Membership criteria

[Bob]

It was brought of in another post, but I think this is something which is worth having a separate discussion about:

We didn't reject that many and tbh that is one of the things that I would change if I were doing it again. If a criteria is 'any friend' then you basically commit to having anyone in the guild because everyone knows someone. They get in via the back door and all of a sudden you do not know the people here any more. I'd be tempted to take a stricter view of things, not necessarily in respect of this specific application, but as a whole for the guild.

As we saw from the Marhiqna's application thread, we already now have a good example for a situation where it ain't all clear what would be the best decision. If we only go for, as TL said, the "any friend" criteria, than we would pretty soon find the guild filling up really fast, and I don't think that is something we want... It is at least something I don't want.

But than the question is, what is the best way to deal with it? Should we just say that every decision if based on the Officers' discretion, or should we lay down more clear guidelines than that?

I think we ought to take into account the other members view when somebody is applying, and not only base our decision on what the sponsor thinks. This goes especially in those cases where many members think the same (negative) of an applicant. All this is something we can hide behind the "Officers' discretion" label - but is it a good way to go?

[Gorion]

yep, i totally agree, the final decision should be up to the officers.
 
the members comments only serve as a guideline afaik

[Othbarty]

Hmm... Im unsure about what my view is here... On one side, if you have a friend that wants to get in, he should be able to get in. On the other side, the officers should be able to control the flow of players based on whatever.

Id say that if a member has a friend that wants in, let him in unless there is lots of negative mojo surrounding the dude. As long as he got a sponsor that posts why he wants the player in (RL Friend, good basball player, etc) and how well he knows the person hes sponsoring, that should be good enough. The one sponsoring cant be a initiate, and has to be a full fledged member. (Which imo should go for alts aswell).

The initiates has to live up to the officers expectations, and behave in a suitable manor during their trial period, and when the trial period ends, the officers decides amongst them self wheter or not the initiate should be accepted as a member, get a extended trial period if in doubt or be booted out of the guild. Both the sponsor(s) and the initate should be made aware of the desition at this point. Making the trial period one month by default, but changeable if the officers feel the need for it. I dont think that being in the guild for one month should grant a initiate a memberstatus.

This way, members can request that a friend get to join, and the officers get to decide wether or not to keep him/her in the guild.

[TeaLeaf]

Personally I would move to a 'why say yes' policy rather then the 'why say no' policy we used to employ for friends.  If there is a good enough reason to say yes then do so, otherwise decline.

TL.

[Othbarty]

Personally I would move to a 'why say yes' policy rather then the 'why say no' policy we used to employ for friends.  If there is a good enough reason to say yes then do so, otherwise decline.

TL.

Hmm.... That sounds like a good idea tbh... Lets get them to give us a reason to accept, rather then trying to find a reason to decline.

[Bob]

Like your idea about a changeable trial period Oth, as locking it to a fixed month perhaps isn't that smart

And also as TL suggested, to adopt a "why say yes?" policy, instead of a "why say no?" would make things a bit easier for us. The burden of proof than lies on the applicant and his sponsor(s), and not on us!

[TeaLeaf]

Like your idea about a changeable trial period Oth, as locking it to a fixed month perhaps isn't that smart

We always used to say Initiate period is usually one month, but we reserved the right to extend or shorten that period as Officers saw fit.

TL.

[Bastet]

Extended it a fair number of times if ppl wherent online much, or had a warning flag turn up at any time. Whiter then white still applys, everything ppl do under SOG flag rubs off on the guild.