mixster
2009-04-24 16:45:08
Below is all my opinion. It can be wrong :)
Requirements for voting: I am unsure as to if or how often this is discussed at this level and above, but as this shows, it has not disappeared. I am insignificant to the issue, but it would be nice to have it solved. For me, there are two clear ways forward for the system:
1) Clarification
Set real guidelines for applicants and voting.
Does membership show a set level of skill? Is it a rank where you are expected to continue to grow, thus voting is based on them being a diamond to be polished?
Must they use DTM's, walking and banking? Must they show skillful logic? Must they show an ability to comfortably use SRL procedures and even rewrite them where it aids their script?
Of what importance is attitude? Do they have to be an actively helpful person? Must they not have a negative impact on the community via flaming? Should they set an example for Jr Members, thus be mature and kind?
There are, of course, many other issues to clarify too.
2) Revolution / Reformation
The second option is to completely rebuild the whole system
Amongst reformation, there are several methods to be used instead, but I think the most promising would be based on a "Trial" system - in this case, trial referring to judges, lawyers and the lark. Of course, it would be a positive system rather than trying to get them thrown in jail or the like. To me, it is a somewhat mixture of the standard method of getting into SRL and SSRL combined and is summarised as - nomination -> evidence -> voting -> result.
This system follows 3 steps:
1) Jr Member nominated as a member by an existing SRL Member. At this point, a judge (admin / mod) looks into the background of the suggested member and decides whether or not it should be brought forward. This check would be quite loose and really just to stop people nominating anyone they liked. They then contact the user and ask them if they want to continue the process.
2) A 'jury' is set up of several recently active members - exact number need not be too high or low, just so much that one biased user won't have a huge effect. It can be selected based upon the judge choosing or anything like that as long as the nominator is not a part of it. An alternative to judge selected jury could be an automatic script that looks for people who have visited (and posted?) within the last few days and chooses x amount. With the jury setup, the 'court case' then goes ahead where the nominee posts evidence as to why they think they should be a SRL Member - this bit is flexible as to what it should be ie in the form of a script or text about them and the like and includes scripts they've worked on and a bit from the nominator.
3) The jury discusses amongst each other and comes to a decision. Private voting occurs, then the results are used by the admin to give the nominee the final result. How the results of voting are handles in terms of a yes/no result would need to be discussed, but I think they need two thirds (2 / 3) of the votes to be yes to get through else it's a no.
Of course, this is just a system I think would work well. There could just be a system like for SSRL where it's nomination -> evidence -> vote, but I think due to the larger nature of members and the varying amounts of votes, specifying members to vote will allow it be somewhat fairer. Also, it wouldn't take much effort as it could be just looking at a few random posts made by the nominee to see if it's a reasonable nomination else leave it up to the nominator to have a little evidence as to why. For jury selection, it could be as easy as looking at the "member's who've been online in the last 24 hours" bit at the bottom of the board and sending them a message. Of course, this is still extra work for admins / mods, so it would probably also require getting active and respected lower level members to help, such as Dev's.
Of course, Clarification would be an easier to implement solution and Revolution would need a stage of clarification for the jury voting stage anyway. Either way, I think something big needs to be done to stop this being an issue any more. To me, SRL Member is supposed to be a rank worth something, so as soon as people start questioning this worth it becomes a hollow rank that people no longer respect and lowers morale all round.
Just in case you forgot, this is all my opinion and it can be wrong :)
Requirements for voting: I am unsure as to if or how often this is discussed at this level and above, but as this shows, it has not disappeared. I am insignificant to the issue, but it would be nice to have it solved. For me, there are two clear ways forward for the system:
1) Clarification
Set real guidelines for applicants and voting.
Does membership show a set level of skill? Is it a rank where you are expected to continue to grow, thus voting is based on them being a diamond to be polished?
Must they use DTM's, walking and banking? Must they show skillful logic? Must they show an ability to comfortably use SRL procedures and even rewrite them where it aids their script?
Of what importance is attitude? Do they have to be an actively helpful person? Must they not have a negative impact on the community via flaming? Should they set an example for Jr Members, thus be mature and kind?
There are, of course, many other issues to clarify too.
2) Revolution / Reformation
The second option is to completely rebuild the whole system
Amongst reformation, there are several methods to be used instead, but I think the most promising would be based on a "Trial" system - in this case, trial referring to judges, lawyers and the lark. Of course, it would be a positive system rather than trying to get them thrown in jail or the like. To me, it is a somewhat mixture of the standard method of getting into SRL and SSRL combined and is summarised as - nomination -> evidence -> voting -> result.
This system follows 3 steps:
1) Jr Member nominated as a member by an existing SRL Member. At this point, a judge (admin / mod) looks into the background of the suggested member and decides whether or not it should be brought forward. This check would be quite loose and really just to stop people nominating anyone they liked. They then contact the user and ask them if they want to continue the process.
2) A 'jury' is set up of several recently active members - exact number need not be too high or low, just so much that one biased user won't have a huge effect. It can be selected based upon the judge choosing or anything like that as long as the nominator is not a part of it. An alternative to judge selected jury could be an automatic script that looks for people who have visited (and posted?) within the last few days and chooses x amount. With the jury setup, the 'court case' then goes ahead where the nominee posts evidence as to why they think they should be a SRL Member - this bit is flexible as to what it should be ie in the form of a script or text about them and the like and includes scripts they've worked on and a bit from the nominator.
3) The jury discusses amongst each other and comes to a decision. Private voting occurs, then the results are used by the admin to give the nominee the final result. How the results of voting are handles in terms of a yes/no result would need to be discussed, but I think they need two thirds (2 / 3) of the votes to be yes to get through else it's a no.
Of course, this is just a system I think would work well. There could just be a system like for SSRL where it's nomination -> evidence -> vote, but I think due to the larger nature of members and the varying amounts of votes, specifying members to vote will allow it be somewhat fairer. Also, it wouldn't take much effort as it could be just looking at a few random posts made by the nominee to see if it's a reasonable nomination else leave it up to the nominator to have a little evidence as to why. For jury selection, it could be as easy as looking at the "member's who've been online in the last 24 hours" bit at the bottom of the board and sending them a message. Of course, this is still extra work for admins / mods, so it would probably also require getting active and respected lower level members to help, such as Dev's.
Of course, Clarification would be an easier to implement solution and Revolution would need a stage of clarification for the jury voting stage anyway. Either way, I think something big needs to be done to stop this being an issue any more. To me, SRL Member is supposed to be a rank worth something, so as soon as people start questioning this worth it becomes a hollow rank that people no longer respect and lowers morale all round.
Just in case you forgot, this is all my opinion and it can be wrong :)