Recruitment

[Rayne 4478]

The purpose of this poll is not to start drama, or bitch and complain. It is simply to find out what the community would like to do in this particular activity.

 

I'd like to start by pointing out that I do not have all the answers, I don't have all the ideas to make the recruitment process perfect and I certainly don't assume I know what everybody wants and what is best for all of us.

 

I'd also like to make it clear that I completely understand why some don't like the old voting system... circle jerks got out of hand on a couple of applications and some people wanting to join the community may have been put off.

 

That being said, almost every single one of you in sG reading this went through that very process, you're here wearing the tags and hopefully you still love this place as much as I do.

 

Removing the ability for members to vote on recruits has abolished this forum, you can tell me it's because of discord, you can tell me it's because the games we all play are changing... tell me whatever the hell you want. But things started to go down hill with community activity when this system was removed.

 

You took away the one and only thing that normal members of the community can actually do for the community (donations, admining aside... don't be pedantic) it was something people wanted to be a part of and it's something people felt closer to the community for doing.

 

I don't want this place to turn into a circle jerk, I don't want to scare off new members, I want the opposite of that.

I also want to be able to vote no on somebody I don't deem worth to wear the tags that I so cherish, I'm sure I'm not the only one.

 

 

 

I implore you all, every single active member of this community (even people who pop in from time to time), to post your vote, your ideas, your thoughts and your arguments. We are a community of people brought together under one roof, start listening to each other.

[Ironic 2277]

I agree that I really do miss being able to vote no on recruits. However, there were definitley multiple cases where circle jerking got pretty bad. Back when @thew made his first application, he was the exact same now as he was then. A chill guy and fun to play with on the server (GMod). He was about to make it in, but then @Will.Alaska (not hating on your brother) voted no for some reason and said how Thew was "toxic", which made 10+ more people vote no just based off of Will's response, without them having any interaction whatsoever with Thew. That I felt was not right at all.

I'd like to see voting no come back. I really would, but is it worth it with the possible circle jerking that could come from it? I'm not sure. If there's some way we could bring it back without having any circle jerking occur, that would be awesome for sure.

[Rayne 4478]

2 minutes ago, Ironic said:

I agree that I really do miss being able to vote no on recruits. However, there were definitley multiple cases where circle jerking got pretty bad. Back when @thew made his first application, he was the exact same now as he was then. A chill guy and fun to play with on the server (GMod). He was about to make it in, but then @Will.Alaska (not hating on your brother) voted no for some reason and said how Thew was "toxic", which made 10+ more people vote no just based off of Will's response, without them having any interaction whatsoever with Thew. That I felt was not right at all.

I'd like to see voting no come back. I really would, but is it worth it with the possible circle jerking that could come from it? I'm not sure. If there's some way we could bring it back without having any circle jerking occur, that would be awesome for sure.

Totally agree, that sort of thing isn't and wasn't good for the community or recruits... however it is not difficult to moderate no votes, we have 6 (I think) RO's who are all capable of flushing out the shitty votes.

[MistaChang 2023]

Being able to vote on recuits was a lot of fun and added a huge boost when being accepted. Applying to Syndicate Gamers meant used to mean more. When I was accepted it felt like I was joining something. Now we don't get postcount from reffing people and I feel the ref count is a bit aggressive, however I would like to see it pan out as it was really low. In past there have been times of massive circle jerk. Look at Nau for one. He reapplied and there was that huge shit storm. He reapplied after playing on the servers for a month and people genuinely wanted him in, whereas before everyone was saying "oh **** that guy".

[Dakota 4722]

1 minute ago, MistaChang said:

Now we don't get postcount from reffing people 

....is that the reason you fucking ref people? Jesus christ. 

[MistaChang 2023]

Just now, Beerman said:

....is that the reason you fucking ref people? Jesus christ. 

No, but we've lowered the post requirements for applying for ranks, as well I've actually voted/reffed people for a while.

[Booch 257]

9 minutes ago, MistaChang said:

Being able to vote on recuits was a lot of fun and added a huge boost when being accepted. Applying to Syndicate Gamers meant used to mean more. When I was accepted it felt like I was joining something. Now we don't get postcount from reffing people and I feel the ref count is a bit aggressive, however I would like to see it pan out as it was really low. In past there have been times of massive circle jerk. Look at Nau for one. He reapplied and there was that huge shit storm. He reapplied after playing on the servers for a month and people genuinely wanted him in, whereas before everyone was saying "oh **** that guy".

Because of the past, and people's opinions of him because they "knew" him. I mean I get the whole circle jerking (btw this term to refer to people mass voting no is dumb). Don't vote on people if you don't genuinely think they deserve clan ship. Yes in a way I agree people who have been in the clan should have some say other than being able to voice their concerns and nothing else, if there was a way why don't you suggest on how to do that, instead of just being able to flat out vote no because that clearly isn't flying with Travesty. Another point has been staff being able to vote on higher ranks then the ones they have, I'm sorry but @Wolfshade @Sakarra @Sponsored @The Ben  and I get you guys know them pretty well but come on the logic behind it was kind of low, it was dumb of you guys to push for ranks that you guys aren't even close to having the tenure for, clearly the system isn't perfect, find better ways to suggest to improve things instead of just asking for flat out power and you might find a compromise speaking since you guys are RO's and should represent the community and haven't been doing the best of jobs to helps things out. 

 

[Rayne 4478]

6 minutes ago, Beerman said:

....is that the reason you fucking ref people? Jesus christ. 

Not that it's the reason, but it would be nice to get post count back for posting in a recruitment thread.

1 minute ago, Booch said:

 because that clearly isn't flying with Travesty.

 

Travesty is not sG.

 

He's a member, same as all of us and has the right to his opinion the same as everybody else does.

 

Deciding on how people join our community should be up to everybody, not just him and 'staff'.

[Dakota 4722]

No. There should not be post counts for referring. that incentivizes referring just for a post count. Reffing should be solely about the recruit. 

[The Ben 187]

30 minutes ago, Booch said:

Because of the past, and people's opinions of him because they "knew" him. I mean I get the whole circle jerking (btw this term to refer to people mass voting no is dumb). Don't vote on people if you don't genuinely think they deserve clan ship. Yes in a way I agree people who have been in the clan should have some say other than being able to voice their concerns and nothing else, if there was a way why don't you suggest on how to do that, instead of just being able to flat out vote no because that clearly isn't flying with Travesty. Another point has been staff being able to vote on higher ranks then the ones they have, I'm sorry but @Wolfshade @Sakarra @Sponsored @The Ben  and I get you guys know them pretty well but come on the logic behind it was kind of low, it was dumb of you guys to push for ranks that you guys aren't even close to having the tenure for, clearly the system isn't perfect, find better ways to suggest to improve things instead of just asking for flat out power and you might find a compromise speaking since you guys are RO's and should represent the community and haven't been doing the best of jobs to helps things out. 

 

You’re using shit that happened awhile ago I hope you know that

[whiz 2]

hmmm yess gentleman

 

this situation is quite precarious 

 

this is serious discussion we have here

 

i whiz believe that the old system was better because it filtered good and bad members of the community but not by their race this time

 

the drop down menu was the best r and r

 

*pinkies up gentleman*

[Booch 257]

11 minutes ago, The Ben said:

You’re using shit that happened awhile ago I hope you know that

Still applies even if it was a long time ago.

[MistaChang 2023]

30 minutes ago, Beerman said:

No. There should not be post counts for referring. that incentivizes referring just for a post count. Reffing should be solely about the recruit. 

Yeah I don't want my point swaying away from the original. Not having post count makes it more serious and less spammy. I just miss the voting system that was in place. It was amazing.

55 minutes ago, Rayne said:

He's a member, same as all of us

 

Preach!

[SpartanSakaro 1977]

I feel like this discussion occurs yearly, but anyways. I will say the only thing i want to add to what i have said in the past, is on the fact that staff who are l3 or l4 normally get to vote on vet applications, as i made it clear in the past when it has occurred, i don't think it should be allowed, I get that you need a minimum requirement of staff votes for it, but i don't see a reason for why that has to be the case for something like vet. You have already arrived to the highest echelon of the clan and many of the people there who will be voting on the application are the same people who have had staff positions and in some cases even been JCS, this fact makes me feel like the staff requirement for the rank is unnecessary since you have ex staff already evaluating whether someone should or should not get the position. Of course maybe the staff simply don't trust the judgement of the EX but in that case why even give people the ex staff admin and badge?

[Rayne 4478]

19 minutes ago, SpartanSakaro said:

I feel like this discussion occurs yearly, but anyways. I will say the only thing i want to add to what i have said in the past, is on the fact that staff who are l3 or l4 normally get to vote on vet applications, as i made it clear in the past when it has occurred, i don't think it should be allowed, I get that you need a minimum requirement of staff votes for it, but i don't see a reason for why that has to be the case for something like vet. You have already arrived to the highest echelon of the clan and many of the people there who will be voting on the application are the same people who have had staff positions and in some cases even been JCS, this fact makes me feel like the staff requirement for the rank is unnecessary since you have ex staff already evaluating whether someone should or should not get the position. Of course maybe the staff simply don't trust the judgement of the EX but in that case why even give people the ex staff admin and badge?

This thread isn't about R&R. 

 

 

[trav 6834]

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.

[Nau 739]

1 hour ago, 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.

inb4 me

[lemonade 1582]

3 hours ago, 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.

me, when I leave sG and regret it and try and apply back

 

[Destin 1958]

10 minutes ago, LindsayLoo said:

me, when I leave sG and regret it and try and apply back

 

I feel personally attacked 

[Imperium 295]

Voted no but after thinking I would say yes, as long as reasons are given so that it can prevent circle jerks. People should vote based off their experience with a person, not because their friends voted no

[Eddy 3887]

When I was around still and removed voting I hadn't planned on it becoming what it currently is, recruitment just feels like it doesn't have any community input and doesn't gather people around to discuss recruits like I had intended. I personally blame the bot for this TBH, everything is automated so there isn't any need for any interaction from staff or the community regarding apps. 

I don't think voting should be brought back because this community has proven time and time again that it will just turn anything and everything into a circle jerk, but I also don't think bringing back voting will help revitalize the community at all. I don't think making it harder to get into the community is going attract more people to join or encourage active or inactive members to become active again.

4 hours ago, 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.

drey

 

[FreeLancer 44]

Kinda stupid that if a non-member is disliked or strongly disliked by someone in the community there is a chance that they'll just get everyone to not accept the recruit. In other words

Circle Jerk. Sometimes it could be a decent applicant but they get sabotaged and become disinterested in the community afterward. I'm not saying to open the flood gates and let anyone and everyone in, but somehow toxicity should be reduced or an entirely new system could be put into place. Honestly I have no direct answer to this issue but I just chose to express my thoughts on the matter.

[Dark Fry 67]

2 hours ago, FreeLancer said:

Kinda stupid that if a non-member is disliked or strongly disliked by someone in the community there is a chance that they'll just get everyone to not accept the recruit. In other words

Circle Jerk. Sometimes it could be a decent applicant but they get sabotaged and become disinterested in the community afterward. I'm not saying to open the flood gates and let anyone and everyone in, but somehow toxicity should be reduced or an entirely new system could be put into place. Honestly I have no direct answer to this issue but I just chose to express my thoughts on the matter.

I agree, someone shouldn't be denied to the community because of 1 or 2 people not liking them as much as other's. From what I've noticed, high ranking individuals in the community can pose a certain kind of influence to make it harder for the applicant to be accepted. Like Trav mentioned in another post, if they get accepted into the community and end up being a poor member, you can still vote no on rank applications. Also, 30 refs now to get accepted. I noticed people saying that the community doesn't have a say anymore, but you still have the choice to not ref someone you don't like, which has a pretty significant impact in my eyes considering 30 isn't exactly a small number.

[Rayne 4478]

4 hours ago, FreeLancer said:

Kinda stupid that if a non-member is disliked or strongly disliked by someone in the community there is a chance that they'll just get everyone to not accept the recruit. In other words

Circle Jerk. Sometimes it could be a decent applicant but they get sabotaged and become disinterested in the community afterward. I'm not saying to open the flood gates and let anyone and everyone in, but somehow toxicity should be reduced or an entirely new system could be put into place. Honestly I have no direct answer to this issue but I just chose to express my thoughts on the matter.

 

 

1 hour ago, Dark Fry said:

I agree, someone shouldn't be denied to the community because of 1 or 2 people not liking them as much as other's. From what I've noticed, high ranking individuals in the community can pose a certain kind of influence to make it harder for the applicant to be accepted. Like Trav mentioned in another post, if they get accepted into the community and end up being a poor member, you can still vote no on rank applications. Also, 30 refs now to get accepted. I noticed people saying that the community doesn't have a say anymore, but you still have the choice to not ref someone you don't like, which has a pretty significant impact in my eyes considering 30 isn't exactly a small number.

Totally agree, that sort of thing isn't and wasn't good for the community or recruits... however it is not difficult to moderate no votes, we have 6 (I think) RO's who are all capable of flushing out the shitty votes.

[SpartanSakaro 1977]

5 hours ago, Dark Fry said:

I agree, someone shouldn't be denied to the community because of 1 or 2 people not liking them as much as other's. From what I've noticed, high ranking individuals in the community can pose a certain kind of influence to make it harder for the applicant to be accepted. Like Trav mentioned in another post, if they get accepted into the community and end up being a poor member, you can still vote no on rank applications. Also, 30 refs now to get accepted. I noticed people saying that the community doesn't have a say anymore, but you still have the choice to not ref someone you don't like, which has a pretty significant impact in my eyes considering 30 isn't exactly a small number

The problem is not about them ranking up and getting admin, the problem is that we now have cancer in the community and the only way to get rid of it is if they are such cancer that it breaks actual server and forum rules. Also saying that it's fine because you need 30 referrals is dumb, there are far more than 30 active members in this community. And as many have already said. Most of the time they do not vote in an app that has already passed 20. 

I also want to bring up the fact that there have been people who refer someone who later on wish they could retract the referral but are not allowed too. Sure you can say that it's solution is to simply wait to the end of the month to vote on the app. But let's be honest, very few people will wait untill the last week or day to vote on someone. Hell I am sure there have been people who wanted to wait and see and ended up forgetting to vote.