Recruitment

[Rayne 4478]

As the OP states, this thread was for everybody to comment and give their thoughts. 

 

Trav has been the only person really discussing this with me so of course I'm only directing my points at Trav, as he's the main person arguing the toss.

 

You're right, 30% of people is not a negligible amount to ignore which is why I asked for a compromise. Which we reached.

 

The old system worked more than well for almost the entire life span of this community, you said yourself that your feelings come from the automated system. We all agree that system was a load of balls but that's not what we're trying to reinstate. 

 

 

[Destin 1958]

Hey dawg, you know you can just post in the recruitment thread why someone is an idiot and then people can just not give refs right? 

[Rayne 4478]

5 minutes ago, Destin said:

Hey dawg, you know you can just post in the recruitment thread why someone is an idiot and then people can just not give refs right? 

Destin... You're going to get in, stop being a puss! 

 

Why haven't you applied yet!? 

[Dakota 4722]

1 hour ago, Destin said:

Hey dawg, you know you can just post in the recruitment thread why someone is an idiot and then people can just not give refs right? 

Yeah because history has shown that is very effective 

[trav 6834]

24 minutes ago, Dakota said:

Yeah because history has shown that is very effective 

 

Like who?

[Dakota 4722]

9 minutes ago, Travesty said:

 

Like who?

I'm trying to be less of an asshole and I dont think calling people out by name will help with that. You've been around. I'm sure you know those who we said were a dumb choice and got in anyways because they just needed 12 Yes

[trav 6834]

1 minute ago, Dakota said:

I'm trying to be less of an asshole and I dont think calling people out by name will help with that. You've been around. I'm sure you know those who we said were a dumb choice and got in anyways because they just needed 12 Yes

 

Give me one example where multiple people came out and expressed their opinion of a recruit and that recruit got in.

 

Doesn't mean they didn't deserve to be in. Just give me one where 'history has shown it wasn't very effective'.

 

The referral system works. You guys just want to gatekeep lol.

[Dakota 4722]

Nau is the most recent example. Most of the time there is no point posting about a recruit because they are going to get in regardless so what's the point. Revoker said it best.

 

 

[trav 6834]

2 minutes ago, Dakota said:

Nau is the most recent example. Most of the time there is no point posting about a recruit because they are going to get in regardless so what's the point. Revoker said it best.

 

He's also the prime example of why the referral system works well. Can't imagine how toxic that application would have been in the voting system... oh wait I can. I just have to look at his other application.

 

Now he's a productive staff member eager to help out where he can along with organizing multiple events in the future.

 

Good thing he got in.

Four Times Where People Posted Concerns and the Recruit Didn't Receive Enough Referrals:

 

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

 

http://www.joinsg.net/forums/topic/77510-kateeshs-application-pendingdenied/

 

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

 

http://www.joinsg.net/forums/topic/77029-harmys-application-denied/

 

[Eddy 3887]

On 2/21/2019 at 5:16 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.

Destin when he applies and gets in

[Moose 4890]

On 3/11/2019 at 12:29 PM, Rayne said:

I'm genuinely shocked this hasn't sparked some sort of "re-imagining" of our process, 70% of the active community have asked for a change and yet it's swept under the carpet. And we wonder why long standing members lose interest and turn a blind eye to this place.

 

One person's opinion standing above all elses... 

 

Guess we better change our tags to SS instead of sG. 

Please stop saying 70% of the community wants this. 70% of those who have voted say they want it. That’s nowhere close to 70% of our active members. 

[Rayne 4478]

56 minutes ago, Moose said:

Please stop saying 70% of the community wants this. 70% of those who have voted say they want it. That’s nowhere close to 70% of our active members. 

Did you really abuse your staff powers for this xD

 

Wow, low! 

[chaos4499 198]

On 3/12/2019 at 1:28 PM, 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.

Personally I was not a fan of the changes to be begin with. 25+ votes is pretty steep.

 

I think people also need to give a reason as to why they would vote no on a case by case basis. That could avoid some circle jerking.

[Dakota 4722]

For historical record, Moose and possibly Bulletford didnt like the idea and to try to prove a point I guess contacted hella inactive oldfags to vote no and ruin the poll. 

[Rayne 4478]

2 minutes ago, Dakota said:

For historical record, Moose and possibly Bulletford didnt like the idea and to try to prove a point I guess contacted hella inactive oldfags to vote no and ruin the poll. 

They didn't contact anybody, they fudged the votes themselves.

[Moose 4890]

1 minute ago, Dakota said:

For historical record, Moose and possibly Bulletford didnt like the idea and to try to prove a point I guess contacted hella inactive oldfags to vote no and ruin the poll. 

Had nothing to do with ruining the poll. It was mostly because we can see what the real votes showed, but it was an easy way of proving one of the few points of where voting can be a bad thing (also, I do think it was kind of funny to see all those old names on there, even tho it's private to everyone else).

 

I'd also like to reiterate that while I can see what the majority of those that have voted say, that alone would not change things - but also does not mean we're ignoring the vote. If the majority wanted something, fine, let's talk about it. But I also saw many times ignoring travs questions, concerns etc. with moving back, and all of those would need to be addressed. No matter how much I disagree with you about adding votes back, I am still always going to listen if the other side listens as well.

[Rayne 4478]

Our points were literally being bypassed for the same generic answers constantly. But we're expected to answer all of the opposing side...

 

Rightttttttt

[Moose 4890]

24 minutes ago, Rayne said:

Our points were literally being bypassed for the same generic answers constantly. But we're expected to answer all of the opposing side...

 

Rightttttttt

I may have missed some, but I feel like most were addressed. To recap most of what I saw:
 

1. Require reasons for votes / no votes to avoid circle jerking

• There's absolutely NO way to moderate this. Who gets to decide what is a valid reason? What length is valid. If someone doesn't like someone, technically that's a good enough reason imo, but the problem becomes as mark so greatly pointed out (even if he was arguing for voting) he will trust others opinions to form his decision. Also, if someone does something that is deemed as toxic, does that mean everyone that witnessed it can't use the same reason because it'd be "copy pasting" even though it is valid? Again, there's no way of proving with certainty that someone was asked, coerced, etc. to go and vote on someone.

2. Require activity to be able to vote

• We've slowly been addressing the activity issue through ranks, but this one is still VERY difficult. What qualifies as active, how do we monitor that? If someone comes around sG to play with their small group of 2-5 friends (not even on our servers but they use discord or something), are they active enough to see others actions and vote on them? I'd argue yes. But then, that becomes hard to moderate who is actually active vs not.
• As Bulletford pointed out, some of our most active staff honestly don't use forums much anymore. I monitor ranks, recruitment, CD, etc. but honestly very rarely post. I jump on towards the end of the month to see if there's anyone I personally know, that I feel like deserved a ref/vote, and most of the time my post wouldn't matter because they already have enough.

3. 30 refs seems like too much

• You proposed 20 yes votes I believe, yet this basically evens out to the same imo. If you need 20 people to vote yes (same as ref you essentially), but then you allow no votes, chances are you'll have at least a few people who dislike you. So now you're probably talking an average of 25-30 people voting yes to offset the no's. 

4. If someone turns "toxic" I can't remove my ref

• I don't get it this at all. We've had VERY few instances of this, and most of them happened when voting was around. They just waited a full month to "change". 

 

I'm honestly missing what you hope to gain from bringing back voting.

[Dakota 4722]

Does RR need somebody with a brain and a pair of balls to realize when somebody gives a stupid reason to vote no? How is it impossible to moderate? Jesus christ. Give me RO. Anybody that votes no will be required to talk with me in VC so I can hear their reason. Christ. 

 

Edit: I'm about these reactions. Everytime I've heard the "its impossible to moderate" it comes off more as "nobody wants to put in the effort"

[Rayne 4478]

With all due respect, this topic is over as far as I'm concerned.

 

You've had all of this time to add your two cents but instead you choose to make a big joke out of it to prove a point.

 

Leave the system how it is.

 

Edit: @Moose, I do appreciate the fact you wrote the long reply with valid points, btw.

 

Could have done with it post-troll though, would have made for a good debate.

 

[Carl Sagan 2577]

some next level autism displayed by staff over a dead clan's free admin

why would they disrupt their echo chamber and let community plebs vote? out of like 50 active community members(pulling this out of my ass) we have like 25+ staff

31, just counted, not including SO's

You know, this looks pretty sad but lets take a closer look at our top 3 30 day charts

 

TTT Minecraft:

 

Bhop CSGO:

TTT: Actual

 

Whats our fourth?

Climb CSGO:(this server has 3 spectator bots at all times)

just delete this site and all servers, start a patreon and move the forums to r/syndicategamers already. a couple months ago i thought this place could be salvaged, forget it.

[trav 6834]

Imagine thinking CS:GO servers should be active 24/7

 

Member who doesn't participate in the community calling out members who participate in the community 

 

 

[bulletford 1134]

6 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

some next level autism displayed by staff over a dead clan's free admin

why would they disrupt their echo chamber and let community plebs vote? out of like 50 active community members(pulling this out of my ass) we have like 25+ staff

31, just counted, not including SO's

You know, this looks pretty sad but lets take a closer look at our top 3 30 day charts

 

TTT Minecraft:

 

Bhop CSGO:

TTT: Actual

 

Whats our fourth?

Climb CSGO:(this server has 3 spectator bots at all times)

just delete this site and all servers, start a patreon and move the forums to r/syndicategamers already. a couple months ago i thought this place could be salvaged, forget it.

idk about you but i see other good looking charts in gametracker...a server doesn't have to be full to be populated and fun

 

 

skill surf:

 

 

tttgo

 

 

ZE,  MG, war3 and surf rpg are our lowest pop servers right now

 

also march is a slow month for a lot of people, it's a busy month in a lot of peoples school schedule.

[Booch 257]

Wait this argument is still going on, I have an idea how about we strip the voting and if they can suck a staff's dick well enough they get in /s. It's just not changing you guys aren't even the player base on our servers let alone the fact half the new people don't participate on forums or discord so why moan and groan about people you never see, the legit get to wear tags and get a green color if I'm not mistaken. 

[ChosenOne2000 4440]

11 hours ago, Dakota said:

Does RR need somebody with a brain and a pair of balls to realize when somebody gives a stupid reason to vote no? How is it impossible to moderate? Jesus christ. Give me RO. Anybody that votes no will be required to talk with me in VC so I can hear their reason. Christ. 

 

Edit: I'm about these reactions. Everytime I've heard the "its impossible to moderate" it comes off more as "nobody wants to put in the effort"

I did it for 8 years. It's not that hard; it just requires an active R&R team. If the team doesn't want to be active, you get shit like this...

 

Also, ROs don't change policy so becoming an RO won't help. They recommend. Only JCS can change policy.

 

OK back to the shadows...