Becoming a Member

I'm not sure how long I'll be in this clan, seeing as I seem to have lost all credibility, but I think this is necessary. Forst of all, we've gotten a lot of new members. I think we should bring up the required amount of votes to get in. I also think that there should be something like a week-long period after someone applies, for the members to get toknow them, and then they can vote.

I remember needing to send a demo of me playing well on their server for a certain clan. I know that's a bit excessive, but that means that something brought them to that point. I second the motion to make the applications a little more lengthy and harder.

I have to agree on this. Though I do not have anything in particular against any new members, I do believe that it is too easy as of right now to join the clan. I think that people applying should have to meet with an admin on an empty server. They choose their best class and the admin will play the same class maybe? And they see how good the person is, and judging by that and other factors (personality, etc) they can approve or disapprove of them.

Right now i don't think the skill level is an issue Greezy. We can let in members as long as they are cool people, fun to play with and willing to learn. I think the issue here is:

-is the new member mature
-is the new member a person that will fit in
-is the new member a troublemaker or not

We already discussed in another topic that we agreed that new members should have a trial period of one week so i changed this in the 'Becoming a member' sticky. They can only put the tag on one week after the application even if they were a regular on the server before that.

Are there any other requirements?

I think skill is more an issue for if you want in the scrimteam or not.

I take back what i said before and i DO think we need a skill requirement in order to be able to join the clan. Otherwise is we take in bad players and they wear the {PULP} tag our reputation is damaged.

So i don't know what the requirements should be. Any ideas on this?

Certain score/rank?
KD ratio?
Playtime hours?
Playtime per class?

Rank and KD ratio seem fair enough. No idea what the limit would be and honestly, rank isn't the best factor.my rank is like 157 but my KD ratio is .98 which is just average imo. Observing how people play could go along way to determining their entry. That would mean considering stats and gameplay when voting for someone. Age limit also?

I have to disagree with an age limit. My personal stance is that younger players are fine unless they use the mic too much. And from what I've heard lately from complaints in the clan, it's not really younger members causing the problems. Figuring out exactly what to do is going to be tough though.

My idea's:
-New members need to go trough a trail period of at least one week. Afterwards we will vote if the player is allowed to join or not because then we will actually know the player.
-New (and current) members should be mature enough to get along even if they don't like each other. To qoute GTA II: 'Respect is everything'
-Players should have an overall KD ratio of above X.XX (don't knwo what a decent one is)
-Scrim members should wear a special tag, just to protect the scrim team reputation. (a clan can be fun and professional at the same time).

Off-topic: Why did I learn how to play TF on Pulp again? So hard to improve my KD-Ratio after weeks of being a total noob TT.TT

Firestar wrote:I'm not sure how long I'll be in this clan, seeing as I seem to have lost all credibility, but I think this is necessary. First of all, we've gotten a lot of new members. I think we should bring up the required amount of votes to get in. I also think that there should be something like a week-long period after someone applies, for the members to get to know them, and then they can vote.

That's what the [PULP] tag is for. Watch anyone with a [PULP] tag especially carefully, and hold your vote until you've seen them long enough to feel confident that they'd be a good addition.

I personally think that you shouldn't be allowed to cast a vote unless you've watched them on the server at least once. (I'm pretty sure most people already do that, but as far as I'm aware there isn't any rule against it yet.)

Another thing I would suggest is instead of requiring four votes, the votes required would be based off of a percentage of the group (like 33% of the members and 50% of the admins, or something).

The only issue I have with KD ratios is...we do want some members that are great medics. If you play medic all the time your KD will tank like a rock.

I totally disagree with the KD ratio once again. I am playing spy, my KD ratio will be inferior to a scout or a sniper and it's normal.

I think that the one week trial period+vote is probably the best idea. We can't really judge someone right away. So and so could be 13, but they might be respectful and mature so we can't judge by age. They might have a .4:1 KDR but might be a kickass medic. There's too many factors so we can't really decide based on first impression. A trial period would provide adequate time to get to know this person.

Also, the tag next to the {PULP} tag for scrim team members sounds smart. I found this cool backwards s in the character map. ƨ
We could try and put that next to the {PULP} tag.
Ex. {PULP}ƨ Young Greezy
Or I found this letter thing that looks like an s and t together (For scrim team obviously) : ƾ
I actually kinda like that one better. {PULP}ƾ Young Greezy

Both of those symbols are awesome, I like that idea.
For the [] brackets, I guess that's kind of what I'm talking about, but Eraserhead said those were for after they were voted in. If everyone can refrain from voting for a week, then they vote, then another week, and then they're in is what I was thinking of.

Another thing is that after a week, most everyone should know them. This means it would probably be even faster getting voted in, even if it takes a few more votes.

I totally disagree with the KD ratio once again. I am playing spy, my KD ratio will be inferior to a scout or a sniper and it's normal.

Perfectly said. I have almost a 1.0 KD but that's from going sniper and scout all the time. Any time I play a class I'm not that great at, it goes down easily. Basing your votes off of observation seems like the best route (at least for the regular clan, not necessarily scrim team). I also like the percentage of members and admins instead of just two of each.

Great to see everyone is so involved with this, it will make our clan even better.

Lets me make a summery:

-no age limit for members (are you sure?????)
-rank and KD ratio does not say all but i think we can agree that if you have a KD ratio below 0.5 you are not worthy, or maybe we should set it a bit higher even. I agree that it does not say everything but it does say something
-we agree on not voting right after the application but after a trial period

What i'm still missing is a simple way of measuring a players skill in some way. So we are going to vote at the end of the trial period if a player is skilled or if he is a cool bro? I think that system isn't very professional. We need to have a system that lets through only players with a certain skill level that can be measured objectively. Otherwise you would need a special panel of judges that decides if a player is skilled just like Tendo said about the clan requesting the video. In that case the other members would have public vote that counts as one vote together with maybe 4 'judge' votes.

Off topic: We have had a scrim tag since we made up the other tags, don't you guys read the sticky about how to join the clan http://forum.pulpfortress.com/become-a-member-f7/procedure-for-becoming-a-member-t100.htm
I don't mind on changing the scrim tag though, the current one is pretty boring but i think the one Greezy suggested does not combine very well with the current admin tag.

On topic: I still think that there should be an age limit for admins. Right now i'm thinking about 17 or 18+.

Another idea that i have is that we will only let in new members once a month. It will be on the same day each month and all the members who still have the [PULP] tag will be judged. Some will get recommendations on how to improve their skills and some will get the {PULP} tag.

Eraserhead wrote:

On topic: I still think that there should be an age limit for admins. Right now i'm thinking about 17 or 18+.

I don't think this is a bad idea. Having a limitation would provide numerous advantages. Admin privileges should be wielded by a mature mind, one not easy influenced by piety disagreements, and instead should have the clans best interest at heart. Other clans look down upon young administrators as well. I couldn't help but notice today's challenge to a scrim. Our clan should not have to apologize for underage members/admins, it allows them to use ad hominid to degrade our stature. To be taken seriously we need aged charismatic leaders, instead of what would appear to be children filled with unwarranted self importance.

Anyway, there's my two sense.

If we do instill an age limit, I'd say 16+. I think that 16 marks a turning point in a lot of teens where maturity actually starts to kick in. (I know, I go to a school full of teens) And anybody caught lying about their age (Such as when I caught DualGunna, who I got to admit his real age, 12) should be kicked out. No current underage members that are acting respectfully should be kicked out either though.

Eraserhead wrote:Great to see everyone is so involved with this, it will make our clan even better.

Lets me make a summery:

-no age limit for members (are you sure?????)
-rank and KD ratio does not say all but i think we can agree that if you have a KD ratio below 0.5 you are not worthy, or maybe we should set it a bit higher even. I agree that it does not say everything but it does say something
-we agree on not voting right after the application but after a trial period

What i'm still missing is a simple way of measuring a players skill in some way. So we are going to vote at the end of the trial period if a player is skilled or if he is a cool bro? I think that system isn't very professional. We need to have a system that lets through only players with a certain skill level that can be measured objectively. Otherwise you would need a special panel of judges that decides if a player is skilled just like Tendo said about the clan requesting the video. In that case the other members would have public vote that counts as one vote together with maybe 4 'judge' votes.

Off topic: We have had a scrim tag since we made up the other tags, don't you guys read the sticky about how to join the clan http://forum.pulpfortress.com/become-a-member-f7/procedure-for-becoming-a-member-t100.htm
I don't mind on changing the scrim tag though, the current one is pretty boring but i think the one Greezy suggested does not combine very well with the current admin tag.

On topic: I still think that there should be an age limit for admins. Right now i'm thinking about 17 or 18+.

Another idea that i have is that we will only let in new members once a month. It will be on the same day each month and all the members who still have the [PULP] tag will be judged. Some will get recommendations on how to improve their skills and some will get the {PULP} tag.

Well I agree with everything you have said except for a few thngs.
1. Some if the admins currently are 15 ans that is less than 17-18 such is me and firestar I think. I don't think firestar and. Are doing a bad job and I think both of us have some experiancE and we aren't really abusing our power and being immature.
2. If kids are in the clan and they have a apeaky voice I'd say theyhav to not use their mic if they have one if sowmone complains.

miht wrote:Another idea that i have is that we will only let in new members once a month. It will be on the same day each month and all the members who still have the [PULP] tag will be judged. Some will get recommendations on how to improve their skills and some will get the {PULP} tag.Well I agree with everything you have said except for a few thngs.
1. Some if the admins currently are 15 ans that is less than 17-18 such is me and firestar I think. I don't think firestar and. Are doing a bad job and I think both of us have some experiancE and we aren't really abusing our power and being immature.
2. If kids are in the clan and they have a apeaky voice I'd say theyhav to not use their mic if they have one if sowmone complains.

Typing on your iTouch is a bitch isn't it, my youngin?

What i'm still missing is a simple way of measuring a players skill in some way. So we are going to vote at the end of the trial period if a player is skilled or if he is a cool bro? I think that system isn't very professional. We need to have a system that lets through only players with a certain skill level that can be measured objectively. Otherwise you would need a special panel of judges that decides if a player is skilled just like Tendo said about the clan requesting the video. In that case the other members would have public vote that counts as one vote together with maybe 4 'judge' votes.

Having a KD ratio of maybe .7 or so aint so bad. I don't really like the submitting videos idea, but KD is an easy way to judge. Perhaps using someone's stats as an additional tool (best moments of a single class or overall)?

On topic: I still think that there should be an age limit for admins. Right now i'm thinking about 17 or 18+.

I absolutely agree, and I mean no disrespect to any younger admins whom have been nothing but professional. Admins are supposed to be senior members of a community and there shouldn't be a large amount of them. I'd say pulp has hit its limit for now on admins lol.

Another idea that i have is that we will only let in new members once a month. It will be on the same day each month and all the members who still have the [PULP] tag will be judged. Some will get recommendations on how to improve their skills and some will get the {PULP} tag.

Also a good idea, perhaps the first of last day of each month? A few days before a thread is created to post your interest in being judged, and only say four applicants are accepted each month (the number isn't entirely important). This restricts the growth of the clan in a way that brings in the best members.

Young Greezy wrote:If we do instill an age limit, I'd say 16+. I think that 16 marks a turning point in a lot of teens where maturity actually starts to kick in. (I know, I go to a school full of teens) And anybody caught lying about their age (Such as when I caught DualGunna, who I got to admit his real age, 12) should be kicked out. No current underage members that are acting respectfully should be kicked out either though.

I'm not inclined to think that your opinion is entirely without bias, given that you're a 16-year-old. Moreover, while I can definitely respect that some people that are "underage" are capable of behaving appropriately in a group of older people, having an age limit that doesn't affect current "underage" members of the guild because they are acting respectfully is a complete waste of a rule.

Here's why. That sets a precedent for folding on the age limit because someone is capable of acting respectfully. Having "limits" with ambiguously defined exceptions completely negates the point of the limit in the first place. The point of an age limit is to preclude the possibility of underaged people bringing problems to the clan that typically tag along with people of their age group. The point of an age limit is not to keep out younger people who act like douche bags. We've got common sense for that. Common sense tells us not to let in total pricks.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying "KICK ALL UNDERAGED PEOPLE IN THE CLAN!", I'm saying we need a better justification than them acting respectfully to let them be exceptions to an age limit. Maybe we don't want our rules to retroactively affect people in that way. The whole "you can't get punished for a crime you committed when it wasn't a law" mentality. But then, it's not like they've grown out of it. So it's tricky. I'm not sure how we could justify it without making the rule totally pointless.

Here's why. That sets a precedent for folding on the age limit because someone is capable of acting respectfully. Having "limits" with ambiguously defined exceptions completely negates the point of the limit in the first place. The point of an age limit is to preclude the possibility of underaged people bringing problems to the clan that typically tag along with people of their age group. The point of an age limit is not to keep out younger people who act like douche bags. We've got common sense for that. Common sense tells us not to let in total pricks.

I have to agree with you, Impalsi. I suppose those who are currently admins and underage may be omitted from the rule. But then again that causes double standards. I'd rather have a clear cut rule than an ambiguous one.

I think a strict age limit with a Grandfather clause would do nicely.

However, I advise that you avoid setting too high an absolute age limit. My proposal would be to have two age limits: one hard, one soft. Set a low absolute age limit (≈14) where nobody below that is allowed entry. If they're above that but below a second limit (≈14 to ≈18), they should be subject to extra scrutiny and more restrictions.

What kind of restrictions?