Recruitment

[Imperium 295]

3 hours ago, MistaChang said:

Do you think sG is just going to start trolling recruitment just because we would have the ability to vote no? 

If history proves anything, then in some cases, yes

[Rayne 4478]

30 votes get you in.

 

Stick to the points to rank structure we used to have, or juggle it about if needs be. It does make getting enough votes slightly easier if somebody does have a reason to vote against them.  

 

All negative votes should be given a legitimate reason that would need validation, that would mean holding the vote from the main count until it's cleared. Not something that would happen too often so it's barely any extra responsibility for RO's. 

 

Perhaps no vote changing 10 days after your initial vote or in the final week of the process.

 

Recruit a new @DogsGoMeow to police the forums like he used to, if needs be, somebody not afraid to hand out a ban should anyone thinks its funny to ruin other people's apps. 

 

Voting should still be a privilege, not something abused and let's face it... You guys could do with stretching your legs, barely any policing left to do these days.

[Mark from Facebook 1285]

I agree with Rayne on this.

 

As much as I like Travesty, and understand he holds all power in regarding to R&R, I've stated in my post prior: RO's nowdays are lazy to monitor the ranks and recruitment, and I've seen already some of them do a half ass job.*

 

 

As much as I love you Trav, the fact that we have a 5 page discussion going, with multiple people pointing out how it can be better, or what can be done to change, and yet you still hold unwielding, is a bit upsetting.

Just because YOU decided that no one has brought up a point worthy of your interest, therefore the community does not want nor need recruitment to be looked at again.

The people have spoken regarding what they want , you just refuse to hear it.

Cmon man. 

 

 

Edit: *This was prior to the recent Staff changes. I am not attempting to imply that the newly acquired RO's are already fucking up.

[trav 6834]

I'm not refusing to hear any of it. I just don't think it's the best decision to make for the future of sG at this time.

 

You guys basically only want this out of personal preference.

 

The system we have now has a lot more pros than cons as compared to the vote system for recruits.

[Rayne 4478]

16 minutes ago, Travesty said:

I'm not refusing to hear any of it. I just don't think it's the best decision to make for the future of sG at this time.

 

You guys basically only want this out of personal preference.

 

The system we have now has a lot more pros than cons as compared to the vote system for recruits.

 

44-19

 

The only person concerned with personal preference is you. 

 

44 people Trav. 

[trav 6834]

I'm trying to look at the big picture here rather than my own personal preference on whether or not I want to vote on a recruit.

[Mark from Facebook 1285]

20 hours ago, Travesty said:

I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why we should.

 

Edit:

 

Sorry I have heard one:

 

'Some people were more active in the recruitment process when they could vote on recruits.'

 

 

20 hours ago, Travesty said:

 

 

25/??

 

Yes: (+43)

No: (-18)

 

 

You may say you're not, but the other things you've said also lead me to believe that its US vs You. Not US & You VS the problem.

 

[trav 6834]

Just now, Mark from Facebook said:

You may say you're not, but the other things you've said also lead me to believe that its US vs You. Not US & You VS the problem.

 

What exactly is the problem though?

[Mark from Facebook 1285]

Just now, Travesty said:

 

What exactly is the problem though?

The fact that people in the community are unhappy and would want to see some sort of change to recruitment. 

We are trying to find a way to find a middle ground where everyone is happy, or at least I am, but doesn't seem to be the same mindset you have. 

[trav 6834]

1 minute ago, Mark from Facebook said:

The fact that people in the community are unhappy and would want to see some sort of change to recruitment. 

We are trying to find a way to find a middle ground where everyone is happy, or at least I am, but doesn't seem to be the same mindset you have. 

 

A. You're never going to find that middle ground.

B. The fact that some people prefer to vote on a recruit is not a reason to change it.

[Rayne 4478]

12 minutes ago, Travesty said:

 

A. You're never going to find that middle ground.

B. The fact that some people prefer to vote on a recruit is not a reason to change it.

The fact that 70% of active people have asked that we change a system, that can easily be changed, should be enough reason to change it.

 

The middle ground has been found, the only side not willing to budge... Is you. 

 

 

[trav 6834]

There aren't enough pros to change. There really aren't. You guys are refusing to see it.

 

There is no moderating votes on what vote is worthy or not. Giving a detailed explanation does not solve that issue. If you want voting then you have to accept the circle jerk that comes with it. A member was allowed to vote however they so choose. It is a lot more difficult than you guys have made it out to be to 'get the ROs to do some actual work and moderate the voting'. If you want the voting system, then you have to accept the people that are allowed to vote.

 

From what I've seen the majority of the people want voting back so that they can have the potential to change their vote if they need to. They also felt they had more of a say when they could vote. But what I think you guys are forgetting that members can change after the voting period has ended too. Once they become a member of sG, people can revert to their regular selves rather than being the chipper Recruit they might have been.

 

It has the exact same flaw as the referral system.

 

EXCEPT the referral system has a lot more pros to it than the voting system when it comes to new recruits joining the community.

 

We're just repeating ourselves at this point.

 

Also Recruits are still getting denied due to not getting 20 referrals.

http://www.joinsg.net/forums/topic/77634-waylons-application-denied/

 

http://www.joinsg.net/forums/topic/77510-kateeshs-application-pendingdenied/?page=2

http://www.joinsg.net/forums/topic/77013-dr-vojislav-seseljs-application-denied/

http://www.joinsg.net/forums/topic/77029-harmys-application-denied/?page=2

http://www.joinsg.net/forums/topic/77009-sg-application-for-clusterfuck-denied/

http://www.joinsg.net/forums/topic/76816-your-czar-salads-application-denied/

 

[Rayne 4478]

Why do you think this has anything to do with denying members? 

 

We're not arguing about this because I think we need to deny more people... We're arguing about this because THE MAJORITY of people miss the old voting system that clearly made THE MAJORITY of people feel like they could actually participate in something within the community. 

 

You're interpreting this all completely wrong and all you seem to think is that we want to keep people out. 

 

Other than "nobody can retract their vote or circle jerk apps" the referral system has zero benefit compared to the old system. 

 

 

 

 

[trav 6834]

1 minute ago, Rayne said:

Why do you think this has anything to do with denying members? 

 

Ask yourself that question again... This is whole thing is about whether or not you're allowed to Vote NO on a recruit.

 

You miss the old system because it gave you the ability to DENY recruits.

 

C'mon now at least be honest about it.

[Rayne 4478]

Do some research, you'll find I've voted yes on alot more people than I've voted no on.

 

This is about having the option to choose, not about keeping people out. Open your eyes, all I've done is suggest ways to keep that from happening. 

 

Your last post is dumb.

[trav 6834]

4 minutes ago, Rayne said:

Do some research, you'll find I've voted yes on alot more people than I've voted no on.

 

This about having the option to choose, not about keeping people out. Open your eyes, all I've done is suggest ways to keep that from happening. 

 

Your last post is dumb.

 

You still have the option to choose. You can choose to refer or not refer.

 

Voting only allows you the added* option to vote no aka denying a recruit...

[Rayne 4478]

8 minutes ago, Travesty said:

 

You still have the option to choose. You can choose to refer or not refer.

 

Voting only allows you the added* option to vote no aka denying a recruit...

Why are you still talking as if the community agrees with the current system? 

 

You said yourself, were repeating ourselves now. 

 

The community has voted, massively against you, why are we still arguing the toss instead of reaching this compromise we almost got to yesterday? 

[trav 6834]

If voting is brought back, then ranks requirements will change.

 

15/15 for every rank and recruits are out of 20/20

 

No one gets a special vote if you're staff/so/vet etc. Every vote is 1.

 

There is no policing of what is determined a good vote or not. Voting is voting. Members get to choose to vote how they please.

 

It's either voting or there's not voting. Either you're allowed to vote only once, or you can change your vote at any point.

[Rayne 4478]

47 minutes ago, Travesty said:

If voting is brought back, then ranks requirements will change.

 

15/15 for every rank and recruits are out of 20/20

 

No one gets a special vote if you're staff/so/vet etc. Every vote is 1.

 

There is no policing of what is determined a good vote or not. Voting is voting. Members get to choose to vote how they please.

 

It's either voting or there's not voting. Either you're allowed to vote only once, or you can change your vote at any point.

 

Let's do that then... That's a compromise im atleast happy with, i do think you should be able to change their vote though. People can change their minds for good or bad.

 

Put this up for official discussion and take an official vote? 

[trav 6834]

Needs to pass the powers at be which is the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

 

@Moose @bulletford @Mimic

 

 

Good luck!

[jack_ 112]

I suppose I'll add the fact that I 100% agree with how @Travesty 's current system works. @Rayne, you say you don't want to deny recruits, but that can literally only occur through one of two ways: 1. 'no' votes, or 2. Not reaching the standard. I believe having someone not reach a standard leaves the person more willing to re-apply rather than seeing a bunch of no votes that makes them not enjoy the community.

[Rayne 4478]

13 minutes ago, daniel_ said:

I suppose I'll add the fact that I 100% agree with how @Travesty 's current system works. @Rayne, you say you don't want to deny recruits, but that can literally only occur through one of two ways: 1. 'no' votes, or 2. Not reaching the standard. I believe having someone not reach a standard leaves the person more willing to re-apply rather than seeing a bunch of no votes that makes them not enjoy the community.

If somebody has a genuine disdain for a recruit then they're opinion is just as valid as everybody else's and should be contributed to the overall decision.

 

This community is all of ours and we've all always contributed to the recruitment process. Until now.

 

If you can't see past "they just want to deny people" there is no more I can really add.

 

 

 

[Dakota 4722]

Give me RO. I'll be the fucking clamps of R&R forums. I'll be even more of a nazi than @Sean was 

[Imperium 295]

All this discussion and there isn’t even anyone applying 

[zebra 178]

 

On 3/12/2019 at 12:27 PM, Rayne said:

The fact that 70% of active people have asked that we change a system, that can easily be changed, should be enough reason to change it.

On 3/12/2019 at 1:22 PM, Rayne said:

Why are you still talking as if the community agrees with the current system? 

The community has voted, massively against you, why are we still arguing the toss instead of reaching this compromise we almost got to yesterday? 

That still leaves 30% which isn't a negligible number on who likes the current system. It's not everyone vs Trav like you're painting it to be

 

On 3/12/2019 at 12:01 PM, Rayne said:

 

44-19

 

The only person concerned with personal preference is you. 

 

44 people Trav. 

It's also contradictory to put 19 people there and say that he's the only one keeping this as personal preference

 

On 3/12/2019 at 1:09 PM, Rayne said:

This is about having the option to choose, not about keeping people out. Open your eyes, all I've done is suggest ways to keep that from happening. 

But you know what else keeps that from happening? The current ref system. Seems counter-intuitive to reintroduce a system that has inherent flaws in it and was originally phased out because of it

 

On 3/12/2019 at 1:00 PM, Rayne said:

We're arguing about this because THE MAJORITY of people miss the old voting system that clearly made THE MAJORITY of people feel like they could actually participate in something within the community. 

The majority of people are also dumbasses and that's why we have people in charge to make sure they don't fuck it up. Also, of all the ways to participate in the community, since when was voting on recruits the central pillar that everything in sG revolves around?

 

On 3/12/2019 at 1:00 PM, Rayne said:

You're interpreting this all completely wrong and all you seem to think is that we want to keep people out.

That's literally what this is. A barrier to entry means to keep people out.

 

On 3/12/2019 at 1:00 PM, Rayne said:

Other than "nobody can retract their vote or circle jerk apps" the referral system has zero benefit compared to the old system.

You're gonna toss out two benefits and then say don't count? I don't think that's how an argument works. 

Example: Other than being physically healthy and fit, there's no reason to exercise.

 

On 3/12/2019 at 12:27 PM, Rayne said:

The middle ground has been found, the only side not willing to budge... Is you. 

It's really more like you're demanding something to happen. If the other party doesn't like it, it's clearly not middle ground

 

On 3/12/2019 at 3:16 PM, Rayne said:

If somebody has a genuine disdain for a recruit then they're opinion is just as valid as everybody else's and should be contributed to the overall decision.

This community is all of ours and we've all always contributed to the recruitment process. Until now.

I mean..you can still contribute to the recruitment process. The ability to vote no is mutually exclusive from writing feedback on their recruit app.