Joining OSF - A Few Notes

    You really want to go down that path..I'll give ya a few reasons next time we meet.

    make sure your got a box of tissues at the ready you cry baby.

    "Aspire to Inspire before you expire." "life.............is a state of mind."

    Edited once, last by DMC_RULEZ (July 6, 2015 at 9:37 PM).

    • Official Post

    Right now Rob has something like 9 or 10 yes's and 0 no's, and toga has fewer yes's and many more no's. Is it fair to say that both have equal chances of getting in?

    I can see that this system is totally flawed the way it is now. In terms of a vote's value, I have considered making those with more posts count more than those with fewer, but that would not be fair, either.

    Let's look at some examples. If my memory serves me correct, Tanktop recently voted "no" in an application (idk for who). Tanktop has very few posts, but took the time to login, just to voice his opinion on that one application. Tanktop is in TS often and plays just as frequently, so to me, his vote should be worth 100 votes by holy and arson who both hardly play Crysis and if they do join TS, they typically add nothing of value (the same is probably true about the forums).

    Today I was thinking that if you can receive the required amount of votes (10 currently), then you can use the =nOSF= tag during the trial period, but to gain full membership, you'd have to convince some number of voters to change from "no" to "yes". Then again, why even allow a member to put a fake OSF tag in their name at all if there are so many members against them joining? I'm really not sure what to do right now.

    If my idea above is crap, then we need someone to start thinking outside of the box in order to come up with a voting system that actually works.

    Quote from "NecessaryEvil @ Tue Mar 02


    I can see that this system is totally flawed the way it is now. In terms of a vote's value, I have considered making those with more posts count more than those with fewer, but that would not be fair, either.

    I understand your intention but as you said it would be impossible to be fair on this one. We have "big gun" members like SCANNER or ThorSnaer who either are currently busy managing the important stuff or just do not have the time to update themselves on the forums (when I join after one day there are like 90 new posts). What I am saying is that any vote has to weigh the same.

    Let´s just keep it simple and decide for a necessary majority of "yes" votes or for 10-more-yes-than-no-votes system independant of the =nOSF= trial time.

    rhnreqez9zad3hut0ooq.jpg

    Edited once, last by Ripley (July 6, 2015 at 9:37 PM).

    Quote from "NecessaryEvil @ Mon Mar 01

    The only problem with implementing this new rule is that it is unfair for the rule to take effect on applicants after they've submitted their application.

    Quote from "NecessaryEvil @ Tue Mar 02

    Right now Rob has something like 9 or 10 yes's and 0 no's, and toga has fewer yes's and many more no's. Is it fair to say that both have equal chances of getting in?

    Today I was thinking that if you can receive the required amount of votes (10 currently), then you can use the =nOSF= tag during the trial period, but to gain full membership, you'd have to convince some number of voters to change from "no" to "yes". Then again, why even allow a member to put a fake OSF tag in their name at all if there are so many members against them joining? I'm really not sure what to do right now.

    My point of view: I have 10 yes-votes and 0 no-votes. I am under the "trial membership" effect even though I made my application before the voting system (Though I did agree to test the voting system). I think that the "trial membership" idea should be tested on Tioga's application rather than my application. I kinda "woke up" after Evil mentioned me as an example in Tiogas application.

    0j18luls0gj0xsuh26qw.gif

    Edited once, last by RobtheRobot (July 6, 2015 at 9:37 PM).

    How long is the "trial" time for potential new members? and do we have this outlined somewhere so new members can read and familiarize themselves with these updates?

    -Sniper777

    Edited once, last by Sniper777 (July 6, 2015 at 9:37 PM).

    Yes, I have to admit that it is pretty hard to find all the info through all these pages because of this discussion. Maybe you should edit the first posts to have these rules so new players don't have to go through all the pages to look at discarded ideas and new ideas, thereby getting confused.

    I seem to get the hang of "remote-desktoping" the servers. Seems like an easy task to restart the servers. Also, seeing as I am on the forums pretty much every day, I can easily check if the servers are down.

    0j18luls0gj0xsuh26qw.gif

    LOL evil

    If you guys were to take off the trial membership thing for rob and have it only apply to me, that would be discriminating even more. Besides, it is best to have a random stratified sample when choosing candidates for picking something. (I learned that in my sociology class :P)

    I have waited a lot longer than you for my votes. I haven't gotten a single no-vote. I agreed to try out the voting idea and nothing more. I think it's only fair that I am getting a reduced "trial-time".

    0j18luls0gj0xsuh26qw.gif

    And I think its fair that if I have to deal with all these checks and balances purposefully against me, so should anyone else who had an open app at the time of the changes.

    i also suggest that a persons vote be either a yes or a no.

    having a conditional vote gets confusing. if a person is not quite ready to vote yes or no, they can state why, but not that a yes vote is coming, once the conditions are met, then the person can vote yes.

    therefore, you can only vote yes, or no.

    and also, we should have a time limit on applications, if an applicant has not received the required votes in x days (whatever, 10, 20, 30, etc) then the thread is closed and a person can reapply in y days (again, whatever)

    just my 2 pennies.