 |
This page or section is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. This thread was archived on 19 April 2010 by Liquidhelium. |
see also Forum:Rank_Requests_Reopening Forum:Proposed_important_changes_to_the_CC Forum:Referrals_Not_Nominations
Recently the Clan ranks were reopened. It seems to me that many people want a rank just to have it, so I am proposing some requirements to nominate or be nominated for rank.
- The user must have an account here, even if the never use it, for at least 3-6 months.
- The user must be recognized in the cc, and must have been in it consistently for 1-3 months.
- The user must not have been kicked for 2 weeks before nominating, and may have only been kicked once (for bad behavior) in the previous two months.
If I think of more, I'll post them. Alo feel free to comment/propose/etc. JJNW
rwojy 19:25, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
Discussion
Support As nominator. ALSDKrwojy 19:25, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
Support - Add having thorough knowledge of the rules and ability to pass just judgement, as well as no tendency to abuse power. Not actually wanting a rank is a must. I'd also say that self-nominating for ranks be banned, but that's just my own opinion. 
Doucher4000******r4000
19:36, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - I'd also request that the 3-person rule be followed. Why have any rules if you're only following the ones that suit you?
Doucher4000******r4000 19:38, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
Support - Self-nominations should be allowed, but with discretion. As well, why is RS:IAR being done to the How to Nominate in the RFR? Ryan PM 19:48, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think people actually read through the rules before nominating themselves or others. Swiz Talk Review Me 20:53, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
Support + modify - I say allow one kick in two months, but no more. Every user can have a bad moment or two.
- REDIRECT User:Matt is Me/Signature 21:26, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
- If someone got kicked one day before they nom, and it was two months, they shouldn't be allowed to nom. What I am asking is for a period between the last kick and the nomination. OLJEILNrwojy 21:31, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
- Mmhmm... I see your point now. But it must be at least a week before, and there must be no others in the two month period.
- REDIRECT User:Matt is Me/Signature 21:32, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
- How about this? TOZRIYErwojy 21:36, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah okay, but I would say two weeks.
- How about this? TOZRIYE
- REDIRECT User:Matt is Me/Signature 21:36, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
Support - I also agree with Not Lvl 3. Everyone has bad days.--Cheers, 
Yoda
21:27, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
Support - Per Not Lvl 3 
Zap0i Talk
21:29, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
Supporting two weeks - Everybody has bad days. FredeTalk 21:41, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
Question - What about the account age? The current rules state that the account must be active for atleast 8 weeks to a few months, yet there's at least 2 nominees whose accounts have been active for less then that, what will happen to them? Swiz Talk Review Me 21:55, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
- Their request will be nullified.
- REDIRECT User:Matt is Me/Signature 21:56, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
- Support - But these things do not concern me, as most users who vote already take them into account. I find we are getting a lot of requests by people who are in timezones already jam-packed with ranks. Some timezones have 0 ranks sometimes, 2 max. If one has to leave, the cc is rank-less and open to chaos. People say we need more ranks, but in specific timezones, not another 10 in the popular US afternoon time. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 06:12, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
None whom previously lost rank for misuse should be reranked. Now I am generally all about second chances (but start to draw the line after 20) but considering how few openings are left, we need to be smart about where those slots go. Having this extra requirement will help narrow the field to those more deserving and trusted. If the slots were infinite I wouldn't add this, but we need to find ways to narrow the field.--Degenret01 16:55, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
Question - When is someone 'well-known'? 
Oil4 Talk 18:34, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - If they seem like giving them the ability to kick in the CC would be better for the rest of the community, and they were kicked the day before for no good reason (like telling a "dirty" joke that wasn't particularly offensive and anyone who was young enough to be offended wouldn't understand it anyway...cough cough...I'll never let that go), they should by all means not be counted out. 20:58, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - To be a good ranked person, someone must be able to successfully rid the CC of rule-breakers, and help others. That is the only thing that matters. Many of the nominees may be good, dedicated users, but that does not mean they will fullfill that quality. That means we will have more "useless" ranks that may want to help, but are too rarely presented with the opportunity. What I am saying is that every rank needs to:
- Be very familiar with the rules. Best way to ensure that is for someone to have been on the wiki and in CC for a while.
- Be ready and willing to enforce the rules. All nominees should demonstrate abilities to be fair and keep a clear head in any circumstances.
- Be very helpful. Not tell someone "Go look it up", but actually answer people's questions when possible.
- Be everything to the CC what admins are to the Wiki. Impartiality and high level of involvement is a must. We do NOT need new ranks that are only in the CC for half an hour once a week.
Just my piece of mind. Doucher4000******r4000 23:02, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
Question - Should we have a requirement to how many edits a person have made on this wiki before requesting to have a rank? 
• NnK Oliver • (600613) talk 01:04, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
- RFR nominee's shouldn't be judged on their edit count but on their activity in the in-game community. Swiz Talk Review Me 16:57, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - You should qualify your provision about not being kicked to count only kicks that were made due to bad behavior. If the candidate in question has been kicked due to a rogue admin who is abusing power, then that kick certainly should not count against him or her. An example of this occurred just last week, when the entire clan chat was emptied by some admin. --Liquidhelium 03:07, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
- Support and Comment - both that and kicks on mistake should be taken into account. I have never been kicked for bad behaviour, yet I have been kicked twice so far because of a mis-click from an admin whose name I won't comment, that was just trying to add me(in fact, I lol'd when he pm'd me 5 seconds after the kick feeling sorry). Well, I support per what the nominator said. Brux Talk 01:53, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
Comment on #3 - Yes, well, I was just kicked for making fun of a troll (See C Teng's talk page for details), and I've already had a passed RfR. So, yeah, that last one = reason for kick needs to be taken into account. http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/3921/thehimmemote.pngGone. 22:20, February 12, 2010 (UTC)
Comment- I was kicked once but i dont wanna tell the reason
Dragonslayer2010 Talk • Guestbook • My website 
22:40, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
Question - Since my previous question hasn't been answered, I'll ask it again: When is someone well-known in the CC, and how would you make sure they have been using it for an X amount of time? Oil4 Talk 18:28, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
Answer - You know when someone well known enters cc, as most of the active members Say 'Hi' or somthing. Buti suppose some active members arnt that well know or are quiet. User:Supawilko/SkillSupawilko 10:40, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
- But wouldn't the voters already think of that in an RfR? Why write it down? That may only create more confusion... Oil4 Talk 19:45, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
Closed - Changes to RS:RFR have been implemented. --LiquidTalk 01:58, April 19, 2010 (UTC)