What do you think would be a fair measure to let people out of the Proving Grounds

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nyx

Flaccid Member
Oct 14, 2004
4,683
0
0
Planet Hell
Marklar
0.00₥
long tall smiley said:
All they should need to prove is the ability to not be a moron. Not everyone can be funny, hell, none of you fuckers are....:fly:

Past personalities on other forums should have no bearing for or against their acceptance on here.
As much as I like the sound of that, and as fair as it seems, I still have an automatic reaction of wanting to reject some potential members on first sight.
 
M

Mondoz

Guest
An open poll for the general membership, with 2/3rds approval required for admittance, to be held 2 weeks after joining, or after a few hundred posts (non-spam posts)?

Something based on reputation, allowing members to influence their rating?
 

shamwow

Curly_Sue
Oct 13, 2004
66,888
709
41
Marklar
0.40₥
F33nX said:
how about a vote once a week by the mods and admins, based on earned marklar (not donated) and general behavior in the proving grounds?
basing it on earned marklar would only reward spammage
 
I

I Robert I

Guest
long tall smiley said:
All they should need to prove is the ability to not be a moron. Not everyone can be funny, hell, none of you fuckers are....:fly:

Past personalities on other forums should have no bearing for or against their acceptance on here.
I agree on the being funny part. My funny bone broke during birth and hasn't quite healed yet, though I like to think that I can contribute to the forum in other ways.

If they don't act like morons, don't spam useless crap (like spamming one-smilie-posts) and atleast try to contribute to the forum in a positive way I think that'd be enough. And of course if they start being morons after being granted full membership they should instantly be put back in the PG for an unspecified amount of time. IMHO, a single hidden goatse link should be quite enough to be sent back.
 
K

Kabn

Guest
it has to be subjective, and it can't be a poll for the same reason democracy doesn't work: the majority won't actually learn all about the issue before voting, and groups of people are fickle and easily swayed by bad information.

i'm pretty much with Dirk: have multiple people who actually care enough about the forums to do it watch over the PG and upgrade members when they have shown promise. have a forum that just those "mods" and the admins can see where they can discuss and decide which prospective members should be allowed full access to the forums.

this will not only be a relatively effective screening measure, but it also promises untold amounts of funny in the interaction/complaints/angst of those who have not been chosen yet and their reaction to one amongst them getting the nod.
 

shamwow

Curly_Sue
Oct 13, 2004
66,888
709
41
Marklar
0.40₥
how about full fledged members have the right to use the thumbs deal in the PG...enough positive unique votes gets them upgraded to full member status? this may have already been said
 
Status
Not open for further replies.