GhostMjr - NO - 28/12/04

Anonymous · April 05, 2005, 01:37:38 PM

QuoteOriginally posted by TeaLeaf@Apr 5 2005, 11:42 AM
In desparation I thought I should refer to my last comments from the previous application as I thought they may help me a little. Then I came to the startling and simple conclusion that I was trying to put the cart before the horse.

Yes he may apply for Charlie Company membership as per the membership rules and criteria in the same way as any other member. There is no specific rule that says he cannot. Although we have asked him not to, he does not have to take on board our 'friendly words'.

I will leave my further deliberations for such time as a supported application is actually forthcoming.

Sorry for the delay.

TL.
[post=81298]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]

Thanks TL.

You came to the same conclusion as me in that he should be allowed to apply because we do not publicise a rule saying people cannot after so many failures.

Doorman · April 05, 2005, 03:55:43 PM

I chickened out and voted 'not yet'. Nothing is forever is it. He might get a personality transplant.

OldBloke · April 05, 2005, 07:26:21 PM

Before we get too democratic ...

Consider the implications of saying he can (providing he can get sponsors) apply again and *then* reject his application for a fourth time. Not pleasant.

Personally, I think it's much better for him to accept our 'three strikes and you've blown it' rule (we can always write it up if necessary) than to go through this process again with the distinct possibility of being rejected again.

Anonymous · April 05, 2005, 07:50:33 PM

Here is the text of the PM I sent to Scot tonight (before I had read OB's response). Hopefully it fits in?

QuoteHi Scot (GM)

Sorry for the delay in replying but I have been considering very carefully your request of me. You said in your message that you were unsure as to whether you should apply for Charlie again. I think that you should apply for Charlie again but my personal opinion (and it is only my opinion) is that you should wait for about 3 months before doing so.

I appreciate that you may find it disappointing that I respond in that way but please let me explain my reasoning.

As you have stated in your request your previous applications were maybe not best timed. I realise that you are incredibly keen to be a Charlie Company member and I think that, in the past, you have maybe tried too hard to fit in and be part of the team. As you mention you have recently carried out Admin duties in UKCSL and your posting in the forums and conduct on the servers is now reaching what we would expect from a Charlie company member. That is why I believe you should continue in your present way for about 3 months; to give yourself a track record of carefully considered forum responses, continued good teamwork on the server and, I assume, continued good work as a UKCSL admin.

If you continue in your present way over the next few months then I assure you that I will act as your proposer for Charlie Company membership at that point. I feel you will give yourself a better chance of success if you take this approach.

If you are open to some advice it would be don't try too hard; be yourself, don't try and emulate others, keep giving thought to your forum responses before posting them as it has made them much more readable.

Finally please be aware that if Albert and I propose/second you then we would not vote in the application as it would be unfair to do so.

I hope that you receive this message in the spirit in which it is sent and trust that you continue to grow in the community. As I promised if you continue in this way then I will propose you in a few months.

Thank you for thinking of me as your proposer and I hope things keep going well.

Regards Mike (BB)

I decided on my course of action after going and re-reading the Charlie Company Requirements.

I think that he has made great progress but I was not ready to propose him. I personally feel that he has reached the right level but I have not seen consistency and that is why I decided to decline to be his proposer. I know he will be disappointed but I think the guy can make it if he gives himself a chance. He loves dMw (how many people do you know who would keep trying so hard to join?) and if he can continue in this way I feel he would be a stalwart member. I just hope he takes the PM in the right spirit? :unsure:

TeaLeaf · April 05, 2005, 11:08:51 PM

Nicely worded BB.

TL.

Anonymous · April 06, 2005, 12:39:25 PM

I had a reply from GM. He has taken my PM in the spirit in which it was offered

OldBloke · April 06, 2005, 05:16:14 PM

Hasn't stopped him from posting complete and utter bollox though ...

http://forum.deadmen.co.uk/index.php?showt...indpost&p=83387

I know he means well but sheesh :eyebrow:

Anonymous · April 06, 2005, 06:12:25 PM

QuoteOriginally posted by OldBloke@Apr 6 2005, 04:16 PM
Hasn't stopped him from posting complete and utter bollox though ...

http://forum.deadmen.co.uk/index.php?showt...indpost&p=83387

I know he means well but sheesh :eyebrow:
[post=81399]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]

It'll take more than me to stop him doing that I'm sure

TBH it's what makes him Ghosty

Gh0st Face Killah · April 09, 2005, 01:19:54 AM

I thought we had agreed 3 strikes and your out myself. I know hes trying but I thought a descion had been made and if thats the case we should stick to it.

Anonymous · April 09, 2005, 11:00:03 AM

QuoteOriginally posted by Gh0st Face Killah@Apr 9 2005, 12:19 AM
I thought we had agreed 3 strikes and your out myself. I know hes trying but I thought a descion had been made and if thats the case we should stick to it.
[post=81541]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]

We hadn't agreed anything. OB stated that was how it was going to be - it hasn't been discussed, hasn't been publicised and frankly I don't like the idea of anybody never being allowed to apply again - people change, get older wiser(/stupider? me looks in mirror and grins).

I do not think we need such a rule when a proposer and 2 seconders are required. If 3 people think somebody is worth proposing then it is worth a vote. If the person is a liability then surely he would not find sufficient people to propose/second him?

Anonymous · April 09, 2005, 11:02:23 AM

QuoteOriginally posted by BlueBall@Apr 9 2005, 10:00 AM
We hadn't agreed anything. OB stated that was how it was going to be - it hasn't been discussed, hasn't been publicised and frankly I don't like the idea of anybody never being allowed to apply again - people change, get older wiser(/stupider? me looks in mirror and grins).

I do not think we need such a rule when a proposer and 2 seconders are required. If 3 people think somebody is worth proposing then it is worth a vote. If the person is a liability then surely he would not find sufficient people to propose/second him?
[post=81554]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]

The above reads more aggressive than I would like or mean. Please bear this in mind when reading it

I'm tired and can't think of the right words.

OldBloke · April 09, 2005, 11:53:49 AM

Read fine to me. But I disagree.

When we reject someone we inform them of the reasons for the rejection and what they need to do to increase their chances of a subsequent successful application. As GMjr has applied three times he has had this advice twice yet has not managed to achieve the standard we demand. There must be a limit, surely?

Anonymous · April 09, 2005, 12:16:04 PM

QuoteOriginally posted by OldBloke@Apr 9 2005, 10:53 AM
Read fine to me. But I disagree.

When we reject someone we inform them of the reasons for the rejection and what they need to do to increase their chances of a subsequent successful application. As GMjr has applied three times he has had this advice twice yet has not managed to achieve the standard we demand. There must be a limit, surely?
[post=81560]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]

Glad I didn't upset anyone

I'm not sure. Do we need a limit? Should we completely bar anyone from ever applying again? Should we make it after 3 unsuccesful attempts then you can only join by being invited?

I'm not comfortable with completely barring people from reapplying. At the end of the day we are just a gaming community and I think this is all getting a bit serious. Yes we should have high standards and yes we are THE gaming community

but a lifetime ban on reapplying just seems too over the top to me.

2p <- mine

OldBloke · April 09, 2005, 01:23:21 PM

Ahh but we're not saying they're not welcome in the community, just that they're not suitable for the next level up. GMjr is a tag-wearing dMw'er after all.

Anonymous · April 09, 2005, 06:01:06 PM

QuoteOriginally posted by OldBloke@Apr 9 2005, 12:23 PM
Ahh but we're not saying they're not welcome in the community, just that they're not suitable for the next level up. GMjr is a tag-wearing dMw'er after all.
[post=81566]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]

That's half my argument. Much of the criticisim has been around concerns people have regarding his behaviour on other servers (I'm not aware of him causing probs but others have intimated that there are probs). As he wears the tag already should we be considering taking it from him? To an outsider seeing the tag there is no diff between Bravo and Charlie they just see dMw so are we shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted?

B"Devil's Advocate"B