Sorry it's taken so long to get back to this...been alot going on in my real-world
The consensus looks like most people are in favor of requiring 25% of clan membership to make a recruit vote valid.
So I'll put it up for a vote.
A 'yes' vote will be in favor of requiring at least 25% of clan membership voting to make a recruit vote valid. If the 25% is not reached, voting will be extended one week. If that fails to produce the 25% then the vote will be voided and the recruit will wait one more month to be voted on again.
A 'no' vote would be for keeping the vote the same way it has been done.
BTW, Members who have gone inactive 3 months or more will not be considered in computing the 25% of the membership total.
I voted no. So if a certain amount of members don't vote because they are too lazy to come around, a recruit won't make it in? Seems a bit off to me.
Tommy
didnt think of it like that so i agree with Tommy it does make a lot of sence
- {DOU}JK47
Tommy wrote: I voted no. So if a certain amount of members don't vote because they are too lazy to come around, a recruit won't make it in? Seems a bit off to me.
Tommy
That's why only 25% of the membership is required.
Do the math:
47 members subtracting the 7 who are inactive on the forum leaves you with 40 people.
25% of 40 is 10 people currently needed for a valid vote.
In the last year the times have we had less than 25% membership casting votes was due to people abstaining because the recruit was hardly around.
You want people that participate in the clan? This will help weed out those who don't.
{DOU}_Cygnus_X_1 wrote: [quote=Tommy]You want people that participate in the clan? This will help weed out those who don't.
I guess I don't understand that statement. It seems to me that it would weed out good recruits, not bad members. If I am failing to understand something, please explain it. It's happened before. 😛
Tommy
Tommy wrote: [quote={DOU}_Cygnus_X_1][quote=Tommy]You want people that participate in the clan? This will help weed out those who don't.
I guess I don't understand that statement. It seems to me that it would weed out good recruits, not bad members. If I am failing to understand something, please explain it. It's happened before. 😛
Tommy
You think that this idea would weed out good recruits, not bad members.
You base your argument on the belief that this would happen due to people not voting out of laziness. My answer to that is: When has less than 25% of the active clan membership voted on a recruit due to laziness?
The fact is that whenever there has been less than 25% of the clan membership voting, it has been due to people abstaining due to a lack of participation of the recuit, not laziness.
A better example would be the last two voted in with less than 25% of the membership...LT.3223 and Killer.
A handfull of people voted these guys in and where have they been? I can't recall seeing either one on a server since last winter and they have a grand total of ONE post between them on the forum. There were multiple abstaintations on each of their votes. Under the proposed rule change we wouldn't have voted in two inactive people.
I don't know if 25 % is the right number or not based on the lack of participation, but I do think that it would put more responsibility on the recruit to get to know members and activley lobby for votes.
I agree with Pyro here, we need something to encouage MORE participation from recruits. I believe we have let a few slide in that didn't do the work.
Also as Cygnus pointed out we have a percentage of new members that are inactive. We may never be able to get 100% (active) but I'd bet, by forcing more participation, we could get a better percentage.
People who don't really care about joining won't make the effort. People who really want in will. Weed out the won'ts from the will's
mAmA
Been way behind on this as well as other recruit threads....
Anyway, it passed with around a 4 to 1 majority.
Latest Post: IRC How-To Our newest member: Wrotkaw Recent Posts Unread Posts
