| Subject: my opinion |
Author:
-Chaos
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 23:31:46 02/09/02 Sat
In reply to:
Neocount
's message, "More on ranks (My ideas)" on 20:07:57 02/09/02 Sat
I says two thumbs up. and a big toe. I likes.
-Chaos
>I pretty much like the system we have now, but there a
>few problems I think need to be addressed. The major
>problem I see, is the Squiring process, which pretty
>much came to a grinding halt. Time conflicts, leaves
>of absences, lack of interest, and other things seemed
>to always interfere. Although I like the idea of
>"training", and it fits the theme well, I just don't
>think the 1 on 1 relationship works out that well. It
>caused a real bottle neck, keeping 80% or so of the
>guild at the lowest rank.
>
>An automatic system would be able to handle stress
>better, but ensuring that a squire is ready for
>Knighthood would be more of a problem then with the 1
>on 1 method.
>
>Here is the ranking system I thought up (a variation
>on previous ideas):
>
>First Rank:
>Page (better name for Initiate). Keep the joining
>method open door, you get this rank by posting on the
>MB and becoming a member.
>
>Second Rank:
>Squire. In order to advance to Squire, you must be an
>active member for a month and be recommended for
>advancement by a member of rank Knight or above.
>Squires should be dedicated to learning of the guild,
>and they should actively study the rules and such.
>
>Third Rank:
>Knight. For a squire to advance to Knight they must
>pass a "test", like the one we do now, but updated :)
>With no "sponsor" to drill it into their head, they'll
>have to really know it from their studies as a Squire
>to pass. In order to take the test, they must be a
>Squire for a month and must let the KoRT know they are
>ready for it. Knights are expected to help other
>members, and perform duties for the guild. They
>should be generally knowledgable about the guild and
>the games we support.
>
>Fourth Rank:
>High Knight. For a Knight to advance to High Knight,
>they must be a Knight for at least 3 months, be
>nominated by a KoRT and voted in by the guild. High
>Knights are distinguished Knights who have proven
>their ability to lead. A stepping stone to KoRT.
>
>Fifth Rank:
>KoRT. Elected to 3 month terms. Any High Knight or
>current KoRT can "put their hat in" for the election.
>I think 3 is a good number for KoRT. So the guild
>votes, each member picking up to 3 of the candidates,
>and the top 3 vote earners are KoRT.
>
>Some explanation:
>The time requirements are to keep new members from
>advancing in rank quickly and then "burning out" or
>turning out to be other then they initially seemed to
>be. You would need to be a member for at lest 5 or 6
>months in order to become a KoRT under this system,
>and even then you would have to be voted in by all the
>members. The reason why there is a 3 month time
>requirement between Knight and High Knight is because
>there is a huge difference between the ranks. A
>Knight is someone who is interested in helping the
>guild. A High Knight is a Knight with leadership
>abilities and a potential KoRT who needs to prove they
>will be sticking around for awhile. Rank flow would
>be pretty good under this method I think. Members
>could advance more quickly, there are no 1 on 1 bottle
>necks, but advancing to Knight would be a bit more
>difficult than now I think, which is a good thing. Of
>course, members who just wanted to play games and not
>help could do so and stay a page. In addition, it
>might help keep the whole election process friendly if
>High Knights who felt the current KoRT were doing a
>good job did not enter the election.
>
>Anyway, this is just a "rough idea" I thought up.
>Maybe it will help get the discussion going again.
>What are your thoughts on this or other ideas posted
>below? If you have a new idea for a ranking system
>you could post that as well.
>
>Semper Fi,
>Neocount
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 