Member Application Changes!

[Kypari 579]

Haha what? How does that make sense to you?

 

Activity does not matter until people are staff. Someone wants to support xG by joining the clan, they apply. It gives them incentive to keep returning even if they play for 1 hour every two weeks. There's no point in declining someone from joining a gaming community just because they're not as active as you or if you don't see them on. That's malarkey, xG is not an exclusive club.

You aren't getting what I'm saying man. I'm not going to -1 someone because I don't see them on the server. I would -1 them if I know that no one knows them because I don't want people that no one has ever heard of them in the clan. That is why the minimum active hours is being considered right now.

Edited April 10, 2017 by Guest (see edit history)

[MineCrack 62]

You aren't getting what I'm saying man. I'm not going to -1 someone because I don't see them on the server. I would -1 them if I know that no one knows them because I don't want people that no one has ever heard of them in the clan. That is why the minimum active hours is being considered right now.

 

Well you're just repeating yourself now and retorting with "minimum activity" even though that's not what you're "saying" (even though it's obviously your solution).

 

How is that solving anything? You're arguing that minimum activity should be implemented to solve the issue of "no names" joining the clan. What if someone has the minimum activity, but no one has heard of him and he's an awful person? See how that works?

[Kypari 579]

Well you're just repeating yourself now and retorting with "minimum activity" even though that's not what you're "saying" (even though it's obviously your solution).

 

How is that solving anything? You're arguing that minimum activity should be implemented to solve the issue of "no names" joining the clan. What if someone has the minimum activity, but no one has heard of him and he's an awful person? See how that works?

I'm not trying to argue with you at all :/

The idea I'm suggesting about being able to -1 people who you have never seen before is an alternate option to the minimum active hours which is under discussion. If there is a minimum activity then you wouldn't have to -1 people for hardly being on as there is already a regulation in place.

If someone is an awful person then we do a member protest on them.

Edited April 10, 2017 by Guest (see edit history)

[MineCrack 62]

I'm not trying to argue with you at all :/

 

I don't think you know what an argument is.

 

The idea I'm suggesting about being able to -1 people who you have never seen before is an alternate option to the minimum active hours which is under discussion. If there is a minimum activity then you wouldn't have to -1 people for hardly being on as there is already a regulation in place.

If someone is an awful person then we do a member protest on them.

 

Okay well your whole argument is illogical. Why does someone have to be *seen* by you or other people get in the community? This is vague and stupid, give actual reasons because so far this is just idiocracy.

[Thunder 79]

Okay well your whole argument is illogical. Why does someone have to be *seen* by you or other people get in the community? This is vague and stupid, give actual reasons because so far this is just idiocracy.

I dont think he means that, if you get their steam id which takes less than a minute you can check how much time they have had in each of the servers. This argument should just stop now because of the thing @Aegean is implementing. And if you want to keep arguing take it to the shoutbox or some shit like that.

[MineCrack 62]

I dont think he means that, if you get their steam id which takes less than a minute you can check how much time they have had in each of the servers. This argument should just stop now because of the thing @Aegean is implementing. And if you want to keep arguing take it to the shoutbox or some shit like that.

 

Nothing is set in stone and this thread is still open for discussion until it is locked.

 

Also, feel free to read previous posts to figure out what he means.

Edited April 11, 2017 by Guest (see edit history)

[Thunder 79]

Nothing is set in stone and this thread is still open for discussion until it is locked.

 

Also, feel free to read previous posts to figure out what he means.

But the argument is for nothing, Kypari is arguing for a thing that probably wont happen and Aegean is trying to fix by adding an amount of time you need to be on the servers.

The only way for Kyparis proposition to go through is for a whole other thread to be made with a vote and it goes through so you are defending something that does not need to be defended.

This is gonna be my last post in this thread because I would rather not have an argument about not having arguments.

[Aegean 849]

There's no point to dwell on the issue of someone -1'ing an individual based on if they see them or not, as A. we will not allow that to be a valid vouch and B. We will implement an appropriate requirement of activity on our servers to address people's concerns.

[MineCrack 62]

There's no point to dwell on the issue of someone -1'ing an individual based on if they see them or not, as A. we will not allow that to be a valid vouch and B. We will implement an appropriate requirement of activity on our servers to address people's concerns.

 

More like trying to find reasons and reason with said reasons. Obviously did not work.

[CappyCappy 33]

So what is going on here? People doesn't even need 4 normal vouches to join? Sigh....