Player application and member recommendations

Nalo Jade · Post by **Nalo Jade** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 9:10 pm

Possible consequences ... We should all contribute ideas for that then...

KISS

1. The recommended player does not meet ALFA standards but only needs more mentoring = No punishment.

2. The recommended player does not meet ALFA standards and is deemed incapable of meeting them = Some minor punishment like: the member that recommended the player is not allowed to make auto-recommends for 6 months. (can still recommend someone but will likely be taken with a grain of salt by Admissions team)

3. The recommended player does not meet ALFA standards and is deemed incapable of meeting them AND caused a disruption in the community (IG or in IRC/Forums) = Moderate punishment like: the member that recommended the player is not allowed to make auto-recommends EVER. (can still recommend someone but will likely be taken with an ounce of salt by the Admissions team)

4. The recommended player does not meet ALFA standards and commited a ban worthy offense in IRC/forums or in game = Maximum punishment: The member that recommended the player is given a strike, and never allowed to auto-recommend again (can still recommend someone but will likely be ignored and/or laughed at by the Admissions team.)

So my "submission" would be a tiered set of consequences based on how badly the recommended player failed...

1 = train player / no consequence to member
2 = send player back to OAS / 6 month ban from auto-recommend
3 = send player back to OAS / perma ban from auto-recommend
4 = Ban player for life / Strike issued to member + perma ban from recommend

Nalo Jade · Post by **Nalo Jade** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 9:13 pm

Though this doesn't apply to NWN2 currently...

I would also recommend that the new player be directed to a server of the Admissions team's choosing, and that they be restricted to that server until a 3 month period has passed...

This way they aren't being brought in to a "friendly" server where the DM team may be biased...

and we should have a limit on how long a member is subject to the "sins of the recommended" 3 months seems long enough to me.

Demson · Post by **Demson** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:23 pm

Thanks for bringing this up, it's appriciated. Knowing people care about these issues makes my life as PA allot more enjoyable.

Posted: 30 Sep 2008 18:03 Post subject: Player application and member recommendations

Like Xerxes mentioned in his thread last week (see below), I've got some gaming friends and know some folks in other projects who are intrigued by ALFA, but who are put off by the application process. I'll bet most of you do too. Can we please give some serious consideration to letting folks in with a simple recommendation from a current member?

It would be wonderful to see the servers start filling up again.

Player Shortage

Please stay on topic folks, discuss retention and other bits of drama elsewhere.

Thanks,
-Bill

The application process, in it's core and soul, is sound. I am not going to write out all the why's and how's, we have an archive that can explain most things and if you have any questions, I'll be happy to deal with them. Suffice to say that in my time in Admissions as DM and PA, I've seen the current app process pay off. We've gotten allot of good people in and hold out others you don't want to see in before we can mentor them (an offer some of them didn't take).

I do agree that we have issues with presentation and wording. It's off-putting and confusing. I have been working on this and will continue to work on this. It'll all come together with the new website that is being worked on.

The written form really isn't that much work. It's really quite normal for many PW's to fill in such a form. Our current form is just some data gathering and a biography interview. DM's will often require biographies anyway. In fact - AD&D and P&P is much about penning characters down on paper, isn't it?

People who don't want to bother with the biograpy can simply approach and meet a DM on the OAS to see if membership would work out for both parties involved.

And applicants can put in ALFA members who recommend them. If you have anything to share on an applicant, simply PM me about it and we will consider it. In fact, it will matter allot. It has in the past.

It would indeed be nice if we could standardise invitations and recommendations into our new website.

But I don't see why we should change our current system. The current form sets up a membership account and does some data gathering to this end. It also asks some questions about roleplay - this can be skipped if people want to be accepted on either of the available OAS.

New membership is the PA's responsibility exactly because we don't want everyone and anyone to simply be able to walk it without anyone looking after them - I will need something to work with and right now that's the written form (with or without the biography interview, even OAS applications require the form to be send in). This doesn't mean your opinion and input isn't vallude, but my responsibility as PA isn't cancelled out by a recommendation.

I don't have the time to go into all the suggestions raised here, sorry. I am reading and considering them though so keep it up.

Senor T · Post by **Senor T** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:37 pm

I tend to feel we could use new players and I'd be very willing to let people in on recommendations with a probationary period. For whatever reason, the application process is likely perceived as onerous (the word itself, "application," has lots of negative connotations).

Let's try it and see if it works out. We could limit the trial in any number of ways: 10 applicants total, you name it, then follow up and see how they're doing. If it works, great, we've decreased the barrier to entry, which would be a wonderful thing. If it doesn't, we can either decide to throttle back the probationary admissions (like zic's punishing the recommender suggestion) or cancel it altogether.

One thing is clear: if we don't try it, we'll never know if it would work.

Demson · Post by **Demson** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:45 pm

Coincidently there is currently a applicant on a prohibation period... He is joining Nalo Jade's campaign and has been accepted on those grounds.

I'm not against the idea of a prohibation period in certain cases (especially nwn1) - in this case Nalo's campaign functions as OAS. The catch being that Nalo is actually a member of Admissions as OAS1 DM.

Nalo Jade · Post by **Nalo Jade** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 12:23 am

BTW as I said earlier in the thread, I agree with Demson that there doesn't need to be a change of this sort to the application process...

Maybe not for the same reasons...I.E. I don't think ALFA would be infected with unqualified players ... I don't think we would see a significant increase in players worth the potential risk of drama that may ensue if a recommended player was found to be unfit.

Taking yourself out of the equation and trusting an anon body of reviewers and unbiased OAS DMs is a good way to not be in my present predicament...

I.E. if the player I vouched for as an OAS DM turns out to be a "bad apple" ... I am solely responsible.

Brokenbone · Post by **Brokenbone** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 12:26 am

I recall there was a tempest re: DM Apps within the last calendar year, where it ended up getting a preface / adjustment to more or less say "mention whoever's vouching for you and skip most of the basic questions", or something like that. Still an agreement to DM within the bounds of what the community has agreed is acceptable, but more or less a shortcut was provided.

A vouching system for memberships isn't a bad idea, but in all honesty, do current active members actually have a rolodex of ten people each who are eagerly awaiting ALFA membership? Doubt it, but again, could pilot any program for a short term, see how it goes, and keep/cut the program based on results.

Maybe have the existing vouching member agree to mentor their new join for some minimum of two or three sessions, just to get out the basics that often the OAS would've done. Things like "no running" or "you'll want an FR deity listed for your PC" or "don't send tells across the server if you're bleeding to death", etc. Guess some final PM of "I mentored him and he's great" or "I mentored him and he's horrible" to whoever cares (PA?) would be how you'd close the loop on that process.

Nalo Jade · Post by **Nalo Jade** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 12:34 am

Brokenbone wrote: -snip- but in all honesty, do current active members actually have a rolodex of ten people each who are eagerly awaiting ALFA membership? -snip-

...and only willing to join if they get a *nod*...

I'd like to see the numbers waiting to get in, before we fix something that isn't that broke.

Not that I think it would really hurt anything either ... *shrugs*

Do we have someone that is waiting right now?

Have them send in an app that simply states "I know so and so"

If the member vouches for them, and they are willing to jump on the OAS I'm sure we can find a DM to give them a quick adventure and show them the ropes...

wvincenti · Post by **wvincenti** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 12:54 am

I'd have one most likely, with a few more possible members.

-Bill

zicada · Post by **zicada** » Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:04 pm

Here's the current idea, that will go into the new website before launch, let me know what you think. Its not set in stone yet, but likely will be something very close to this:

- Current ALFA Members in good standing get a new menu option named 'Invites'

- Here, they can type in the email address of someone they want to invite and press submit. The invite is then saved in our database.

- The invitee gets an email saying they have been invited to ALFA, with a link they can click on, that takes them to our application signup. It currently looks like this: (http://zic.darktech.org/drupal/applications/player_new)

- The username of the person who invited them is allready filled out, they just need to fill out the rest, and decide wether they want to OAS first or send written app right away.

- The app then shows up for the appreviewers to reivew as normal. Once the appreviewer accepts, they're in.

*****

I think the reason many of you here want to 'skip' the app process isn't applying itself, but the way it looks and feels right now. That is changing with the new website, aswell as the information on where to get the haks and how thats done etc etc.

I think this approach should hopefully make everyone happy.

The argument against skipping the app-process is that spending the 20 minutes or so typing in those words shows that you are serious about membership. If you can't be arsed to do that, you simply show that you arent the type of player we're looking for. That argument has too much merit to be dismissed no matter what the alternative is imo.

Ideas ? Comments ?

Demson · Post by **Demson** » Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:26 pm

I'd like to add, and me and Zic discussed this on IRC, is that it would be nice for inviters to have some comment space to vouch for their invitee.

zicada · Post by **zicada** » Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:30 pm

Demson wrote:I'd like to add, and me and Zic discussed this on IRC, is that it would be nice for inviters to have some comment space to vouch for their invitee.

Quite obviously, makes perfect sense. I'm on it.