Elevated Gaming Network http://elevatedgaming.net/forums/ |
|
Why do you want to get rid of Retired? http://elevatedgaming.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=32831 |
Page 7 of 7 |
Author: | Tricky [ Mon Jan 28, 2019 3:34 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Why do you want to get rid of Retired? |
Terminator wrote: Tricky wrote: Terminator wrote: There are multiple reasons to not be in egn (everybody has own reasons and stuff) but i feel like its also a way to say my exact mind without being told to "stay calm" or "why do u have a problem with him" and all that stuff. This way there isnt somebody coming to me with stupid questions about why i said what i said Yea now you get banned without warning :/ U guys stil give warnings, member or not U will always do it in the topic itself or pm. But not trough steam or teamspeak anymore to tell why and stuff I don’t nor will to Non-Members. It’s up to staff if they are willing to give warnings to you guys (Non-members) when you break rules. Warnings are a Courtesy~ |
Author: | Terminator [ Mon Jan 28, 2019 3:51 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Why do you want to get rid of Retired? |
Tricky wrote: Terminator wrote: Tricky wrote: Terminator wrote: There are multiple reasons to not be in egn (everybody has own reasons and stuff) but i feel like its also a way to say my exact mind without being told to "stay calm" or "why do u have a problem with him" and all that stuff. This way there isnt somebody coming to me with stupid questions about why i said what i said Yea now you get banned without warning :/ U guys stil give warnings, member or not U will always do it in the topic itself or pm. But not trough steam or teamspeak anymore to tell why and stuff I don’t nor will to Non-Members. It’s up to staff if they are willing to give warnings to you guys (Non-members) when you break rules. Warnings are a Courtesy~ Just talking about how it ussualy goes. |
Author: | Needy [ Mon Jan 28, 2019 4:03 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Why do you want to get rid of Retired? |
Central wrote: Lyriati wrote: Cooper wrote: (which I think would piss just as many people off if they have to wear tags to be member again) 100% this Well I mean it would but of all 12-17 days? That's sure not as long as you would be lets say Elite+ because all you have to do, is pass the Recruit stage, become a member and stick to member and not wear tags. I've come across people not wanting to join this community because Recruits have to wear tags for you to pass the stage however its of all just longer than a week, which is not long at all. Could you explain to me, because I'm just curious to why you think that it would piss people off jist to wear a Tag for a week to never have to? Believe it's just the fact that it sorta defeats the purpose of having the option to either wear or not wear tags which is why I suggest that applying as a member shouldn't go through recruitment process neither be confined to the clan Mr. Simplistic wrote: I would even like to allow the member rank to double clan but thats just an idea. For it, technically if it were to be a member (or however we would name it) wouldn't be a clan member to which allows to double clan Just to quote from the other thread, (realised it would of been more apt here) viewtopic.php?f=13&t=32799&start=170 Needy wrote: Before this thread closes and / or has no further replies, thought I'd add this with respect to the retired rank. While I am not convinced that the retired rank (to put it in simpler terms, members who remove themselves from the clan) should be given additional forum access, or any added access in that case, apart from a regular forum member as the when you become a member of the CLAN you're (should be) given additional permissions and / or privileges that simply put, make you (them) want to become a member of the clan. Allowing for the same, or similar access, when a member LEAVES reverses that process. While I am NOT making a reference to the "retired has access to chat box", and etc, this is more of a general statement that ideally there should be a difference between someone who is a member of the clan, to someone who left the clan.
Spoiler:
Show
But it may be a decent medium, between the two concerns about the retired rank and member rank that is, especially considering the way the member rank was created practically made it a community rank >no tags neither able to climb the ranks >not able to join teams >cannot become an admin Knowledge Base wrote: Member: - Represent EgN in a positive manner at all times. - Provide feedback on new recruits - Have the same forum, Teamspeak, and server name - Eligible to be promoted to elite by wearing the clan tags (EgN| ) after 4 weeks. Member: Those that have been accepted into the clan, basic members of EgN. They are unable to become admin or join teams. They are not required to wear clan tags, but can wear them to be promoted to Elite. The only thing different between the member rank and the retired rank is that they can post on LOA's and they can provide feedback to recruits which no one does with the current process of voting on recruits. |
Author: | Cooper [ Mon Jan 28, 2019 6:42 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Why do you want to get rid of Retired? |
Needy wrote: Central wrote: Lyriati wrote: Cooper wrote: (which I think would piss just as many people off if they have to wear tags to be member again) 100% this Well I mean it would but of all 12-17 days? That's sure not as long as you would be lets say Elite+ because all you have to do, is pass the Recruit stage, become a member and stick to member and not wear tags. I've come across people not wanting to join this community because Recruits have to wear tags for you to pass the stage however its of all just longer than a week, which is not long at all. Could you explain to me, because I'm just curious to why you think that it would piss people off jist to wear a Tag for a week to never have to? Believe it's just the fact that it sorta defeats the purpose of having the option to either wear or not wear tags which is why I suggest that applying as a member shouldn't go through recruitment process neither be confined to the clan Mr. Simplistic wrote: I would even like to allow the member rank to double clan but thats just an idea. For it, technically if it were to be a member (or however we would name it) wouldn't be a clan member to which allows to double clan Just to quote from the other thread, (realised it would of been more apt here) viewtopic.php?f=13&t=32799&start=170 Needy wrote: Before this thread closes and / or has no further replies, thought I'd add this with respect to the retired rank. While I am not convinced that the retired rank (to put it in simpler terms, members who remove themselves from the clan) should be given additional forum access, or any added access in that case, apart from a regular forum member as the when you become a member of the CLAN you're (should be) given additional permissions and / or privileges that simply put, make you (them) want to become a member of the clan. Allowing for the same, or similar access, when a member LEAVES reverses that process. While I am NOT making a reference to the "retired has access to chat box", and etc, this is more of a general statement that ideally there should be a difference between someone who is a member of the clan, to someone who left the clan.
Spoiler:
Show
But it may be a decent medium, between the two concerns about the retired rank and member rank that is, especially considering the way the member rank was created practically made it a community rank >no tags neither able to climb the ranks >not able to join teams >cannot become an admin Knowledge Base wrote: Member: - Represent EgN in a positive manner at all times. - Provide feedback on new recruits - Have the same forum, Teamspeak, and server name - Eligible to be promoted to elite by wearing the clan tags (EgN| ) after 4 weeks. Member: Those that have been accepted into the clan, basic members of EgN. They are unable to become admin or join teams. They are not required to wear clan tags, but can wear them to be promoted to Elite. The only thing different between the member rank and the retired rank is that they can post on LOA's and they can provide feedback to recruits which no one does with the current process of voting on recruits. I think a good answer to this would be to make an “Associate” rank like discussed at the meeting and make the ranking structure how it used to be (keeping at least Legend if not also Elder). Associate (just using this as a name for lack of better of) would be a mix between current member and retired. Example perms: - Post on LoAs and maybe some of the sections current members can access (I’m not very educated on what sections can only be seen by members+ or whatever) - Shoutbox access - No tags - Double clanning allowed - MAYBE let them vote on rep’s (if that idea isn’t getting scrapped) - Reapply and go straight to member after Staff+ interview? - Not sure what else feel free to add What they can’t do: - Vote on recruits - Join teams - Become admin - Aren’t immune to getting banned by admins - Feel free to add. I think this would be a good way to keep people incorporated in the “community” in one way or another while not participating in the “clan aspects” of EgN. Not in the “clan”, but in the “community” (which I personally consider Retired, regulars, and to an extent members already). They are still participants, just not to the same extent or manner as say a member+. Now all this being said there are a few more things to cover. 1. Retired should be reworked to Registered User just with a unique User Group. When making an LoA they could chose to demote to Associate instead of member, and get the perks above. By retiring however, they would be “disassociating” with the community and fully cutting all ties (chosing to revoke all the privellages that come with being a member). Simply said Associate would be for people who still want to participate or “associate” with the community, whereas retired would be for people deciding to completely leave. 2. Another question that comes up is who gets the rank? Well like I said above, at least in my opinion, people who are leaving should have the choice to get the rank. On top of that, people who decide to full on retire should be made well aware by a Staff+ what they are chosing to do and what they are losing when they leave (ex. saying “Are you sure you want to retire instead of becoming Associate? If so you will lose [insert list of permissions].”) Obviously there needs to be a way for current retired to get the rank (specifically those who want these permissions) and I’m not sure how this would work, maybe let them apply for it? I’m completely against going in and giving all retireds Associate myself, for various reasons, such as banned/removed individuals and inactives that shouldn’t have the rank. I also think there should be a way to maybe apply for the rank without going through the recruitment process and wearing tags, apparently it’s a big thing that people want to be involved but really don’t want to wear tags. I know GP had/has a lot of people considering joining who are very active but are extremely turned off by tags. This could be a way to get more people potentially involved, I’m just not sure how it would work. 3. What happens to banned / removed people? Obviously not associate like I just said. Maybe for double clanning scenarios offer stepping down to Associate but other than that no. I think if retired has no perms it may be okay to make them just become retired. They were once apart of the community but now have no ties. When they are banned/removed Staff+ are “retiring” their member status like brands decide to “retire” certain items. 4. Like I said make people well aware of what they are losing when the fully retire/leave, that way there can’t be any complaining about not having certain perms. It is their decision to retire and they consent to losing their perms when they would do so. 5. A very touchy area that I’m cautious of mentioning is regarding people who aren’t allowed to reapply but aren’t banned. I’m not sure how this should be handled but Staff+ should make a clear decision whether or not to let these people be Associate. These are just some ideas and a lot of them could be fleshed out a lot more (particularly how do you get the rank and who gets it) so please give some feedback and suggestions. What do you guys think and do you think this is a good way to handle the current situation? From what was said at the meeting whenever the new site comes around the ranking structure will probably see some changes so until then the best we can do is give input. |
Author: | Terminator [ Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:39 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Why do you want to get rid of Retired? |
This whole drama is soooo blown out if proportion.... Why not just make the forum chat for everybody and just do your "jobs" at controlling it. Honestly tho, this is unnecessary |
Author: | Mr. Simplistic [ Tue Jan 29, 2019 5:09 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Why do you want to get rid of Retired? |
Terminator wrote: This whole drama is soooo blown out if proportion.... Why not just make the forum chat for everybody and just do your "jobs" at controlling it. Honestly tho, this is unnecessary Open chatbox to public? Yea no thanks lol there is no way its not gonna be trolled to hell. I really like needy and coopers's post though and will take them into consideration 100% |
Page 7 of 7 | All times are UTC - 6 hours |
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |