SRL Archive - Discussions and Debates

From: Rasta Magician

• Standards
An Illegible piece of work is a bad piece of work.
• Awareness of the include
Someone who does not know what functions he could have used clearly still has a lot of learning to do. There is no need to understand how it is done, but knowing that it exists is minimal knowledge. (In refference only to SRL functions)
• Knowledge beyond the include
WizzyPlugin, DDTMs, other Programing Languages, .. Meaning that if the script has no more fine tuning than what the include offers then no knowledge beyond the include is shown.
• Community Presence
Is this someone who has published scripts before, or are they applying with their first script? Is this someone who you see regularly helping out? Is this someone enthusiastic ? Is this someone who provides feedback? OpenSource or NoSauce? Has this person ever attempted to teach someone something? (Tuts, explaining what is wrong rather than just fixing, .. )
• Willingness to learn
Those more willing to learn are more likely to keep on scripting, improving, and even if the script seems a bit poorer you can be fairly certain the person will learn to the level you would consider 'minimum'

Just a little something out of the top of my head..

~RM

This was something that I posted on an SSRL thread a while ago. We were (obviously enough) discussing applications again. I suggested this as a way of looking at an app, rather than a scripting checklist, and was wondering what everyone thinks of this.

So go ahead and hate, love and discuss :)

~RM

I agree with you on all point's there but are any of those point instant no's for you besides being unreadable. Over all I think I like your standards better than most.

For me it's a sort of combo of all.

Someone who doesn't use /SRL/ is no, but if they only use the basics such as randoms, player management, etc, then it's fine.

~RM

From: BraK
I agree with you on all point's there but are any of those point instant no's for you besides being unreadable. Over all I think I like your standards better than most.

Nothing should ever be instant no IMO. You should judge on a case by case basis.

From: ZephyrsFury
Nothing should ever be instant no IMO. You should judge on a case by case basis.

Very True. I find myself with a headache sometimes reading my own code. When I first write the basic script/procedure outlines.

I think they're good guidelines.

You should sticky them in the voting forum.

It's been almost three weeks since anyone has even applied for members. SRL needs to open its doors again

From: IceFire908
It's been almost three weeks since anyone has even applied for members. SRL needs to open its doors again

When people did apply they almost always had 1 post and no script.

From: J_Pizzle
When people did apply they almost always had 1 post and no script.

Longer ago…

How do you think we all got in..?

-RM

Bribes.

Not to be the bearer of bad news but, of the last 3 months and the whole 3 people that applied in that time (not including the rsbot/no script/1 line stuff), they were all accepted. I think that as much as good guidelines is important, when no one is applying, and when people are applying and are being accepted generally (there hasn't been much controversy in a long time) I don't see an overly strong need to rewrite the rules/ give refreshers on voting guidelines. I'm not saying these are bad guidelines at all, infact that quite good and are much better than some of the older guidelines we have used. I guess I just find it an inappropriate (maybe weird is a better word there?) time to be refreshing people on voting if that makes any sense?

I see where you are coming from Blumblebee. Icefire pointed out the same thing, by saying we should re-open registrations. The (public) release of Simba is coming up, and so registrations will be re-opening.

As for the timing of this, it's a thread that has been around SSRL for a while, and with the time for re-opening coming up I thought I'd give it a look.

Perhaps now is not a bad time at all to clean the application process, which has been muddy in the past - some thinking a person should clearly be accepted, and others thinking that the script wasn't worth members, without considering anything else.

I posted this to see if anything has anything further to add to it? Any other 'sub-topics' or points to strongly consider that might come to anyone's mind?

The "learn by what others vote" always made my nose twitch a little bit.

~RM

Attitude plays a role too, and whether they use the reflection include or not

To be honest, I think we're doing fine; I see no real need to bring this up now. (Absolutely no offense intended.) When I look at the outcome of any poll on SRL, I see a result that is fair. Surely one or two of the votes cast in that poll are either biased or faulty in some way, but very, very few make their decisions without thinking about the points you mentioned. The majority of voters always clearly specify their method of thinking and how they came to their conclusion.
I cannot recall seing a single poll having an unfair outcome due to ignorant/careless people voting, (if one excludes Hobbit's work that one time :p) and it uttermost usually shines through, when a voter states their reasons, on whether the vote was cast on reasons.

Besides, the previously mentioned point about a very small part of votes being somehow "faulty", is something every community has and there is nothing that can be done with it – but then again, there's no need to do anything either, that is exactly why we have a democracy at SRL, that is why the majority rules. And the few mentioned votes rarely make any difference, if any at all.