Recruitment Policy VOTE - Please Read.

[TataLebuj]

Howdy all,

I thought it best to get this vote started ASAP. After reading through everyone's contribution's in the other thread ( http://forums.renegade-legion.org/showthread.php?t=66) some of us thought it would be best to start the vote and see where it leads.

Here is the new idea for our Recruitment policy. Please vote YES or NO and give your feedback.

1. Someone is recruited or wants to join. They play with us for a night in a squad (PS), group (WoW) or on the server (CS:S) for a night. An Officer may decide that this person has shown RL-type qualities or has been told that this person has shown these qualities by a member.
2. The Officer invites them to the outfit/group/squad (PS and WoW)
3. The Officer that invited the individual starts a thread in the private section of their game forum called: 'Recruit: Playername' where people can post feedback.
4. Renegades post feedback, even if it's just 'Good player, ok with me'

-- The recruit has to install and set up TS and register + post on the forum --

5. Unless people (or the officer himself) have well-founded negative feedback posted in the recruit thread, the recruit is invited after some time**. Time needed depends on activity and how sure you are that they are RL material.
6. CS:S ONLY - Though a player has been asked to join (is a recruit) they may not wear the RL tag.*

*- This is somethign I added because I saw some posts in the CS:S forums about it. If the main players of CS:S want to clarify their point then I can change 6 to whatever they feel is necessary.

** - The time should be equal to 7 nights of playing. If it takes the individual 2 weeks to reach 7 nights of playing then that is the length of time.


Well, I added a little bit to it and tried to close any ambigous statements. Please vote and post your comments. If there are any major edits that are required please let me know.

Cheers,

[Shinigami]

The important thing to note is that the officer is not a sponsor, as in previous suggestions - it's to ensure that whoever invites a player to the outfit/guild also starts a thread and keeps reading it untill sufficient feedback has been gathered, whereupon he kicks or promotes the recruit. All members are responsible for evaluating the recruit.

The thread the officer starts is not a poll, but simply a thread where all members who have played with the recruit in question can post their feedback.

[Ironman]

Sounds ok and fine by me. Voted Yes.

[JojoTheSlayer]

Sounds okay...

Exception is Rule 6. "No tags for recruits" in games like CS:S
( no ingame roseters).

Point:
It think it would be better if the recruits had (RL)Recruit*nick*, (RL)*nick*Recruit or simmilar so that other RL peps that logged on could see who was just random and who was Recruits. That way we can also see if peps use TS or not and its easyer to spott and have comments about a recruit since you notice him better. Also you would tell between a recruit and just some other random, which for us would be good to get more feedback, but also server as PR for those randoms that see RL has recruits... Which in turn mite add more recruits.

[Vasquez]

i dont like it. it is MUCH better than a sponsor system but i want people to have a rock solid vote. its our outfit, our community. we built it, we should all have a proper say in who gets to share in that community. tbh, i dont see why voting was left out of this.
using this process but by adding a vote u:

remove the possability of a biased officer not letting ppl in/forcing ppl through

stop the officer having to count who gave good feedback, who gave bad, and balance it all up

give everyone a proper, unquestionable say

make me happy

[Shinigami]

Vasquez, if a recruits membership is questionable, eg. people have valid concerns, I hope that the officer would discuss it with people in the thread and maybe extend the trial to get a better feel. Officers are just responsible for the decision being made, not the ones that should be making it themselves.

[50kal]

if i get this right then it is the person who has invitet the recruit
there is in charge of the promotion?so if you are a renegade kontact
a 1 with a higher rank.

i say lets try it and se how it is. voted yes

[TataLebuj]

make me happy

Oh...well if you put it that way....8)

Here's my reason for not wanting a vote -

I'm just worried that if you put a vote into it you won't get people to post (look at this place for example - 13 votes and only 4 responses) about the player and give real feedback. So all you see is "yes or no" not how they are working out. Getting into our Clan shouldn't be about members "agreeing" it should be about members finding other members that have our same outlook on the game. That teamplay _IS_ the best way to play it. That TS _IS_ a must, and that a member should be active in the forums/discussions so that there is a feeling of unity amongst the members.

If the current idea passes it will force players that play with an individual to step up and make it known that this is a "Good" player and deserving of wearing our name. We all will know this person, whether or not we are currently playing with them.

I do see one problem though, and that is the idea you mentioned with an Officer pushing through players even if they don't get enough support. To fix this I would suggest that we incorporate something of the old system, and that is that there must be 7 positive posts about this player before they can join.

What do you think?


Cheers,

[GuardianAnge1]

voted YES

thought about tag in CS:S -

i think that they should just stick a [R] infront of their name. This is easy to spot and doesnt take up too much space.

[Shinigami]

I think that officers are obviously responsible people who will not invite people if there are valid concerns until those concerns have been adressed.

To avoid officers pushing real-life friends through, an officer should not be responsible for the recruitment process of someone they know in real life.

[TataLebuj]

Sounds okay...

Exception is Rule 6. "No tags for recruits" in games like CS:S
( no ingame roseters).

Point:
It think it would be better if the recruits had (RL)Recruit*nick*, (RL)*nick*Recruit or simmilar so that other RL peps that logged on could see who was just random and who was Recruits. That way we can also see if peps use TS or not and its easyer to spott and have comments about a recruit since you notice him better. Also you would tell between a recruit and just some other random, which for us would be good to get more feedback, but also server as PR for those randoms that see RL has recruits... Which in turn mite add more recruits.

Gonna need more input from the hardcore CS:S players. I play casually, so my input shouldn't dictate what they wish to have for their game. But from my personal point of view, I think a lot of hardcore "Twitch-Style" FPS players don't like that extra tag. If they are trying out for our CLAN then they SHOULD/WILL be on TS. That will give you the interaction you need.

Just my take.

Cheers,

[Nikodemus]

Here's how we used to do it in ILA way back when I was still a playing member.

Standard nick :
[ILA]Nikodemus

Recruit nick :
[ILA-T]Nikodemus

Where the -T indicated it was a "tryout". If someone didn't want to wear that tag then we usually just concluded that then he probably didn't want to wear the normal one either :P

[JojoTheSlayer]

Sounds okay...

Exception is Rule 6. "No tags for recruits" in games like CS:S
( no ingame roseters).

Point:
It think it would be better if the recruits had (RL)Recruit*nick*, (RL)*nick*Recruit or simmilar so that other RL peps that logged on could see who was just random and who was Recruits. That way we can also see if peps use TS or not and its easyer to spott and have comments about a recruit since you notice him better. Also you would tell between a recruit and just some other random, which for us would be good to get more feedback, but also server as PR for those randoms that see RL has recruits... Which in turn mite add more recruits.

Gonna need more input from the hardcore CS:S players. I play casually, so my input shouldn't dictate what they wish to have for their game. But from my personal point of view, I think a lot of hardcore "Twitch-Style" FPS players don't like that extra tag. If they are trying out for our CLAN then they SHOULD/WILL be on TS. That will give you the interaction you need.

Just my take.

Cheers,

Lets not take the carebear rute here.
Its simple, if any player wants to get in he wont mind haveing a extra letter in hes nick while hes "trailing". If hes such a primadonna that he dosent want to change hes nick whit a few extra letters I realy dont think a person like that realy wants to join or like the "fragwhore" AzK... wouldnt fitt in RL.

To me, who doesnt play CS:S that much, I will think that everyone I see whit (RL) and nothing else are full members...even if there not since I dont play that much nor are uptodate whos what in CS:S.
To take this further you mite have a game leader thinking the same and accepting a player automaticaly since he thinks hes a full member in CS:S.

I actualy think rules 6 should be taken out. We get the 1-5 rules agreed apon and do a final debate for "rule 6" in the CS:S room( Since its the first RL game whit no ingame rosters). Then a vote and add that rule to the Recruitment Doctrin which here is beeing voted on.

[Fusion]

Looks good.

I don't want recruits wearing the clan tag in CS:S until they are members. The whole -T (for Trainee or Tard or whatever) is a bit lame type extensions to the clan tags just asks for confusion and could cause a problem for RL if they turn out to be twats and start acting up on other clan's servers.

I suggest we add the following steps:

7a. If the recruit is accepted, the officer deletes the thread and posts a new thread in the Meeting Hall welcoming the the new recruit, e.g.: "Welcoming <recruit_name> to the Renegade Legion" with some info about the recruit (games played, favourite sex position, hot sister's telephone number ;)). He sends a PM to the recruit congratulating and welcoming him into the outfit, and sends a copy to the forum Admin(s) so his usergroup can be changed to allow him full access to the community area.

7b. If the recruit is not accepted, the thread is closed, and the officer PMs the recruit explaining why we have not accepted him and offering the trance of another trial sometime in the future. The above steps are quite important as in the past I have found myself firefighting -- getting PMs from the new guys going: "Need access to the forums please" and me thinking: "and you are...?"

As the voting looks very positive so far, I suggest we add (or at the very least discuss) this section then do another vote, if no one has any complaints :)

[JojoTheSlayer]

The Vote has pasted. Ergo this thread is beeing closed.

The rules will be rewritten, to be more "readable" but it will be the same rules, in mod office and then posted, I think, in ether meeting hall or Recruitment room as a "readable for new recruits" or just "rec rules". ( "blabla" will not be the thread headline :), but points you how it can be read. )

All moderators will make sure the final draft is true to what have been voted for. Then if needed accepted or rejected by "Clan Command"
( all 3 game leaders, B00n and Shy. )

Only the org first post, which the poll was for, has been taken into rewritting. All the personal sugs from peps will not be going into the final draft since that was not what all voted for :). This is most fair.

Mod Jojo :)