Changes to R&R - March 1st, 2019

[Muddykips 21]

I feel like 30 refs is way to much for recruitment tbh

[Bluestreakid15 540]

Bluestreak likey! I'm glad I dont have to spam to get 2500 posts now!

[spiderpigrider 312]

30 minutes ago, Muddykips said:

I feel like 30 refs is way to much for recruitment tbh

You should've seen before.

[whiz 2]

3 hours ago, Travesty said:

it will become increasingly difficult to get your post count up without simply spamming our forums with nonsense posts... And let's be frank, no one wants to read that.

 

 

content creator whiz here

[Imperium 295]

Amount of refs required seem very high to me, but we'll see

 

nice to see some change

[Eek 724]

3 hours ago, Travesty said:

 

 

Is it still possible to find out how many hours you had on wcs1?

 

Nvm found it

[Ironic 2277]

1 hour ago, Muddykips said:

I feel like 30 refs is way to much for recruitment tbh

Don't worry. Some of us were able to make 50 refs, and people were allowed to vote no. 

[Dark Fry 67]

Very nice changes, they only question I have (not sure if I missed it while reading thread) but will the current rank apps in their community vote process be affected by this change? @Travesty

[Nau 739]

10 minutes ago, Dark Fry said:

Very nice changes, they only question I have (not sure if I missed it while reading thread) but will the current rank apps in their community vote process be affected by this change? @Travesty

No these changes won't be active until the next recruitment / rank period which starts March 1st.

[Imperium 295]

55 minutes ago, Ironic said:

Don't worry. Some of us were able to make 50 refs, and people were allowed to vote no. 

back when people played on csgo servers

[Aristocrat 47]

2 hours ago, Muddykips said:

I feel like 30 refs is way to much for recruitment tbh

don't worry @Muddykips, it's just time for you to EVOLVE

 

[Dark Fry 67]

34 minutes ago, Nau said:

No these changes won't be active until the next recruitment / rank period which starts March 1st.

Oh alright for sure, thanks broski

[TurtleFrenzy 2612]

pog

[Dakota 4722]

9 hours ago, Travesty said:

 

 

That's still not 15 vets..

[trav 6834]

7 hours ago, Beerman said:

That's still not 15 vets..

It is if you include the staff members that are veteran or should be veteran.

 

Not even including the legends.

[xmen 983]

Rip spamming in order to make it to a certain rank

[Dakota 4722]

1 hour ago, Travesty said:

It is if you include the staff members that are veteran or should be veteran.

 

Not even including the legends.

Oh so are you in favor of following the guideline? 

 

"15/15 Community Vote from Veteran and above."

 

Certainly legend is a legit rank, but are you implying Staff position is a rank as well now? Krony vexer sponsored shouldn't have had a say for sure. 

[Booch 257]

In order to be accepted as a Member Level 1:

You must receive at least 30 referrals from Level 2 members, Server Officers, and above. Three referrals must be from Staff.

 

And ranks are votes

 

I'm confused on why recruits can't be voted no on, if we are saying it's because they don't have experience people with players, I'm pretty sure half of the referrals are people that play the servers if I'm not mistaken, and even then most people who are recruits join the discord. I mean I get trying to do change to get the clan more active but us not having say in any way?  

 

 

Just a suggestion since this came up in the discussion like low level staff members. Make it only able to vote if they have the post count or hour count needed for the rank.  

[trav 6834]

If 30 people in the community feel the recruit is worthy enough of being a part of the community, shouldn't that be enough of a reason for someone to join it?

 

If you look at rank applications, there are very few times when people vote no on a member to say they shouldn't get their rank. And even when people vote no, it's for no reason other than to fuck that person (and their friends) over. See: Rex's application and Beerman getting his panties in a twist over rep being used.

 

 

Why should some nay-sayers gatekeep this community? People much more frequently voted no on recruits just to put their e-peen on the table as a way to bring pleasure to their lives.

 

With the size of our community, there will always be some people that don't like others in the community. There will always be cliques within the community.

 

So again I'll ask, if someone wants to join this community and a sufficient amount of people think they're worthy enough, why shouldn't they?

[Dakota 4722]

2 minutes ago, Travesty said:

If 30 people in the community feel the recruit is worthy enough of being a part of the community, shouldn't that be enough of a reason for someone to join it?

 

If you look at rank applications, there are very few times when people vote no on a member to say they shouldn't get their rank. And even when people vote no, it's for no reason other than to fuck that person (and their friends) over. See: Rex's application and Beerman getting his panties in a twist over rep being used.

 

 

Why should some nay-sayers gatekeep this community? People much more frequently voted no on recruits just to put their e-peen on the table as a way to bring pleasure to their lives.

 

With the size of our community, there will always be some people that don't like others in the community. There will always be cliques within the community.

 

So again I'll ask, if someone wants to join this community and a sufficient amount of people think they're worthy enough, why shouldn't they?

Booch asks one question and you respond with this? oof. 

[trav 6834]

1 minute ago, Beerman said:

BORING.

 

Cool.

[Dakota 4722]

Just now, Travesty said:

 

Cool.

Staff already said they don't care what community members think. So why bother posting that. 

[Rayne 4478]

5 minutes ago, Travesty said:

If 30 people in the community feel the recruit is worthy enough of being a part of the community, shouldn't that be enough of a reason for someone to join it?

 

If you look at rank applications, there are very few times when people vote no on a member to say they shouldn't get their rank. And even when people vote no, it's for no reason other than to fuck that person (and their friends) over. See: Rex's application and Beerman getting his panties in a twist over rep being used.

 

 

Why should some nay-sayers gatekeep this community? People much more frequently voted no on recruits just to put their e-peen on the table as a way to bring pleasure to their lives.

 

With the size of our community, there will always be some people that don't like others in the community. There will always be cliques within the community.

 

So again I'll ask, if someone wants to join this community and a sufficient amount of people think they're worthy enough, why shouldn't they?

And if a significant amount of people don't want somebody here, their opinion is ignored...

 

You're telling us to accept what you're saying without accepting what we're saying.

 

I rarely voted no on people before the process changed, a lot of people rarely voted no... But the option was there if it was needed in certain circumstances. 

 

It isn't hard to police a circle jerked app ... Every staff member can recognise a circle jerk, even Vexer (well... Probably not) so there is literally ZERO risk of allowing members of the community to vote no on applicants if they have a valid reason to do so.

 

Like you said, if the majority want them in, they'll get in. 

[trav 6834]

1 minute ago, Rayne said:

And if a significant amount of people don't want somebody here, their opinion is ignored...

 

You're telling us to accept what you're saying without accepting what we're saying.

 

I rarely voted no on people before the process changed, a lot of people rarely voted no... But the option was there if it was needed in certain circumstances. 

 

It isn't hard to police a circle jerked app ... Every staff member can recognise a circle jerk, even Vexer (well... Probably not) so there are literally ZERO risk of allowing members of the community to vote no on applicants if they have a valid reason to do so.

 

Like you said, if the majority want them in, they'll get in. 

 

We feel 30 people in the community is an appropriate number of members.

 

As we've seen in the past, people change their votes last minute to screw over recruits and not to mention all the unnecessary drama that comes with voting on recruits. It's been this way for a while now and we haven't seen any issues with it.

 

Can you name some L1 or L2 that have gotten in through the referral recruitment system that don't deserve membership?

[Dakota 4722]

5 minutes ago, Beerman said:

Staff already said they don't care what community members think. So why bother talking about this