Applications Process


  • Baron

    I’d like to start a conversation regarding the applications process (Apologies for procrastinating on this a bit, IRL business and such).

    I’m proposing we continue with the process which we had on the previous server as I am of the opinion that we managed to work out a lot of previous problems with that model.

    The process would be legislated as follows:

    1. Players wishing to join should create an application by posting a new thread in the Applications/New Applications section of the forum

    2. Applicants will then wait to receive votes from noble members of the community (1 vote per player regardless of rank).

    3. Once the requisite number of votes has been granted to the application, the applicant must then submit to a voice interview with the Minister of Applications or one of their deputies.

    4. Following the conclusion of the interview, The Ministry of Applications will post to the original application thread their decision. If accepted, the applicant is then eligible to receive offers of vassalage from realm leaders. If the applicant is rejected following the interview the application is closed and they are welcome to apply again at a later date.

    5. Applicants receiving offers must then choose a liege and realm to join with.

    I'm of the opinion that while the above process should be legislated into law, I believe that the number of votes needed for the interview portion, as well as the exact questions and criteria discussed during the interview should be left up to the discretion of the Applications Ministry.

    Thoughts on the process as described above? Do we need to tweak it? Wording issues?


  • Baron

    I like this I think the current system worked well. Also there is a typo in section 3 "Minister of Applications of one of their deputies." Not sure if it's supposed to say 'or' or 'and.'


  • Baron

    @Kyrin that should be 'OR'. Good spot. I'll correct it


  • Duke

    I'd also like to add onto this that we should have a hard and soft age cap. With the hard cap being 16 at the lowest as the hard cap, and then a soft cap at 18, which means we would need to vet those 16 and 17 year old's just a bit harder. This could easily be done by increasing the required yes votes for those candidates under the soft cap, but we can discuss this further here as well.

    My major reasoning behind this is I feel we are a group that is a fairly strong cult of personalities and I would be uncomfortable with someone who is 14-17 feeling too loose with information because of the closeness of the server. While I understand people should be responsible for their own internet safety I don't want to put someone young and impressionable in that situation.


  • Count

    These are raw thoughts that came up when talking about the possibility of the minister changing the number of votes required, and situations where server activity may inhibit getting 5 votes

    something common in a lot of private clubs involves requiring someone to sponsor you. This is somewhat like what we do for the vassal/liege system.

    Do we want to make any changes in the system to put more focus on sponsorship rather than getting 5 votes. Or at least in cases with referrals. Perhaps if you have 2 people sponsoring you, you don't need the votes and can go to directly to interview phase.

    If you don't know anyone on the server, then you apply, get the votes, etc. as before.

    I don't know if there was any problem that needed fixing, if this is over complicating stuff, but the idea of sponsors popped into my head when i was reading the discord discussion and I wanted to introduce the concept of sponsors in case it resonated with someone.


  • Duke

    @Alric said in Applications Process:

    These are raw thoughts that came up when talking about the possibility of the minister changing the number of votes required, and situations where server activity may inhibit getting 5 votes

    something common in a lot of private clubs involves requiring someone to sponsor you. This is somewhat like what we do for the vassal/liege system.

    Do we want to make any changes in the system to put more focus on sponsorship rather than getting 5 votes. Or at least in cases with referrals. Perhaps if you have 2 people sponsoring you, you don't need the votes and can go to directly to interview phase.

    If you don't know anyone on the server, then you apply, get the votes, etc. as before.

    I don't know if there was any problem that needed fixing, if this is over complicating stuff, but the idea of sponsors popped into my head when i was reading the discord discussion and I wanted to introduce the concept of sponsors in case it resonated with someone.

    I am actually not against the idea of a referral/sponsor system. Perhaps used as a shortcut to needing the initial votes but you still have to provide the builds, and the background and go through the interview. I would like to perhaps have a check to this as if there are 3+ no votes on the person then they have to go through the normal voting process? I am not sure how well that is balanced or not. Or maybe just if someone goes directly to the MoA with a no, the person has to go through the normal vote process. (Just riffing on this)


  • Baron

    @ThunderPony said in Applications Process:

    @Alric said in Applications Process:

    These are raw thoughts that came up when talking about the possibility of the minister changing the number of votes required, and situations where server activity may inhibit getting 5 votes

    something common in a lot of private clubs involves requiring someone to sponsor you. This is somewhat like what we do for the vassal/liege system.

    Do we want to make any changes in the system to put more focus on sponsorship rather than getting 5 votes. Or at least in cases with referrals. Perhaps if you have 2 people sponsoring you, you don't need the votes and can go to directly to interview phase.

    If you don't know anyone on the server, then you apply, get the votes, etc. as before.

    I don't know if there was any problem that needed fixing, if this is over complicating stuff, but the idea of sponsors popped into my head when i was reading the discord discussion and I wanted to introduce the concept of sponsors in case it resonated with someone.

    I am actually not against the idea of a referral/sponsor system. Perhaps used as a shortcut to needing the initial votes but you still have to provide the builds, and the background and go through the interview. I would like to perhaps have a check to this as if there are 3+ no votes on the person then they have to go through the normal voting process? I am not sure how well that is balanced or not. Or maybe just if someone goes directly to the MoA with a no, the person has to go through the normal vote process. (Just riffing on this)

    I also like this idea. We already have several people that are friends of tenure members and while we have the interim process for now I think it would be beneficial to make it easier for friends to play so long as they are under the 'responsibility' of their friend, even if they arent a vassal under them.

    Example: My friend Logan wants to join the server and he applies. Because I am his sponsor/way in I am 'responsible' for his time here at the beginning. He needs less votes or whatever to get in and passes, joins a different realm than I. Some time later he beings causing troubles for the server and it comes to a point where he is asked to leave and he goes. Because I was 'responsible' for him maybe I am banned from recruiting more friends for a time and/or when I do try to bring a friend aboard they dont get the same easy access path in because the last friend of mine was a schmuck?


  • Duke

    @LawnBoy072 said in Applications Process:

    @ThunderPony said in Applications Process:

    @Alric said in Applications Process:

    These are raw thoughts that came up when talking about the possibility of the minister changing the number of votes required, and situations where server activity may inhibit getting 5 votes

    something common in a lot of private clubs involves requiring someone to sponsor you. This is somewhat like what we do for the vassal/liege system.

    Do we want to make any changes in the system to put more focus on sponsorship rather than getting 5 votes. Or at least in cases with referrals. Perhaps if you have 2 people sponsoring you, you don't need the votes and can go to directly to interview phase.

    If you don't know anyone on the server, then you apply, get the votes, etc. as before.

    I don't know if there was any problem that needed fixing, if this is over complicating stuff, but the idea of sponsors popped into my head when i was reading the discord discussion and I wanted to introduce the concept of sponsors in case it resonated with someone.

    I am actually not against the idea of a referral/sponsor system. Perhaps used as a shortcut to needing the initial votes but you still have to provide the builds, and the background and go through the interview. I would like to perhaps have a check to this as if there are 3+ no votes on the person then they have to go through the normal voting process? I am not sure how well that is balanced or not. Or maybe just if someone goes directly to the MoA with a no, the person has to go through the normal vote process. (Just riffing on this)

    I also like this idea. We already have several people that are friends of tenure members and while we have the interim process for now I think it would be beneficial to make it easier for friends to play so long as they are under the 'responsibility' of their friend, even if they arent a vassal under them.

    Example: My friend Logan wants to join the server and he applies. Because I am his sponsor/way in I am 'responsible' for his time here at the beginning. He needs less votes or whatever to get in and passes, joins a different realm than I. Some time later he beings causing troubles for the server and it comes to a point where he is asked to leave and he goes. Because I was 'responsible' for him maybe I am banned from recruiting more friends for a time and/or when I do try to bring a friend aboard they dont get the same easy access path in because the last friend of mine was a schmuck?

    Seems like a bit of information to keep track of long term or cross ministers but I think with some forthought it is not an impossible task to do this.


  • Baron

    I'd be all for some kind of system whereby giving a friend/relative your endorsement means they need less votes.

    I'm not sure I like the idea that if the applicant plays up and is punished/banned, we levy punishment on their sponsor. It may just be that in that scenario, we don't accept endorsements from said person again?


  • Duke

    @TheValeyard said in Applications Process:

    I'd be all for some kind of system whereby giving a friend/relative your endorsement means they need less votes.

    I'm not sure I like the idea that if the applicant plays up and is punished/banned, we levy punishment on their sponsor. It may just be that in that scenario, we don't accept endorsements from said person again?

    I think that is reasonable. Your dude fucks up, you lose your ability to refer, maybe for like 6 moths or a calendar year.


  • Count

    I think just losing the ability to refer, and being looked down on, is enough punishment to make sure people take referrals seriously, but not overly harsh on someone for the actions of their friend. a good balance.


  • Minister Duke

    @Alric Agreed


  • Baron

    Does anyone have further thoughts or ideas they'd like to bring to this discussion before I rewrote to take the above statements into account?


  • Duke

    While I understand the desire to ask some questions during the application process on the forums, I think we should include some basic questions for them to answer.

    • Have you read the Liege Vassal system?
    • What sort of biomes are your favorite to build in? Least Favorite?

    Just a couple that come to mind that are asked on almost every application, at that point I think we should get a list of 5 or 6 and just make them apart of the application. This isn't to remove people asking questions to applicants but will cut down on a lot of the superfluous questions.


  • Baron

    I can put that into the application template that I'm writing up. I'll get an FAQ and template for applicants to look at before applying.

    I'll pop some of those usual questions into the general questions bit


  • Baron

    I think having a hard cap wouldn't be fair to people applying to the server I believe that if you're mature enough, you can be on the and play with people on the server. afterall that's why we have the voice interview yes? Also, I know of two members that fall below the hard cap, and they haven't caused any drama or acted out rudely.


  • Duke

    @Loric said in Applications Process:

    I think having a hard cap wouldn't be fair to people applying to the server I believe that if you're mature enough, you can be on the and play with people on the server. afterall that's why we have the voice interview yes? Also, I know of two members that fall below the hard cap, and they haven't caused any drama or acted out rudely.

    Who falls below the hard cap? As far as I recall there isn't anyone on the server right now who is under 16.

    At the end of the day I can truly only speak to my personal experience, it is very uncomfortable for me to socialize/game with actual children (preteen - 15.)


  • Baron

    I will support a hard cap, assuming current members under that age are allowed to stay. I agree with Tywen, it can get uncomfortable very quickly.


  • Duke

    @Mimo said in Applications Process:

    I will support a hard cap, assuming current members under that age are allowed to stay. I agree with Tywen, it can get uncomfortable very quickly.

    for the record I would never have proposed this with the intention of kicking anyone out.


  • Non-Participating Baron

    I don't think that the Hard Cap is necessary, however I can see why people would want to support it. I fall below that line myself though, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.


Log in to reply
 

9
Online

229
Users

1.1k
Topics

5.2k
Posts