cat-O's app tells me to vote yes/no on someone then I'm not going to listen to them because I can't trust they are not just memeing or have an overall terrible character judgement.  People who get triggered over something so small and forever hate people are usually the ones I can't trust in their opinion.  People who also have overly strong opinions on how great or bad someone is are generally not trusted by me either.  For instance when I had someone steam message me about voting either yes/no on Nau's app back in 2016 and I said no im not going to listen to you, they got all pissy and neg rep'd me on my abstain post in Nau's app.  So of course I'm not going to listen to their opinion anymore.  Sad to see the rep from Nau's app are all gone so i can be sure but I think it was either @Swed or @vexer but I'm not really sure of either.

 

I'll ask it again. What is wrong with this current system?

@Travesty Everyone keeps saying it but I'll say it again.  That we can't vote no or abstain.  Saying "If not, then the system isn't broken and doesn't need fixing." is like saying since we haven't died from eating out of the dumpster then we don't have to try to eat somewhere else.  The current system isn't horrible like the bot voting was, but that doesn't make it ideal or the best.  Everyone is throwing arguments at you but you are ignoring them and saying they are invalid and then claiming "What is wrong with this current system?".

 

Actually not being able to retract your vote isn't too much of a bad thing.  Its like a real election per say.  Once you throw your vote in the ballot its done, you voted.

 

Poll vote (63% Yes / 36% No)

@Rayne I think your vote is a little messed up tbh.  Its a bit confusing with the many yes and no word usage, and given there isn't a "x" option (other than not voting) I think it needs to be redone.  Have the vote with 3→5 options with one being a "i don't care what we do" so you can gauge how many people don't care on the outcome. Also possibly have a "leaning to yes/no vote" or "leaning to ref only" options.  So it should look like this ↓

 

How should recruits enter the clan?

  • With Yes/abstain/No voting
  • Leaning to Yes/abstain/No voting
  • I don't know/care/Other
  • Leaning to ref only
  • With Ref only

CONCLUSION

@Travesty's idea of recruitment is your welcomed if enough people like you (which allows more "guilty" people in).  While @Rayne's idea is a more of you need enough people to like you and not that many that hate you (which bars "innocent" people from joining).  This could be thought of like "you're innocent until proven guilty" vs "you're guilty until proven innocent".  Because "you're innocent until proven guilty" allows more guilty people to go free (get into the community) where as "you're guilty until proven innocent" sends more innocent people to jail (not get into the community).  Both have their ups and downs.  I don't really have strong feelings for either one but I'd lean more with Rayne and have No/abstain voting.  Here are my list points I'd like to make

  • Private voting 
    • would be interesting but almost pointless with public comments
    • hides brigades until the end of voting
    • Doesn't inform the recruit if he needs to reach out to more people
  • Public voting 
    • allows easy manipulation of the outcome aka "voting circle jerk"
  • Comments
    • Public comments makes the recruit less of a mystery and easier to learn more about
    • Anonymous comments promotes bullying
    • Private comments are pointless because PM/DM exist
  • Reasons for voting can't be easily moderated
  • Little power over the outcome of a recruit results in little interest in voting or reffing

 

Would you have been happy if you could only vote for Trump or not at all?

Edited by Revöker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2019 at 3:16 PM, Travesty said:

Are there any current members that shouldn't be members due to the referral recruitment system?

 

If not, then the system isn't broken and doesn't need fixing.

 

I see people bitching about other members all the time. So I'm curious how do they get in if nobody seems to like them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OGKarma said:

 

I see people bitching about other members all the time. So I'm curious how do they get in if nobody seems to like them?

Does me not liking someone who got accepted into the clan during this vote system mean they don’t deserve to be in the clan?

 

i don’t think so

Edited by Imperium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Revöker said:

!!!MY ULTIMATE - WALL OF TEXT!!!

 

Being able to vote NO gave interest in recruitment

Giving community members the option to vote no/abstain/yes gave us more interest in who is trying to get into the community (which made us more active).  I would casually read recruitment post just to see who was appling.  A lot of the time it might have been a ZE/MG/War3 player who I had no idea about, but I would learn more about them through recruitment.  Now since I have little power over whether they get in or not, I have little to no interest in looking at them (power tripping am i right?)

 

Circle jerking

Now I do hate this just like everyone else does or should.  Everyone is talking about Nau's circle jerked app, but to bring another one up (in Trav's defense) @Cat-o's app was circle jerked until he decided to withdraw it because he thought his group of friends didn't like him or he just didn't like the circle jerk of his app.  This really pissed me off because he was slated to get in but some people decided to fuck with him and make him sweat about whether he was going to get in or not.  Everyone who voted no said they were going to change their vote back to yes at the last minute, but since he withdrew it was too late.  Cat-O later did resubmitted his app and then got accepted, but that wasn't without a 2nd circle jerk/meme voting to pick on him.

 

Having to give reasons for votes on recruits is pointless

As Trav/eddy and others said, trying to moderate what is a "legit" reason is pointless, and would lead to even more drama about which reasons are legit/illegitimate.

 

Receiving post count for reffing/voting on recruits

No.  Vote because you want to, not for a post count.  I could go on about how many sections (like introductions) are there just for post count, but I've grown not to care about post count other then a really rough gauge on how active someone has been on the forums.

 

Voting Bot / Public vs Private voting

Like @zebra the voting bot was the worst voting method I think we ever had, which tbh is what turned me off of voting initially because of how fucked up that situation was.  In that time frame there were 2 people I remember the most that applied who's apps were stupid.  @slyfox and @krony.  Slyfox was a huge fuck up on the servers.  There were plenty of people that did vote "No" on him but it would have been better if they could speak their opinion directly on his app other than the TMS thread we had.  I know I for one wanted to abstain (instead of "No" because he was getting better) but still wanted to make a comment about his past; the only real place I could do that was TMS though, so that's where I did it.  I ended up getting really pissed at him after he got in because of the shit he got me into regarding "CT rape day", where he ask if it was still allowed on the server to which I replied "I mean if you can get a server vote to pass, i don't see why not". TO WHICH he decides to just have a CT rape day without any admin APPROVAL or SERVER VOTE and then THROW ME UNDER THE BUS.  That is why slyfox is in a dumpster on my airforce map.

Krony was dealing with a different problem.  Krony had so much anti-furry hate on him because of the anonymous aspect of the comment section (which should have been known was going to happen).  All of which could have really turned him off from the community kind of like Cat-O, but thankfully it didn't.

 

Voting yes/no because someone else did

I have a different opinion on this than most everyone else.  I think it's understandable to vote yes/no on someone because your friend did.  If I have a friend like @KiD Fearless who to me has a trustworthy type of character judgement then I can believe his opinion on a recruit is true.  Now if someone like the people who circle jerked Cat-O's app tells me to vote yes/no on someone then I'm not going to listen to them because I can't trust they are not just memeing or have an overall terrible character judgement.  People who get triggered over something so small and forever hate people are usually the ones I can't trust in their opinion.  People who also have overly strong opinions on how great or bad someone is are generally not trusted by me either.  For instance when I had someone steam message me about voting either yes/no on Nau's app back in 2016 and I said no im not going to listen to you, they got all pissy and neg rep'd me on my abstain post in Nau's app.  So of course I'm not going to listen to their opinion anymore.  Sad to see the rep from Nau's app are all gone so i can be sure but I think it was either @Swed or @vexer but I'm not really sure of either.

 

I'll ask it again. What is wrong with this current system?

@Travesty Everyone keeps saying it but I'll say it again.  That we can't vote no or abstain.  Saying "If not, then the system isn't broken and doesn't need fixing." is like saying since we haven't died from eating out of the dumpster then we don't have to try to eat somewhere else.  The current system isn't horrible like the bot voting was, but that doesn't make it ideal or the best.  Everyone is throwing arguments at you but you are ignoring them and saying they are invalid and then claiming "What is wrong with this current system?".

 

Actually not being able to retract your vote isn't too much of a bad thing.  Its like a real election per say.  Once you throw your vote in the ballot its done, you voted.

 

Poll vote (63% Yes / 36% No)

@Rayne I think your vote is a little messed up tbh.  Its a bit confusing with the many yes and no word usage, and given there isn't a "x" option (other than not voting) I think it needs to be redone.  Have the vote with 3→5 options with one being a "i don't care what we do" so you can gauge how many people don't care on the outcome. Also possibly have a "leaning to yes/no vote" or "leaning to ref only" options.  So it should look like this ↓

 

How should recruits enter the clan?

  • With Yes/abstain/No voting
  • Leaning to Yes/abstain/No voting
  • I don't know/care/Other
  • Leaning to ref only
  • With Ref only

CONCLUSION

@Travesty's idea of recruitment is your welcomed if enough people like you (which allows more "guilty" people in).  While @Rayne's idea is a more of you need enough people to like you and not that many that hate you (which bars "innocent" people from joining).  This could be thought of like "you're innocent until proven guilty" vs "you're guilty until proven innocent".  Because "you're innocent until proven guilty" allows more guilty people to go free (get into the community) where as "you're guilty until proven innocent" sends more innocent people to jail (not get into the community).  Both have their ups and downs.  I don't really have strong feelings for either one but I'd lean more with Rayne and have No/abstain voting.  Here are my list points I'd like to make

  • Private voting 
    • would be interesting but almost pointless with public comments
    • hides brigades until the end of voting
    • Doesn't inform the recruit if he needs to reach out to more people
  • Public voting 
    • allows easy manipulation of the outcome aka "voting circle jerk"
  • Comments
    • Public comments makes the recruit less of a mystery and easier to learn more about
    • Anonymous comments promotes bullying
    • Private comments are pointless because PM/DM exist
  • Reasons for voting can't be easily moderated
  • Little power over the outcome of a recruit results in little interest in voting or reffing

 

Would you have been happy if you could only vote for Trump or not at all?

This man honestly deserves an award or a forum badge for just how neat and clean his posts are I mean just beautiful, I think it all just comes down to fine tuning a system that works, not everyone is going to get their needs or wants fulfilled, so where is that line and what needs and wants do we go for. Do we give the no votes, do we make it easier to get in, do we allow the return of referrals, or do we leave it how it is and who decides it because this can't be a staff rules all because sorry you guys get final say maybe but you aren't the majority. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Imperium said:

Does me not liking someone who got accepted into the clan during this vote system mean they don’t deserve to be in the clan?

 

i don’t think so

 

Wasn't meant for "this voting system" but more so in general. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Imperium said:

Does me not liking someone who got accepted into the clan during this vote system mean they don’t deserve to be in the clan?

 

i don’t think so

Just because that is the case for you does not mean it is the case for everyone, because in my case if i actually go through the hassle of voicing my complaints about someone, then i am most likely seriously asking for someone to be JP'd. The last time i did this was before we had a sizable purge of the clan. 

As an example, i used to vote no on everyone's app to counter the people who would vote on recruits "yes +1 post count" and stupid shit like that, in only two situations did i ever actually give a reason behind my no vote, and people actually took notice and some even changed their vote because of it. 

The opposite is true though in this situation, i only ever voted yes or abstain on 3 recruits, and this had the opposite effect of me giving a reason to vote no. 

Edited by SpartanSakaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Revöker I appreciate the long, thought out, well formatted response.

 

With respect to people being allowed to vote no on recruits, my main takeaways from your post (and generally from this entire thread) are that we should allow people to vote no on recruits because:

  • People prefer the option to vote no
  • It sparked more interest in recruitment

 

However frankly I don't think the pros outweigh the cons. We are seeing the same activity in rank applications as we see in recruitment right now. I think the people that want to vote are voting and referring members. Some of you may be still protesting your referrals and votes with just abstaining from this new system but we're still seeing a good amount of activity in referrals and votes on rank apps. As well I think those numbers of people voting corresponds to the current activity of the community.

 

 

 

Rather than repeating myself again. I'll just say this:

 

If you want to vote no on someone you can do that through rank applications. You'd think with giving someone the added ability for admin powers on our servers along with currently representing sG, we'd see you guys in the Rank Applications voting No on more members to get L2+. Yet right now we aren't seeing much of that, which would lead me to assume that our L1/L2 member base is doing well and fitting in.

 

I don't believe this current system has brought in the bad apples that will spoil the community that many of you seem to fear. There is still the option to prevent them from gaining more access to the community and you still have your say. Until we see any evidence that this system isn't working well for our community, I don't think it needs changing at this time.

 

Edited by Travesty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2019 at 8:42 PM, Revöker said:

For instance when I had someone steam message me about voting either yes/no on Nau's app back in 2016 and I said no im not going to listen to you, they got all pissy and neg rep'd me on my abstain post in Nau's app.  So of course I'm not going to listen to their opinion anymore.  Sad to see the rep from Nau's app are all gone so i can be sure but I think it was either @Swed or @vexer but I'm not really sure of either.

 

 

I wasn't particularly involved in either of naufrage's applications prior to his most recent successful once, so I hope you'd be more wary in making accusations without proof. Anyways, here's a comment from naufrage's second application: 

 

Edited by Swed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×