Beefing up official member requirements |
  |
 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: