Change The Application System

[Aegean 849]

I'm actually so confused.

I kind of just glanced at the original post and after thoroughly reading it I'm still confused because that is how member applications currently work.

 

To get accepted you need X amount of upvotes, any downvotes negates an upvote. What I originally got from OP is that after a certain amount of downvotes you just get declined.

 

Anyone who accepted an applicant without following the criteria above is an idiot.

 

If you read the entire thread apparently someone higher up changed it in the past that -1s dont negate +1s which some staff apparently followed till today, and also op post never talks about a certain number of -1s instantly closing applications so i dunno where you read that, or if he edited it out.

Edited February 11, 2017 by Aegean (see edit history)

[Goblins 580]

If you read the entire thread apparently someone higher up changed it in the past that -1s dont negate +1s which some staff apparently followed till today, and also op post never talks about a certain number of -1s instantly closing applications so i dunno where you read that, or if he edited it out.

 

I faintly remember Rhodo talking about it on the admin forums. Probably can find the thread there.

[MineCrack 62]

If you read the entire thread apparently someone higher up changed it in the past that -1s dont negate +1s which some staff apparently followed till today, and also op post never talks about a certain number of -1s instantly closing applications so i dunno where you read that, or if he edited it out.

 

I'm actually so confused.

I kind of just glanced at the original post and after thoroughly reading it I'm still confused because that is how member applications currently work.

 

To get accepted you need X amount of upvotes, any downvotes negates an upvote. What I originally got from OP is that after a certain amount of downvotes you just get declined.

 

Anyone who accepted an applicant without following the criteria above is an idiot.

[Aegean 849]

@MineCrack

 

You mentioned how if anyone accepted an applicant without following the criteria above they would be an idiot, despite people telling you higherups issued the unspoken rule in the past and there has never been a formal announcement on if it is reverted or not, that's why I quoted you.

Edited February 12, 2017 by Guest (see edit history)

[MineCrack 62]

@MineCrack

people telling you

One person.

 

@MineCrack

 

higherups

at some point one of the higher ups (i believe @Ohstopyou, not sure tho)

 

@MineCrack

 

issued the unspoken rule in the past and there has never been a formal announcement on if it is reverted or not.

 

[Aegean 849]

One person.

 

 

[attach=full]27538[/attach]

 

 

 

 

[attach=full]27538[/attach]

 

You're named after a 3d block game

[Egossi 1017]

@MineCrack @Aegean I believe the reason this thread was born is mainly cause this thread got accepted regardless of my -1 by @Rhododendron Squid

Edited February 12, 2017 by Guest (see edit history)

[PiNoYPsYcHo 39]

[Amymaniac 42]

agreed. If someone has had a -1 they should have to earn that extra +1 to have a chance to join.

[Thunder 79]

wait if this goes through then people will have to do math. in xg that cant be possible!

[Chrono 372]

For those not paying attention:

 

A while back OhStopYou said that -1 on a member app did not count because he claims he "heard it from higher ups" (who knows where he heard it, or if he made it up. yolo.), however prior to that everyone that was a Division Leader (and then DM/DL after it was decided to "split" the responsibilities) had always operated under the pretext that if there was a -1 on an application, that it would count as long as it posed actual context to why they were giving a -1, same with a +1 (hence why forest made the whole thing with activity and maturity ratings to give a simple short note of why you gave your vouch.)

 

At this point there was a medium sized thread in the admin discussion that was confused on this topic, as far as I remember, if current DM/DL/CL/C wanted to, they could go back and screenshot the thread in there where it was "discussed" and essentially verified that yes all vouches count be it +1 or -1 as long as they have proper context therefore a simple post containing this: "+1" or "-1" would mean literally nothing, only posts that followed the format "+1 A: X M: X" or in sentence/descriptive form counted.

 

This then continued Business as Usual until now where this thread was made because Silence, being the monster that he is, does what he wants really regardless of what the community says/thinks as long as it is something he wants to do (very hard to change his mind.) decided to accept this member submission, after receiving 6 +1 vouches and 1 -1 vouch. totaling out at 5 +1 vouches, for a forum application which previous precedent, Hanney had applied under and was accepted with 6 +1 vouches. however in the case of Hanney, the only game she plays with xG is League of Legends and then whatever meme of the month game is next, she does not play on any of xG's official divisions where we control servers, and instead operated mostly on teamspeak.

 

IMO this should have been treated as said in the thread in question, as a TF2 member submission and follow those vouch requirements, since squid is 99% a TF2 player, it is unknown to me if he actually plays on the other divs/games but his previous submission was from TF2 (until the day comes where you just generically apply for xG which is what it should be at this point with the blending of divisions that has taken place more-so recently.)

 

 

Obviously he is now a member, and I am not condoning revoking his membership after the fact, but merely to review the case and set a future precedent.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Guest (see edit history)

[Forest 309]

Maybe if you people stopped +1'ing for them being cool, we wouldn't have this situation ###Trigger

 

Jokes aside, was something like this really discussed by the Higher-Ups; and if so.. Why? There seems to be a stupid amount of speculation here, but given that it's such a monumental change, it should not have just slipped under the radar. At the very least, a public announcement should have been made in say, the xG News section (assuming it wasn't).

 

That being said, I'm in the same boat with the other oldies. As far as I'm concerned, as an ex-Division Manager, -1s always influenced a Member Application and the collective unspoken rule was that it took away from the total +1s of any given Member Submission. Though I agree whole-heartedly with the thread; if it's causing a rift between the Higher-Ups then something regarding -1s should definitely be written in stone in the Member Submission Guidelines.

 

Semi-related note: Higher-Ups, for the love of God, update and fix that shit . It's full of inconsistencies and contradictions. There's literally an xG News thread that effectively re-orders how vouching works for Divisions ("Global vouches") and yet the 'MSG' still reflects the outdated protocol. Mind you, this is assuming that announcement wasn't scrapped, although even then another xG News thread should have been made to clarify that. Also, just as a suggestion, y'all should make/sticky a thread in Admin Discussion (or even in General, stickied/closed) that includes time stamps for all major changes (as well as by whomever made the change) for reference as opposed to editing something into the applicable thread. Paper trails are great to have, but it sort of clutters up the thread if you continue adding these changelogs (IE. "change for X has been put into effect as of Y by Z") one by one and this would make it 1000x easier for anyone to determine when a change was made and by who (one thread to refer to for all major changes as opposed to having to dig through varying threads)

 

As always, this is just personal opinion.

Edited February 14, 2017 by Guest (see edit history)

[Chrono 372]

Maybe if you people stopped +1'ing for them being cool, we wouldn't have this situation ###Trigger

 

Jokes aside, was something like this really discussed by the Higher-Ups; and if so.. Why? There seems to be a stupid amount of speculation here, but given that it's such a monumental change, it should not have just slipped under the radar. At the very least, a public announcement should have been made in say, the xG News section (assuming it wasn't).

 

That being said, I'm in the same boat with the other oldies. As far as I'm concerned, as an ex-Division Manager, -1s always influenced a Member Application and the collective unspoken rule was that it took away from the total +1s of any given Member Submission. Though I agree whole-heartedly with the thread; if it's causing a rift between the Higher-Ups then something regarding -1s should definitely be written in stone in the Member Submission Guidelines.

 

Semi-related note: Higher-Ups, for the love of God, update and fix that shit . It's full of inconsistencies and contradictions. There's literally an xG News thread that effectively re-orders how vouching works for Divisions ("Global vouches") and yet the 'MSG' still reflects the outdated protocol. Mind you, this is assuming that announcement wasn't scrapped, although even then another xG News thread should have been made to clarify that. Also, just as a suggestion, y'all should make/sticky a thread in Admin Discussion (or even in General, stickied/closed) that includes time stamps for all major changes (as well as by whomever made the change) for reference as opposed to editing something into the applicable thread. Paper trails are great to have, but it sort of clutters up the thread if you continue adding these changelogs (IE. "change for X has been put into effect as of Y by Z") one by one and this would make it 1000x easier for anyone to determine when a change was made and by who (one thread to refer to for all major changes as opposed to having to dig through varying threads)

 

As always, this is just personal opinion.

As a new note to tack on to my post, as clearly myself nor others seem to have really seen/known about that (I didn't and I would presume aegean/virr didn't as they were talking about vouch requirement in the afformentioned member app.) it would seem this post is a moot point since even counting the -1, he reached the 5 +1 necessary which also included a DM, DL, or CL in Virr's vouch.

Edited February 14, 2017 by Guest (see edit history)

[virr 808]

As a new note to tack on to my post, as clearly myself nor others seem to have really seen/known about that (I didn't and I would presume aegean/virr didn't as they were talking about vouch requirement in the afformentioned member app.) it would seem this post is a moot point since even counting the -1, he reached the 5 +1 necessary which also included a DM, DL, or CL in Virr's vouch.

 

Just to clarify. The only reason i asked for minimum vouches was because he put his division as "Forum" and the forum division is never mentioned in the Member submission guidelines (god this thing is a mess, I'm starting a discussion in admin forums to rework/remake it right now).

 

Minimum Vouching Requirements

 

• You need 7 vouches including 1 admin+ vouch as of 11/24/16 for TF2
  
• You only need 4 vouches from members for the CS:GO division as of 11/10/2016
  
• You only need 2 vouches from members for the Minecraft Division
  

 

As far as I'm concerned a -1 has always canceled a +1 out (if they don't, is there really a reason to have them at all?) which is why i asked for further clarification from other higher ups when people were saying the opposite.

[Chrono 372]

Just to clarify. The only reason i asked for minimum vouches was because he put his division as "Forum" and the forum division is never mentioned in the Member submission guidelines (god this thing is a mess, I'm starting a discussion in admin forums to rework/remake it right now).

 

 

 

As far as I'm concerned a -1 has always canceled a +1 out (if they don't, is there really a reason to have them at all?) which is why i asked for further clarification from other higher ups when people were saying the opposite.

There are currently so many inconsistencies with member subs as it is anyway, it needs a whole re-do. As to the forum thing, I think it should have been treated like a TF2 app regardless of him putting it as that is the only server he plays on. Forum is something more for those that do not play on any division of xg, they just hang out with us for whatever reason (play other games, met on tinychat, etc.) imo