Print

[Ethelshai]

My suggestion would save the trouble of reviewing each application, while at the same time avoiding the problem of denying someone who was actually legitimate.

So far, I've never really seen many legitimate people being denied the access. And as for the question of liking or not liking a person, this has nothing to do with the application. Only what is said in the text matters. I agree that one must stay as neutral as possible when reading an application. Keeping the system as it is currently is not elitist at all. It doesn't mean that a person will be refused because (s)he doesn't know much, or anything at all about otherkins. We are here mainly because we hope we can learn about ourselves thanks to others who may have experienced similar things. So, as I said previously, to ensure the quality level of what newcomers may read, it is good to keep some selection from the beginning. Hence the need to keep forums as clean from spam as possible.
If a newcomer applying to the site is sincere and sounds respectful in what (s)he says, there is no reason to deny the access. Then, if someone is refused, there is always the possibility to try again.

[Karnanyd]

Should we keep the application system?  Yes.  Very yes.  Does the application form need to be revamped?  Yes, it does.  But you already know my opinions on the application, Sel.

[Selroth]

What you do is on the new user login only, have a rule in the middle or towards the end of the rules, after all of the very important ones that isn't actually a rule, but says, "And if you read these rules, you must put in the code (or an answer to a question): ksjdfkl2" and in the application, one of the required fields is actually a section where that code is entered, or a question is asked... and the answer is in the middle of the rules, so a new member would have to read the rules first before ever gaining entry into the site.

This would weed out spammers, as there could also be a Captcha on the application.

Captcha is sufficient for spammers and is already implemented on the new site.  It's not practical to implement it on the current system.  

Overall, I disagree with an administrator having to accept or deny membership. It gets VERY elitist, and I have encountered places where I cannot get in just because the administrator hates me, or there were completely unfounded concerns over my behavior.

Keep in mind that it IS the administrators that are maintaining, and paying for the site.  Realistically, they can do whatever they want with it.  Access to a website is a privilege, not a right.  It all comes down to how an administrator chooses to run their website - I'm just trying to incorporate the member's opinions into my choices.  It wouldn't be much fun if I was the only person on the website :)

[Kiantis]

I believe that an application, even if a small one, should be kept.
Probably even just for the effort of the writer, demonstrating a minimal interest.
Other than that it's just aobut what's asked in it.

[Shimdrashula]

I like the current application system. If a person who was as shy and kept to them self as I was could join, nearly anyone can use the application.

It should stay. Updated, maybe. But it needs to stay. For great justice.

[TyrantWurm]

::stretches and yawns::

It's been so long since I joined that I forgot how the process of joining went.  I vaguely remember writing a short response to a questionnaire or something... :?

With that in mind, perhaps it would be a good idea to show the General Policy/Purposes and Goals, then ask applicants to tell someone why they're here, or how the Purposes/Goals apply to them (the applicant)...

Or something. I've referred a number of people to this site because it's a good resource for Otherkin information/conversation in general, and I guess the application process is a part of that.

Another (albeit infinitely more cumbersome) idea would be a democratic assessment- that is to say, let the community decide, perhaps posting new applications and allowing users to vote on them anonymously, diminishing  the threat of moderator favoritism.

But that would probably slow the application process to a crawl... Hmm.

[Selroth]

The application is already a crawl since I'm so lazy :)  

But, though I initially like the idea of having the community itself vote on incoming users, I think that'd intimidate people from signing up.  After all, who wants to be judged like that?  I think it's intimidating enough as is.

[TyrantWurm]

But, though I initially like the idea of having the community itself vote on incoming users, I think that'd intimidate people from signing up.  After all, who wants to be judged like that?  I think it's intimidating enough as is.

Funny, I don't remember it being that intimidating.

You could post the content of their application anonymously- that way, applicants could be judged by the community, but it wouldn't reflect on their interactions with the rest of the community, unless they had such a distinctive writing style or something that made it impossible to ignore.

[Cel]

I would say, the application is a good thing, keep it. However, I know people aren't always around to review them quickly as some people would like, and basing admittance off of one person is a bit, well, biased. It could end up Applicant H was reviewed by admin X, and denied, when admin Y would have let it in. So, I would say, have 3 or 4 people review an application, to get a fairer judgment, and, maybe select a group of members for the purpose of reviewing them, people with some free time and a desire to help. Admins would be less burdened, and the process would be faster

[Aurelia]

I would say, the application is a good thing, keep it. However, I know people aren't always around to review them quickly as some people would like, and basing admittance off of one person is a bit, well, biased. It could end up Applicant H was reviewed by admin X, and denied, when admin Y would have let it in. So, I would say, have 3 or 4 people review an application, to get a fairer judgment, and, maybe select a group of members for the purpose of reviewing them, people with some free time and a desire to help. Admins would be less burdened, and the process would be faster

Agreed - before the change over it was a collaborated decision on who was accepted or denied and that seemed to work.  For now, we don't have a new application set up but I know Selroth is working on it so I think when it's in place things will revert back to a group decision between admins/mods :)

[Selroth]

The last system had a method in place where each admin could cast a vote and leave a small comment.  However, it was rarely used.  Most applications were an obvious approve/deny, and ones that weren't would linger in the system for weeks until someone else got to it.  So, there was room for improvement - a reminder system or such.  We lost our email notifications of new members somewhere down the road (which really sucks because I had a perfect archive of applications and replies), but at least that can be re-implimented on the new site. 

Currently, there's no real way for admins and mods to discuss new members unless we make a new thread in the Admin forums (the secret stuff most members cant see).  There's an approve/deny system, and a notification system though.  Soon, there will be an application (right now all we have to go by is username and email, lol.  Essentially everyone's getting approved now :).  The "application" will just be their profile to include a "biography" box and "draconity" box that will soon be implemented. 

Now, I have thought about taking it further.  Instead of admins and mods, how about some select members to form a committee?  Each new user gets a thread, and in a 24-hour period based on the posts in the thread it gets approve/denied.  Or, to go further (since the application will essentially be their public profile anyway), how about it be open to all members?  Yes, that makes us pretty much the definition of an elitist community, but what's different?  In fact, isn't it more fair to be judged by everyone than to be judged by a handful (or one) person?  Sure, they'd feel a bit more shy about it (maybe), but there's little reason for that and I think the pros of the situation may outweigh the cons. 

I'm sorry, but I'll be flat out honest here (I'm not going to hold this back anymore).  Many times, when going through user applications, I've found some absolutely retarded things in there.  I'd share it with other members I trusted, and we'd have a laugh.  Is this making fun of people?  Yes.  But hey - why not?!  Does it REALLY do anyone any good not to?  Are we going to make fun of someone who's otherkin and has odd but thought-out beliefs?  Hell no - we're a community founded on this.  Are we going to make fun of emo retards who obviously live in a fragile fantasy world and clearly suffer from severe escapism and wouldn't really contribute any rational discussion to the community?  I do - like it or not.  Let's get realistic about this shit.

If the application decision process was an open thread, it'd make for some powerful posts and discussions, and give everyone a great opportunity to voice how they feel about the site and where it should go.  It'd be amusing for the amusing applications, and make a very strong guesture of acceptance for those who are accepted.  Wouldn't you like to know how people feel about you?  And wouldn't it feel great if you found out, and it was a positive thing?  And wouldn't it still feel good if they thought some negative things that you could fix, otherwise having never known?  If people don't like something about me, I'd like to know so I could change it... or tell them something I don't like about them >:)

Thoughts?

[Aurelia]

The last system had a method in place where each admin could cast a vote and leave a small comment.  However, it was rarely used.  Most applications were an obvious approve/deny, and ones that weren't would linger in the system for weeks until someone else got to it.  So, there was room for improvement - a reminder system or such.  We lost our email notifications of new members somewhere down the road (which really sucks because I had a perfect archive of applications and replies), but at least that can be re-implimented on the new site. 

Currently, there's no real way for admins and mods to discuss new members unless we make a new thread in the Admin forums (the secret stuff most members cant see).  There's an approve/deny system, and a notification system though.  Soon, there will be an application (right now all we have to go by is username and email, lol.  Essentially everyone's getting approved now :).  The "application" will just be their profile to include a "biography" box and "draconity" box that will soon be implemented. 

Now, I have thought about taking it further.  Instead of admins and mods, how about some select members to form a committee?  Each new user gets a thread, and in a 24-hour period based on the posts in the thread it gets approve/denied.  Or, to go further (since the application will essentially be their public profile anyway), how about it be open to all members?  Yes, that makes us pretty much the definition of an elitist community, but what's different?  In fact, isn't it more fair to be judged by everyone than to be judged by a handful (or one) person?  Sure, they'd feel a bit more shy about it (maybe), but there's little reason for that and I think the pros of the situation may outweigh the cons. 

I'm sorry, but I'll be flat out honest here (I'm not going to hold this back anymore).  Many times, when going through user applications, I've found some absolutely retarded things in there.  I'd share it with other members I trusted, and we'd have a laugh.  Is this making fun of people?  Yes.  But hey - why not?!  Does it REALLY do anyone any good not to?  Are we going to make fun of someone who's otherkin and has odd but thought-out beliefs?  Hell no - we're a community founded on this.  Are we going to make fun of emo retards who obviously live in a fragile fantasy world and clearly suffer from severe escapism and wouldn't really contribute any rational discussion to the community?  I do - like it or not.  Let's get realistic about this shit.

If the application decision process was an open thread, it'd make for some powerful posts and discussions, and give everyone a great opportunity to voice how they feel about the site and where it should go.  It'd be amusing for the amusing applications, and make a very strong guesture of acceptance for those who are accepted.  Wouldn't you like to know how people feel about you?  And wouldn't it feel great if you found out, and it was a positive thing?  And wouldn't it still feel good if they thought some negative things that you could fix, otherwise having never known?  If people don't like something about me, I'd like to know so I could change it... or tell them something I don't like about them >:)

Thoughts?

I disagree with that idea (and shouldn't this be in the admin section to discuss?).  I can see where you're coming from but I think it's taking an "open" community a step too far.  You'll end up with people saying how much they want someone to be accepted and the reason could simply be because it's their friend - not for any benefit to the community or the site - and we could end up being overrun by those not willing or able to get into a proper discussion on topics here.  Which defeats the point of the changes I know you've wanted to make for a while.

Having maybe a handful of regular users allowed access to the application vote system as well as the admins and moderators I think will work well.  But not having it as a free-for-all community wide vote.

[Selroth]

I disagree with that idea (and shouldn't this be in the admin section to discuss?).

Na, I'm cool with other members hearing/voicing on this subject.  Why not?

I wouldn't be too concerned with a buddy-buddy problem, as it'd ultimately be the admin's/mod's call (those who actually ahve the power to hit the approve button).  Also, wouldn't there be many other members objecting if there was a problem?

[Selroth]

Topic continues here.

[Tags:]

Tags: