Recruitment

[Mark from Facebook 1285]

1 hour ago, SpartanSakaro said:

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. 

The easiest way to fix this issue is to allow someone to retract their referral.

 

So it is not a no-vote, but it does allow you to redact your mistake if you think that the person you thought about referring is not truly a representation of who you believed in.

I can't recall who it was, but I've had people whom I've referred and at the end of the month I regret reffing them, because they turn out to be massive assholes.

 

So given everyone's feedback, would we be glad to have a way to retract out referrals of a person if throughout their monthly wait period, they end up being completely dumb? I feel like that would be a good middle fix.

[trav 6834]

Retracting referrals isn't the best solution imo. As you mentioned, people don't tend to vote at the end of the month, so if people start retracting their refs just cause then that recruit could get screwed over from a bandwagon.

Having a grace period to remove your ref until maybe mid-month, say a cutoff on the 14th of each month might work but does that really solve the problem if someone changes after that period?

We were debating about a Super Referral option: where each Recruit needs at least 1 Super Ref before they apply. If you Super Ref a recruit, and they get banned during their L1 tenure (or something similar), then the person who Super Referred them would get banned for a week. It would put a whole new meaning on who you want to refer. Or doing a 3 strike you're out policy, if a L1 gets banned during their 6 months, we track who referred them. If you referred 3 recruits that have since been banned, then you also will get a temp ban for carelessly referring people.

 

However, I think the easiest fix is just being sure about your referrals. Don't just ref to ref. A referral is you putting your name down and saying I approve this recruit. If you feel you might regret it or you're on the edge of referring, don't ref that recruit. I think 30 referrals will be a hard number to get for a recruit that no one knows.

[Dark Fry 67]

7 hours ago, SpartanSakaro said:

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. 

I agree that you should be able to retract a vote if you choose, but my concern was people influencing a vote on a potentially good member who maybe just had one falling out with someone. Not completely saying you shouldn’t be able to vote no, but that we should just be aware when specific people are influencing whether or not someone gets accepted. Overall I think needing 30 refs is a good and fair requirement, but adding the ability to down vote that might make the process of getting accepted a bit tougher. While it’s important to keep toxic out of the community, a strict recruitment process may ward off potentially good members. That’s basically the point I wana make

[Dakota 4722]

Again. My ref can be the most stand up guy since we've met...then on the 26th of the month he proceeds to call Jeff the n word....I have no recourse. I can be 100% sure about a ref and they still reveal to be a fucking retard. 

[trav 6834]

I'd find that surprising and don't think it happens often. Some of you dudes talk to a guy in discord for a day and then just refer them, that ain't getting to know them all that well.

 

There were multiple times where recruits don't meet the required refs through this system, they apply again and still don't meet the refs. Then they finally apply a third time or a fourth and after people actually got to know them, the recruit eventually got their referrals.

 

I think the system is working fine as it is and until you guys give me some names of who doesn't deserve membership through this system, I honestly don't think it needs changing.

 

If you go back and look at the voting, you would need around 30 people voting yes to get 50/50. In most cases where people were denied,  recruits wouldn't get 30 people voting yes for them. I did a quick scan but if you can find me Denied apps where there's 30 people voting yes and they don't get in, I'd like to see it. I believe it was rare to happen and maybe the only instance was the Naufrage app back in the day.

 

30 refs is a tough, yet fair number for people to welcome someone into the community.

 

Especially with our activity as compared to the past.

[zebra 178]

I don't follow the logic behind a decline in community activity and removing the voting system. You would think that letting more people in would lead to increased activity as opposed to the opposite. Also pretty sure the decline is from a general decrease in the popularity of our servers. Look at how servers have to be popped now. Someone does a shoutout via discord and then when we finally get new people in, we brigade them with newfag comments and they leave.

 

I'm an anecdotal example of the anti-vote system. I waited an entire year before applying again after getting denied the first time around because I thought it was bullshit that randoms who I never met could vote no because they just felt like it. The argument being that they haven't seen me on jb or ze, but they themselves never played war3. 

 

BUT, this was during the voting bot era and I think we all agree, fuck that.

[tazmanianxdude 360]

16 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.

A couple actually most of the are jb kids that are super toxic but somehow made it in because we couldn’t vote no off the top of my head i could name out @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. 

 

Bottom point is it won’t hurt to bring back NO like everyone else is saying we have plenty of staff to view circlejerks they can deal with that. 

[Mark from Facebook 1285]

57 minutes ago, tazmanianxdude said:

A couple actually most of the are jb kids that are super toxic but somehow made it in because we couldn’t vote no off the top of my head i could name out @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. 

 

Bottom point is it won’t hurt to bring back NO like everyone else is saying we have plenty of staff to view circlejerks they can deal with that. 

You mean like him suiciding on TTGO about two weeks ago,  when bullet added the prop posession because he disagreed with it and just wanted to minge and RDM people as a prop? Huh who would've seen that comming? 

 

I don't see why he can't have the ability  to revoke our referral. And giving us a "halfway point" to revoke our referrals is stupid, because with rules in place, they can wait a until final week to start being toxic and there's not much we'd be able to do. Super referrals is a worse idea than the bot system. 

"If you vouch for him, and he fucks up, then its on you." - BEst way to ensure that I personally will never vouch for anyone because I can't control nor condone their activities online. 

 

@Travesty I would love to hear how/why the retracting referral is a bad idea and why you are so opposed to it.

I was circle jerked by the goonsquad to get a bunch of yes votes on my initial app because Howard liked me. 

 

People can still circle-jerk refs on people ,they just cant retract it. So the paranoia with cicle-jerking is starting to get really old, specially because back in the day RO's had the balls to infract people for vote-abusing/circlejerking. 

 

Implement ref-retraction and have your guys go back moderating the forums (WHICH IS AN RO'S DUTY), instead of just accepting people for recruits and forgetting to change their ranks. Its not hard. 

RO's don't have to do much to start with, overlooking applications isn't that hard of a job. 

[Rayne 4478]

If we're on the lines of retracting referrals then why not just go back to voting.

 

All votes have to be legitimate, means no circle jerking a recruit out of their app. We're all agreeing that we have enough staff to moderate this so why is it

something you're all still scared of? 

 

The goon squad is gone, let it go. People talk to who they like, it's not fucking circle jerking. 

 

[trav 6834]

Wolfshade making a wrong decision as Staff doesn't have anything to do with him as a member of sG or voting on him. I'm confident he too would have passed the voting system during his month of recruitment.

 

 

 

@Mark from Facebook If a member got in during the voting system and fucked up, it'd still be on you because you voted Yes for him during his time of recruitment. It doesn't change.

 

I personally don't want any retracting of referrals and here's why:

 

Say Recruit X is at 31/30. On the last day of the month, Recruit X downreps Beerman on the forums or gets into an argument in discord. Beerman starts the brigading and tells everyone to remove their ref for Recruit X. People then hop on for the fun of it and he now doesn't have the required refs. He was going to be a member and now he's no longer eligible not. Recruit X is pissed and decides to fuck off from this community and chooses not to come back.

 

That's what we want to reduce as much as possible.

 

We have to look at our current situation. Our activity in the community has fallen and we need to find ways to keep it chugging along. Rather than have a toxic voting system for potential new members (during a time with fewer active members), I'd rather have a way for potential new members to join the community with a sufficient amount of people liking them.

 

I could understand if literally anyone who applied were getting membership but at this point recruits are still getting denied because they haven't gotten the sufficient amount of referrals. And now we just raised the bar to make it harder.

 

 

 

Other than simply wanting to vote No on people, what are ways this system right now isn't working? 

[Rayne 4478]

54 minutes ago, Travesty said:

Wolfshade making a wrong decision as Staff doesn't have anything to do with him as a member of sG or voting on him. I'm confident he too would have passed the voting system during his month of recruitment.

 

 

 

@Mark from Facebook If a member got in during the voting system and fucked up, it'd still be on you because you voted Yes for him during his time of recruitment. It doesn't change.

 

I personally don't want any retracting of referrals and here's why:

 

Say Recruit X is at 31/30. On the last day of the month, Recruit X downreps Beerman on the forums or gets into an argument in discord. Beerman starts the brigading and tells everyone to remove their ref for Recruit X. People then hop on for the fun of it and he now doesn't have the required refs. He was going to be a member and now he's no longer eligible not. Recruit X is pissed and decides to fuck off from this community and chooses not to come back.

 

That's what we want to reduce as much as possible.

 

We have to look at our current situation. Our activity in the community has fallen and we need to find ways to keep it chugging along. Rather than have a toxic voting system for potential new members (during a time with fewer active members), I'd rather have a way for potential new members to join the community with a sufficient amount of people liking them.

 

I could understand if literally anyone who applied were getting membership but at this point recruits are still getting denied because they haven't gotten the sufficient amount of referrals. And now we just raised the bar to make it harder.

 

 

 

Other than simply wanting to vote No on people, what are ways this system right now isn't working? 

Look at the current poll results.

 

Open your fucking eyes and talk about what everybody else wants, not what you and a few others want.

 

By your own admission, 30 people want this... So that means we get it right? /S

 

We've already given plenty of counters to the ONLY negative point to letting us vote again. Yet you continue to repeat the same thing (not just Trav).

 

 

 

 

[MistaChang 2023]

2 hours ago, zebra said:

I don't follow the logic behind a decline in community activity and removing the voting system. You would think that letting more people in would lead to increased activity as opposed to the opposite. Also pretty sure the decline is from a general decrease in the popularity of our servers. Look at how servers have to be popped now. Someone does a shoutout via discord and then when we finally get new people in, we brigade them with newfag comments and they leave.

 

I'm an anecdotal example of the anti-vote system. I waited an entire year before applying again after getting denied the first time around because I thought it was bullshit that randoms who I never met could vote no because they just felt like it. The argument being that they haven't seen me on jb or ze, but they themselves never played war3. 

 

BUT, this was during the voting bot era and I think we all agree, fuck that.

Yeah that bot was a bot, I would vote just to get the "*" out of the channel text, dumb; but I did it.

 

I've never liked the fact about locked in recruiting. We keep talking about our servers being dead asf, is there any way we can advertise? Reddit or other gaming websites for custom game mods? I know this thread is about recruitment but this is something that's been brought up lots and has a direct effect on our community. 

[trav 6834]

That's why I asked the question... Just because members want to vote no on recruits doesn't mean it's the best decision to do so.

 

Other than simply wanting to vote No on people, what are ways this system right now isn't working? 

[MistaChang 2023]

5 minutes ago, Travesty said:

That's why I asked the question... Just because members want to vote no on recruits doesn't mean it's the best decision to do so.

 

Other than simply wanting to vote No on people, what are ways this system right now isn't working? 

Going back to beermans thing, vote retraction at the minimum is something we need. Anyone can fake best behaviour for 15 days. I've avoided reffing people because I thought they were toxic and couldn't remove a ref if I wanted to in the future. Also it was hard enough getting 20 refs for ZE players back with the old system. It will be interesting to see if the community starts coming out to ref more. I think if we made ranks more exciting people would come out more.

[Nau 739]

Just now, Travesty said:

That's why I asked the question... Just because members want to vote no on recruits doesn't mean it's the best decision to do so.

 

Other than simply wanting to vote No on people, what are ways this system right now isn't working? 

The fact that people still can't get in with the current system shows that it is working and sufficient, and if people continue to be shitheads there are ways to remove them after the fact. After reading through this thread I think @Travesty is accurate in his statements. 

At this point you have to make a legitimate effort to get to know people to get in. As a recruit it would be hard to fall through the cracks and not do that with the state of the servers and discord being everyones congregation point. 

[MistaChang 2023]

1 minute ago, Nau said:

The fact that people still can't get in with the current system shows that it is working and sufficient, and if people continue to be shitheads there are ways to remove them after the fact. After reading through this thread I think @Travesty is accurate in his statements. 

At this point you have to make a legitimate effort to get to know people to get in. As a recruit it would be hard to fall through the cracks and not do that with the state of the servers and discord being everyones congregation point. 

To get 30 refs from 30 of us you'd have to be pretty popular IMO.

[Nau 739]

Just now, MistaChang said:

To get 30 refs from 30 of us you'd have to be pretty popular IMO.

Yes, I understand that. You should be making legitimate efforts as a new member of the community to get to know people and play with them. Whether that takes a month of being around or a few months its very doable and considering the server hour requirements obtainable.

[MistaChang 2023]

2 minutes ago, Nau said:

Yes, I understand that. You should be making legitimate efforts as a new member of the community to get to know people and play with them. Whether that takes a month of being around or a few months its very doable and considering the server hour requirements obtainable.

It's def not impossible, you got like 50. This new model appears to be a long term growth model where it seems like we're trying to appeal to more players now.

[The Ben 187]

14 minutes ago, MistaChang said:

To get 30 refs from 30 of us you'd have to be pretty popular IMO.

For new recruits, that can’t be that hard. They just can’t be toxic and maybe they’ll get the 30 refs

[trav 6834]

Just now, The Ben said:

For new recruits, that can’t be that hard. They just can’t be toxic and maybe they’ll get the 30 refs

 

You could say the same thing about voting.

[The Ben 187]

1 minute ago, Travesty said:

 

You could say the same thing about voting.

Exactly, just don’t be toxic, get the post, get the hours, just get the requirements that you need and your good to go.

[Rayne 4478]

10 minutes ago, The Ben said:

Exactly, just don’t be toxic, get the post, get the hours, just get the requirements that you need and your good to go.

The same goes for voting, don't be toxic, don't be a cunt and you won't get infracted with your vote retracted. Easy. 

[trav 6834]

Just now, Rayne said:

The same goes for voting, don't be toxic, don't be a cunt and you won't get infracted with your vote retracted. Easy. 

 

Except people can change their vote at any time without being toxic or being a cunt.

I mean they're being a cunt for doing it last minute, but how do you gauge what's appropriate?

[Nau 739]

1 minute ago, Travesty said:

 

Except people can change their vote at any time without being toxic or being a cunt.

I mean they're being a cunt for doing it last minute, but how do you gauge what's appropriate?

You really can't unless you require every vote to be justified with a legitmate reasoning past "theyre nice" or "kinda toxic". Its more work then its worth.

[Rayne 4478]

10 minutes ago, Travesty said:

 

Except people can change their vote at any time without being toxic or being a cunt.

I mean they're being a cunt for doing it last minute, but how do you gauge what's appropriate?

Then apply what somebody already suggested, add a cut off period on changing your vote. 

 

How can you simply change your vote from yes to no without a legitimate reason like I've already said several times.

 

I'm not referring to a simple "they're toxic", I'm talking about having a real reason to have to have to vote no.

 

Providing the system works, I wouldn't even expect there to be many "no votes" in almost every circumstance. 

 

It's the fact that when that special circumstance does arise *cough, Nau* we don't have the option to put a legitimate -1 in the pot, and that is what we want. 

 

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.