Beefing up official member requirements |
| *mzkandi* |
 Oct 23 2005, 04:52 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Guest  |
Ok, I was looking through the feedback forum and there is one thread that members and offical members alike have been debating about, whether or not to raise the official member requirements. Like, whether the posts to become an offical member should stay 50 or is upped to 100 or so like that. I dont think there has been much debate on the 5ppd requirement, mostly is pertains to the amount of post required.
-------------------- Some members have complained that its too easy to become an offical member, that you can become an offical member in a couple of hours. I think that with the ppd requirement in inacted that those who become inactive will be demotted, something the admins have actively become in involved in doing. I really see no need for an increase. |
|
|
|
 |
Replies
(25 - 49)
|
Oct 23 2005, 06:07 PM
Post
#26
|
|
 Senior Member  Group: Member Posts: 979 Joined: Aug 2005 Member No: 205,020 |
this wouldn't affect the current official members who don't meet the new requirements (if accepted), correct?
|
|
|
|
| *disco infiltrator* |
Oct 23 2005, 06:08 PM
Post
#27
|
|
Guest |
PPD is needed to make sure the person is active NOW and didn't just apply 4 months ago and now decides they want to be active and official and all. Or something. If they made posts 4 months ago and aren't active, dedicated members, why should we promote them?
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 23 2005, 06:09 PM
Post
#28
|
|
 Another ditch in the road... you keep moving Group: Member Posts: 6,281 Joined: Jan 2005 Member No: 85,152 |
hmm.
i would say not. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 23 2005, 09:31 PM
Post
#29
|
|
 Senior Member Group: Posts: 8,274 Joined: Mar 2004 Member No: 8,001 |
Can the previous official member requirements remain the same but different than the in-coming new official member requirements base on the joined date? It’s fair for us.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 24 2005, 01:59 PM
Post
#30
|
|
 Yawn Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 9,530 Joined: Nov 2004 Member No: 65,772 |
I think the 5 ppd for official members should stay the same. 10 would be way to much, and 7 was for mods? i think
And i really do think 50 posts is too small of a number. I see some new members join and post 30 in the first few hours. I think it should be bumped up to about 200. |
|
|
|
| *tweeak* |
Oct 24 2005, 03:54 PM
Post
#31
|
|
Guest |
Hell, I've gotten well over 50 posts in a day before.
|
|
|
|
| *incoherent* |
Oct 24 2005, 03:54 PM
Post
#32
|
|
Guest |
QUOTE(tweeak @ Oct 24 2005, 3:54 PM) Hell, I've gotten well over 50 posts in a day before. me too. i say we go to 250-300.
 |
|
|
|
| *mzkandi* |
Oct 24 2005, 03:55 PM
Post
#33
|
|
Guest |
I say 200-250........
|
|
|
|
| *tweeak* |
Oct 24 2005, 03:56 PM
Post
#34
|
|
Guest |
Yeah, 300 is too high. I say 200 is fine.
|
|
|
|
| *incoherent* |
Oct 24 2005, 03:58 PM
Post
#35
|
|
Guest |
QUOTE Yeah, 300 is too high. I say 200 is fine. alright, since a lot of people have post around the 200 mark for official members post, all in favor of 200 posts for official members, say aye. aye. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 24 2005, 04:02 PM
Post
#36
|
|
|
Another ditch in the road... you keep moving Group: Member Posts: 6,281 Joined: Jan 2005 Member No: 85,152 |
im holding out for 250
nay |
|
|
|
| *mzkandi* |
Oct 24 2005, 04:02 PM
Post
#37
|
|
Guest |
^ huh??? what are we voting on?? what numbers??
|
|
|
|
| *incoherent* |
Oct 24 2005, 04:03 PM
Post
#38
|
|
Guest |
^
QUOTE all in favor of 200 posts for official members, say aye.
|
|
|
|
| *mzkandi* |
Oct 24 2005, 04:04 PM
Post
#39
|
|
Guest |
^ Oh I'm use to James starting the voting......
aye. |
|
|
|
| *tweeak* |
Oct 24 2005, 04:07 PM
Post
#40
|
|
Guest |
aye
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 24 2005, 04:10 PM
Post
#41
|
|
|
Another ditch in the road... you keep moving Group: Member Posts: 6,281 Joined: Jan 2005 Member No: 85,152 |
it confused me when someone else started the vote as well... i was like .. i swear i dont remember that
3 ayes, 1 nay |
|
|
|
|
Oct 24 2005, 04:10 PM
Post
#42
|
|
 Quand j'étais jeune... Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 6,826 Joined: Jan 2004 Member No: 1,272 |
aye. 200 is good enough.
|
|
|
|
| *incoherent* |
Oct 24 2005, 04:12 PM
Post
#43
|
|
Guest |
^x2
sorry kiera i deleted those posts. im getting so confused and realized we had already discussed that. this is all just jumbled together and making me lose track. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 24 2005, 04:40 PM
Post
#44
|
|
|
Yawn Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 9,530 Joined: Nov 2004 Member No: 65,772 |
Aye
200 is a good amount. |
|
|
|
| *disco infiltrator* |
Oct 24 2005, 05:46 PM
Post
#45
|
|
Guest |
Well I guess six have probably already said Aye, but I think 250 would be good so Nay.
|
|
|
|
| *mipadi* |
Oct 24 2005, 06:50 PM
Post
#46
|
|
Guest |
I think it would be better to have a system based on posts per day, if anything. As noted, it's easy to get 50; it's not that hard to get 200, either, and you'd still see people spamming to get up that high. It would be better to have a combination of a minimum posts per day and a time limit. For example, after 30 days, a candidate for official membership would have to have 5 or more posts per day. If a person sticks around for a month and maintains an average of 5 posts per day, they're pretty dedicated--much more so than someone who sticks around just long enough to get 200 posts.
I vote nay on a minimum post count requirement. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 25 2005, 11:05 AM
Post
#47
|
|
|
Another ditch in the road... you keep moving Group: Member Posts: 6,281 Joined: Jan 2005 Member No: 85,152 |
actually the vote is still open, with 5 ayes, and 3 nays
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 25 2005, 11:43 PM
Post
#48
|
|
|
Senior Member Group: Posts: 8,274 Joined: Mar 2004 Member No: 8,001 |
aye.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 26 2005, 07:43 AM
Post
#49
|
|
|
Another ditch in the road... you keep moving Group: Member Posts: 6,281 Joined: Jan 2005 Member No: 85,152 |
with 6 ayes, the motion requiring official members to have a minimum post count of 200 has passed.
|
|
|
|
| *mzkandi* |
Oct 26 2005, 08:51 AM
Post
#50
|
|
Guest |
^ The post per day is 5, right? I forget whether we voted on that or not >.<
|
|
|
|
 |
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: