128 replies to this topic

[Rocket]

Somehow I feel that Advanced+ member is still a bit elusive although the requirement is really simple. A bit too passive for the applicant since the applicant wouldn't even know whether he has been put up for nomination or whether the nomination is successful or not. Private rank application is at least much clearer. You made your application and if the application is rejected, you would know that there is something further to improve on.

 

Advanced+ is pretty simple, people just need to have either made a significant contribution to the forum through things like programming etc or through a decent amount of posts of an adequate quality (usually around 400-500).

 

and be generally "liked" if you rub people the wrong way they'll probably put off voting you in.

[Waser Lave]

and be generally "liked" if you rub people the wrong way they'll probably put off voting you in.

 

Technically that's not really meant to be part of the criteria for voting but you're probably less likely to be nominated in the first place if you've pissed everybody off I guess.

[Galadriel]

Somehow I feel that Advanced+ member is still a bit elusive although the requirement is really simple. A bit too passive for the applicant since the applicant wouldn't even know whether he has been put up for nomination or whether the nomination is successful or not. Private rank application is at least much clearer. You made your application and if the application is rejected, you would know that there is something further to improve on.

 

It really isn't that elusive. I sometimes go through the member list and look for people with 500+ posts to nominate (though I haven't in a while), and I am sure other members do this too.

 

It basically comes down to not having spammy posts and not being a menace (haha). Believe me when I say that we don't try keep people from getting into Adv+.

[NapisaurusRex]

It really isn't that elusive. I sometimes go through the member list and look for people with 500+ posts to nominate (though I haven't in a while), and I am sure other members do this too.

I look at peoples' post counts as I'm doing every day stuff on codex and keep track of people who are close in my head.

I know other people do something similar to us, cause usually the day I go to nominate someone, I wake up to find it's been done by someone else.

[Grandmaster]

I look at peoples' post counts as I'm doing every day stuff on codex and keep track of people who are close in my head.

I know other people do something similar to us, cause usually the day I go to nominate someone, I wake up to find it's been done by someone else.

 

If nomination isn't that much of issue, then the issue lies with voting? How many votes are necessary for such nomination to be successful?

[Dan]

There are Retired members of many different attitudes and temperaments, and not getting along with some of them does not preclude a promotion.

 

However, not getting along with any of them will definitely preclude a promotion

If nomination isn't that much of issue, then the issue lies with voting? How many votes are necessary for such nomination to be successful?

 

51% or higher of "yes" votes, with a minimum of 10 votes and 3 days of discussion.

[Waser Lave]

If nomination isn't that much of issue, then the issue lies with voting? How many votes are necessary for such nomination to be successful?

 

Just need 51% or more of a minimum 10 votes.

[Grandmaster]

51% or higher of "yes" votes, with a minimum of 10 days and 3 days of discussion.

 

Just need 51% or more of a minimum 10 votes.

 

I'm a bit confused. If 10 votes have been casted with at least 51% "yes" votes on the same day of nomination, the nomination is successful immediately or still need to wait 13 days more?

[Waser Lave]

Here's the official criteria:
 

The criteria for a member to be accepted into advanced upon nomination (as just made up by me):

1. A minimum of 10 votes and 3 days to discuss.

2. 51% or higher votes saying yes.

 

3. Nominees must have made a post within the last 30 days in order to be nominated. (Why nominate someone who isn't active anyway?)

4. Re-nomination after a failed vote can only happen after 1 month has passed. Check the area for locked topics to see if the user you are nominating has already been nominated less than a month ago.

5. Nomination polls should have only two option choices to ensure all polls are standardised, should be only a single choice (do not select the Allow Multiple Choice setting) and the votes should not be set to public. The first option choice should always be 'Yes' and the second option 'No'. Any attempt by the poll creator to influence the results of a poll after voting has started, for example by altering the poll options, may invalidate the results and may be regarded as a warnable offence.

 

[Grandmaster]

4. Re-nomination after a failed vote can only happen after 1 month has passed. Check the area for locked topics to see if the user you are nominating has already been nominated less than a month ago.

 

That really complicated the issue. The member must really be diligent enough to check through all the nomination threads for whoever that have failed the voting one month ago. Most people may not even re-nominated the person again since it could fail the voting again.

[Waser Lave]

That really complicated the issue. The member must really be diligent enough to check through all the nomination threads for whoever that have failed the voting one month ago. Most people may not even re-nominated the person again since it could fail the voting again.

 

Not really, successful nomination threads are hidden so the only threads visible in the voting section are the official guidelines and any failed nominations within the one month waiting period (which are then hidden when they expire).

[Galadriel]

That really complicated the issue. The member must really be diligent enough to check through all the nomination threads for whoever that have failed the voting one month ago. Most people may not even re-nominated the person again since it could fail the voting again.

 

This isn't the case. Those who deserve it get in. I imagine that the nomination process isn't up for debate given that it works and nobody has an issue with it.

[Sweeney]

The nomination process is absolutely not up for debate. It is a system that works, aside from the recent trend towards "likeability" voting, which this announcement was partly intended to curtail.

Advanced+ voting should absolutely not be subject to personal feelings about the nominee.

[Fikri]

Advanced+ voting should absolutely not be subject to personal feelings about the nominee.

 

[Dan]

The nomination process is absolutely not up for debate. It is a system that works, aside from the recent trend towards "likeability" voting, which this announcement was partly intended to curtail.

Advanced+ voting should absolutely not be subject to personal feelings about the nominee.

 

What are the factors that advanced+ voting should be subject to?

3 days** Dan made a typo. 10 votes minimum, 3 days of discussions.

 

Yes, my mistake - I meant 10 total votes, not days. Apologies @Grandmaster

[Rocket]

Advanced+ voting should absolutely not be subject to personal feelings about the nominee.

 

I'm sure it shouldn't, but that's not going to stop someone from voting no and not clarifying why they did so.

[Sweeney]

What are the factors that advanced+ voting should be subject to?

It's outlined in the new announcement about our rank system

I'm sure it shouldn't, but that's not going to stop someone from voting no and not clarifying why they did so.

Nothing.
I'd like to think that at least a majority of our members are capable of voting as they are meant to, though.

[Dan]

It's outlined in the new announcement about our rank system
 

 

 

 

This is based solely on your lack of spam - you do not need to be a popular or particularly active member.

 

Is this going to be reflected in the advanced+ voting forum, or are we all meant to catch the odd sentence in a post that 90% of users will skim over?

[Sweeney]

Is this going to be reflected in the advanced+ voting forum, or are we all meant to catch the odd sentence in a post that 90% of users will skim over?

Yes, the former.

[Dan]

Yes, the former.

 

If it's purely based on non-spam posts, then is there any point of having a user-based voting system at all? 

 

I'm asking mainly because personally I think the way that we've been doing advanced+ so far is absolutely fine, and the system has no need to be changed (as you strangely echoed earlier)

 

From what is made clear in this thread, advanced+ members actually vote based on a number of factors at present and member attitude tops the bill. Not non-spam post count.

[Futurama]

If it's purely based on non-spam posts, then is there any point of having a user-based voting system at all? 

 

I'm asking mainly because personally I think the way that we've been doing advanced+ so far is absolutely fine, and the system has no need to be changed (as you strangely echoed earlier)

 

From what is made clear in this thread, advanced+ members actually vote based on a number of factors at present and member attitude tops the bill. Not non-spam post count.

 

 

Then half of the people shouldn't have advanced+. There are too many people that already have advanced+ anyways.

[Sweeney]

If it's purely based on non-spam posts, then is there any point of having a user-based voting system at all? 
 
I'm asking mainly because personally I think the way that we've been doing advanced+ so far is absolutely fine, and the system has no need to be changed (as you strangely echoed earlier)
 
From what is made clear in this thread, advanced+ members actually vote based on a number of factors at present and member attitude tops the bill. Not non-spam post count.

To enable the recognition of outstanding early contributions, and to avoid promoting members that have escaped the attention of staff as spammers.
I agree that the system works as is, aside from the recent trend towards voting on "likability" (this is what I "strangely" said earlier).

What people vote on, and what people are meant to vote on are not the same thing. It works because on the whole the userbase's perception of "member attitude" aligns pretty well with members who reach 500 without spamming. But then there are outliers who, according to the ranks stated intention, should have been promoted, but failed their nomination. This is not fair to those members.

[Dan]

To enable the recognition of outstanding early contributions, and to avoid promoting members that have escaped the attention of staff as spammers.
I agree that the system works as is, aside from the recent trend towards voting on "likability" (this is what I "strangely" said earlier).

What people vote on, and what people are meant to vote on are not the same thing. It works because on the whole the userbase's perception of "member attitude" aligns pretty well with members who reach 500 without spamming. But then there are outliers who, according to the ranks stated intention should have been promoted, but failed their nomination. This is not fair to those members.

 

I'm still confused. 

 

Just answer this if you could, if I don't like a member's posts because of his/her attitude, am I allowed to vote no and explain my reasoning in the comment section (as has been the case for a long time), or do I now need to automatically vote yes because this user has 500 non-spam posts?

[Rocket]

If it's purely based on non-spam posts, then is there any point of having a user-based voting system at all? 

 

I'm asking mainly because personally I think the way that we've been doing advanced+ so far is absolutely fine, and the system has no need to be changed (as you strangely echoed earlier)

 

From what is made clear in this thread, advanced+ members actually vote based on a number of factors at present and member attitude tops the bill. Not non-spam post count.

 

I'm with Dan on this one, if it's based on post count then shouldn't everyone who reaches 500 posts automatically get Adv+ and do away with the voting process??

 

The whole point of voting it is if you "feel" this person deserves it or not, not just soley based on their post count.

 

Feeling whether you like this person or not has a huge impact on the voting system. Someone can have 500 posts and no one knows who the fuck they are. Or they can have 500 and everyone knows them, but you don't "feel" they are ready to be adv+.