Re: Ft members
A Drunk, Fri Feb 02 2007, 03:54AM

I think that is a great idea. The thing about the 100 word think is that they could just lie. The thing about people posting how they act I like alot. I think if people post how the person acts then more people can see how he is. I think also we need to terminate people more.

Re: Ft members
TwItcH, Fri Feb 02 2007, 03:56AM

i greatly agree with Drunk, i think if your inactive for over two weeks on the site, you dont want to be in FT anymore. might seem a little short BUT it takes 2 seconds to post something fro chrits sake, show that you wanna be in FT and ur not just free loading

Re: Ft members
A Drunk, Fri Feb 02 2007, 04:00AM

Well, i know alot of REGULAR FT's that have been in the clan for along time and never visit the site. We have to take those people into consideration.

Re: Ft members
gLiTch, Fri Feb 02 2007, 04:34AM

i know i havent been in FT even for 3 months... But i do notice the overwhelming amount of member.. Mainly myself as well. I dont want to give off the wrong impression, but when i go into FTC, 60% of the server or more at almost all the time are FT members lol. At this rate, in 6 months, the only ppl that will be playing in the server will be FT lol.

Like i said, i dont want to give off the wrong impression. But this was soemthing another server like a dust rotation server i hope would cure. Another server = splitting up the members.

Twitch has a good idea. I like it.

Re: Ft members
Cha Siew Bao, Fri Feb 02 2007, 12:18PM

I say twitch has a good idea about the nomiations and clan membership...I mean probably before around sept. I knew everyone wore the [FT] or [FTA] tag. Nothing personal its just that all of a sudden all these people started wearing the tag and i was like "who the fuck are these people?" I'm not saying that their conduct is bad and disruptive or anything of that nature but the membership rate spiked over the past few months. Sure we've always had regs that have played in the server and their putting on the new [FT] tag doesn't really bother many people unless they're going "hey why did he get the tag and not me". But when someone puts on the [FT] tag and the specs are all wondering whether he/she had been nominated already thats telling you something. Like recently we had a player [FT] Melon on FTC.....i still don't even know whether he was nominated but eventually he was banned for not following the motd rules about only being invited to join. He claimed to play surf most of the time and since most of the surf players just randomly appear in FTC with the [FT] tag most of the FTC regs don't know them.

Glitch I don't think splitting up the members is that good of an idea. I mean, like i just mentioned, look at how surf and ftc players are almost torn apart... Recently with the new surf server being put up and a plee for funding of the current surf players have been swapping back and forth but before that....FTC regs didn't know Surf regs and vice versa.

Lastly i dun agree with you twitch about the 2 weeks not being on the forums. Me, in particular, don't post much if at all on the forums. I've been playing in FTC for the longest time i can remember and look at my posts!! Joined a year ago to the forums, 30+ posts....we have people trying to join the clan which have gotten 30+ posts in a couple weeks. If you start calling inactivity solely on the forums then you're gonna be forcing alot of spam posts. Mebe take into consideration a) people who told us they'd be taking a massive leave of absence like in the case of Steel and Kami and B ) Look at their activity on the servers as well?

Re: Ft members
emerican, Fri Feb 02 2007, 07:27PM

yes we need to enforce maturity more. definately. our newest members are very mature (wildcard, jigg, glitch just to name a few) and i think we can all learn something from them. They all posted great intros, and they didnt beg to be nominated.

Re: Ft members
Amped, Fri Feb 02 2007, 07:46PM

I don't agree with the two-week inactivity suggestion. I haven't played CS:S for more than an hour in over three weeks probably. I visit the site daily but really only post when necessary(as in, not in Wu's threads).

The fact is I've been inactive because I'm active elsewhere. I've had mountains of work, and for the little time I had free, I played BF2142. Sue me.


You can't make a finite rule for inactivity. It just won't work.

Re: Ft members
Knightrider, Fri Feb 02 2007, 08:21PM

The maturity issue is a big issue among a minority of FT members. Although I am not going to point out any names, I have problems with a couple of them members. The age limit should not be proposed as a limit simply because there are more people that play Counter Strike that are under the age of 18 then there are that play above it. And most people I see that are above that age limit usually go Cal or solo, so who would we be appealing to? I know that this does not necessarily conclude much evidence since the last two members to be nominated (Jigga and Wildcard) were above 18. This was discussed in another thread before, which I can't remember which one, but we should keep the 18 or equivalent rule. Maturity will be based on the regulars that have played in game with the player. This player must have shown maturity in following the rules, conduct, and a mature sense of personality. This, would be explained by the person nominating them like in most threads that are put up for nominations. The current "30 posts, 100 hours" rule for a person to be nominated is good, but it leaves yet to be desired. I believe that this in turn is going to let some of the wrong people in the clan.

The Dust2 server idea was only thought up by me (And Nostie) because we had thought we would like FT to expand, thus giving more members. I do not see anyone with FTC in their name at all anymore, and the only reason that we had it in the first place was because it was people that was part of the competitive branch. This was to validate members that were a part of it, not to separate people. I was in FTc but I still participated in Office and Surf. A separation of members is a bad idea. The whole idea like I said before of the Dust2 server was so that FT would appeal to newbies that are new to the community so we would have a more diverse selection. Even then, people still want into FT weekly even because of the Office server alone.

And as for inactivity goes, it should be up to the person that is inactive to let us know that they are going inactive, or if they are just plain and simple leaving the clan. Sin left a pissy and stupid note on his leave, but at least he did it instead of idling until someone terminated him. Unless you have a case like Bobby Digitals case where you get into a car accident and are unable to play for a while, then you have a different story. Showing us that you are on leave is solely up to that individual.

The forum rule...is not a rule. I don't believe that you have to participate in the forums in order to be "active". However, it is strongly recommended that you do participate in the forums especially if you are active in the server because sometimes input is important (Such as the kever thread) and as well as nominations. For instance, a member could be nominated that has given trouble that only an admin that is inactive on the forums would know about. That's why it's strongly recommended for one of those reasons. Not only that, it's a great place to let newbies know who you are and encourage them in introductions. Not every new member has met some of the people that are on here.

I really have nothing else to say, just responding to the thread in general and expressing my opinion to those that were mentioned.

Re: Ft members
TwItcH, Fri Feb 02 2007, 08:29PM

Well, i just dont think that people are getting involved enough with the site.....im one to talk .. i havnt posted much either, but ima try really hard (ya maybe 2 weeks is strict and should be like a month......) but, this has gone way outa hand. we have players that dont post at all after they get in.

rule #1. If your a member, YOU MUST post a REASONABLE amount of SENSIBLE posts on the "NEW THREADS" section on the home page.

exceptions would be like you all have stated, work, or other serious life happenigns or problems (i personally am leaving June 7th for Basic Training" so things like that should be excused BUT i think members that have been in FT for a LOOOONNNGGGG time and dont post should just be eliminated off the site...

Re: Ft members
Knightrider, Fri Feb 02 2007, 08:36PM


Like I said, I don't believe there should be a limit. This could be a turn off to some possible members. It sounds like bullshit, but not everyone posts (Such as Cha had pointed out about himself.) Some valuable people like Steel do not post on the forums, but he is a highly valued admin on Fish Tank Classic. Therefore, the rule should not apply to anyone simply for this reason.


Once again, this should not apply. Members that have been here a long time (Such as Cha, Steel, ect.) should not be terminated. If it was added onto server inactivity with no reason for leave then that is a different story, but we already have guidelines for those. I don't believe that there should be a forced way to bring people to the forums.

However, I do agree that people should not bump old threads as a way to accumulate more posts. That's why removing the 30 post limit would be a good idea and the person nominating as well as the rest of the community can observe the person's posts as spamming or not spamming. This should let us know enough about the person's maturity.

Re: Ft members
TwItcH, Fri Feb 02 2007, 08:59PM

kool, thnx for all the input guys ;D

Re: Ft members
GOD., Fri Feb 02 2007, 09:15PM

i dont know exactly hwo logn ive been a member, but ive been a member for some time. i agree about the intro. completly. but i dont agree so much on immaturtiy, the term "imature" is too vague. if person a and person b are talking about sex, person c might consider it immature etc... so it will be too loose and im sure there will be alot of complaints. we just need to define immature and put it in motd, just stating "no immaturity" will cause problems.


also i agree about posting about the players behavior before nomination.

Re: Ft members
Knightrider, Fri Feb 02 2007, 09:39PM

Talking in Caps tells us alot. *Ahem*

Re: Ft members
GOD., Fri Feb 02 2007, 11:38PM


?

Re: Ft members
Noname|Boom, Fri Feb 02 2007, 11:54PM

What about FTers that play FTC but don't go on forums at all? like devil, patio, etc. etc. We must kick them out? Also, I think that we (like night said) that we shouldnt have a limited time, (also like night said) it might "turn off" members.

Re: Ft members
Wildcard23, Sat Feb 03 2007, 12:34AM

I'm weighing in.

I made the new introduction sticky with the intent that people would get a better understanding of the clan admissions process. I attempted to make it clear that merely making it to 30 posts and 100 hours was not a guaranteed way into the clan.

If we want to eliminate the 30 forum posts rule and replace it with verbage to go along the line of you must be an active member of the forums then I agree that getting rid of the minimum # might be a good idea. It would force new members to simply become an active member of the forums without having an expectation of reaching the 30 forum posts and getting into the clan.

The new members would be forced into an expectation where there were no established minimum rules and would have to remain an active part of the community and be patient in waiting for a nomination. With that said, I do understand the point of the minimum rules and I can work on changing the verbage in the sticky to try and be more clear so there is no more expectation. But this is up to community to be decided upon.

I don't believe that being inactive in the forums in regards to some members is correct as members such as Cha and Steel don't post that much in the forums but are an important asset on the server. Obviously leaves of absence from schoolwork and military service are understanding.

I also get annoyed if peope are purely opening up old forum posts to contribute a "LOL" or an "I agree with that." I also tried to make it clear in the sticky that we as a community want to hear their opinion in the forum posts but some new members are just opening up old posts. The only course of action we can take is to let them know through PM or wait until someone nominates them and then say that we think they need to wait longer due to the fact that they were merely posting nothing of meaning.

I feel the ultimate responsibility lies on the current members of the community to not allow in new members who aren't contributing to the community and to enforce those members who are simply forum spamming.

Just simply my opinion.

And thank you to everyone who has provided great comments about Jigg, Glitch, and I.

Re: Ft members
BuBBLe GooSe, Sat Feb 03 2007, 01:17AM

Interesting thread. Maturity is key, yet difficult to define in this sense. By that I mean, many mature individuals might talk about cocks and gay secks from time to time. Is anyone suggesting that we have a 'code of conduct' that says what is admissible and what isn't? Limiting what a person may/may not say infringes on individual liberties and free speech, but will it benefit server operations? ROFL!!! I'm not falling for this twice in the same week because as a previous thread CLEARLY showed, nobody wants individual freedoms infringed upon. The US and Canadian Constitutions/ Bill of Rights allows for free speech so long as what is being said does not infringe on anyone else's rights and I thinks its a good model for us to follow as well.

I will point out the obvious though. Many 'mature' individuals often times play CS and say/do things that we normally wouldn't say/do in 'polite company' because playing is very cathartic in that sense. While you wouldn't talk about 'hawt man sauce' at the dinner table, in school, or at your place of work, while playing you may let your hair down and act immature as a release from daily stresses. For example, "How do you make a 4 year old cry twice?" "Rub your bloody cock on her teddy bear" While in polite company you might scoff or slap the person who told that joke, online you might be more inclined to say "lol" or "rofl".

So I guess its up to us to look for maturity more when nominating individuals. Maybe we should have the "Prime Directive" read that we are looking to recruit players who are fun to play with, play often, AND are mature. Adding the ladder will compliment the current former 2 assertions.

How do you judge maturity? I suppose its relative to each individual but I think that the 30 posts quota helps out and heres why... If someone spams, you know they ain't mature. The only problem is that in a clan that doesn't really have defined leadership roles, nobody is really there to post 'Don't spam cuz you're not getting into FT that way' in their introduction thread. We should collectively step up and call out the spam and most importantly, have other members to follow up and post similar sentiments. That would be key.

If you look at the list of new FT's who were voted in while the 30 post quota was in effect, you will see that many of them are still on forums posting. The 30 helps to break the ice and more people are inclined to continue to contribute well after they reached the necessary 30. I particularly like the 30 because it gives us a chance to gauge maturity based on what is said. If you see a player posting on a thread but they treat it like a AIM message box, then that is telling. Likewise, when you see a person post an intelligent post with capitalized letters, proper punctuation and grammar, then if you're like me, you get a stiffy. I think that if a person shows respect toward the english language even when they don't need to, then perhaps they are more inclined to show respect towards rules and other FT members. Its just a thought, but if you look at some case studies you might agree.

We do have a 2 month grace period for members who are AFK from forums and ingame. I don't even see the point if we don't take action once the timelimit is up, regardless of what teh timelimit might be. I think that Kalibur was on the right track when he tried making a 'group termination'. Remember that he only made 1 proposal and I was going to do the same thing around the end of '06 and label it 'house cleaning' but never got hte chance because I was busy. The only problem Kalibur had was that people started saying, "I vote yes to X and no to the rest" or whatever. I think that the option should never have been presented. It should have been a Yes to all or a No to all approach. And I agree that we should get rid of AFKs, but it seems like we get a bit lazy.

We can't really force forum participation on active and long-time FT's. Thats why when the opportunity for a new Voting procedure came about, we brought in the playing/posting quotas as a way to encourage both areas. Not much can be done on the past, we can just look towards the future and hope that more new members will see the value/fun in forums.

Re: Ft members
BuBBLe GooSe, Sat Feb 03 2007, 01:43AM

Intentional Double Post...

Wildcard, I realize that you are somewhat new around here and in the short time that you have joined the community, you have been a positive and well liked member. I see your statement about getting rid of the 30 post quota and I'll give you a little history on why we even have it and it may sway your view, but it might not.


That's the thing. Prior to the quota which I believe we just brought in last Oct/Nov, we were working off of the subjective, 'play regularly' idea. Many people would post introductions asking what they had to do to get in and it was met with several replies of "play more and post more". The thing is, many of these players ended up posting every week or every other week askin, "am I in yet?" and things of the like. There wasn't an objective way to gauge what it means to be a 'regular' yet we draw membership from a pool of regulars. Arguments ensued with, as memory serves, a person was nominated while only having played ~27 hours. We got into a tiff over what constituted a 'regular' because all we knew was that a 'regular' was one who was active and played a lot. But whats 'a lot'. We have a bunch of members with a bunch of subjective ideas on the matter so having an objective and definative # like 100/30 would mean that we wouldn't spend half of the player's nomination thread discussing hours and posts. So going back to the old subjective way will only rehash the old problems of 'what constitutes a regular'. I think that if we have to put up with a few spam posts from time to time from immature players who don't understand, in order to eliminate the interclan squabbling about what it means to be a 'regular', then the 100/30 would have served its purpose. Likewise, both quotas only really acknowledge that the player is active, and is by no means a gaurantee on anything further and maybe that sentiment can be echoed in bold/caps in the introduction along with a "If you spam posts, you ain't gettin in, noob" statement or something. Rofl. I like long paragraphs cuz it makes your eyes hurt when you read it.

Re: Ft members
alcosatz, Sat Feb 03 2007, 02:23AM


I agree that modification of the voting system when considering recruits is a good idea, but it's not as easy as saying we need more mature people or we need a few extra posts from a sponsor or anything like that. The most identifiable problem I see with our recuitment process is that few members will risk hurting any feelings by voting no. Just as you say "Dont get me wrong, i love every player........BUT ~!!!! we need to enforce maturity a lot better," which sounds logical, but when faced with the individual responsibility of enforcing maturity or anything else most of us shy away and think that its someone elses job.


I think "maturity" is a great guideline but too difficult to enforce. Same with age, which has already been discussed here, last year on the FTC forum: -[link]-

Good concept on wanting to clean things up but think you need a dynamite plan to pull it off.


I think more servers have the capacity to help, but I wouldn't say you have to split members up. Cross-server advertising is key, as well as our site which should be highly advertised on all FT servers. The more servers we have as nets then the the more fishies we can catch.


Please don't take this the wrong way, but lack of involvement when it comes to the recruitment process has a price. There are always improvements that can be made to our recruitment process but it's not like FT membership is something that is discussed over PM's. We have an open and transparent process in which all members are able to participate.


I can tell you we do not have any name protection set up through Mani on FTC. Hell, I don't even know if Mani still supports that, but this is not an issue specific to our servers or clan. Anyone can jump on with a bogus tag and misrepresent any clan or organization.


That's a good point and I agree that most FT's either play FTC or FTS and not both. This makes me often wonder why F7L5 subsidized much of the voting system, introduction system, etc. put together by FT, but I guess that's a topic for another thread...


What is the imperative reason for forcing FT's to participate on forums?


Would there be a list of acceptable topics that count towards a reasonabout amount? How would the tallying process of determining whether members meet these requirements work? I'm not trying to shit on your idea but these are details that must be explained.

Re: Ft members
TwItcH, Sat Feb 03 2007, 04:11AM

Guys, one more thing...im not talking about "the clan" im talking about involve ment with the website lol. I dont mean kick them outa FT. I just dont see why they should even have a site name if they dont use it.

Re: Ft members
Knightrider, Sat Feb 03 2007, 05:17AM


I had originally favored taking away the 30 second rule but now that I see your post, I agree. It kind of adds on to what I was saying previously. There has been a couple of examples of people that post one liners to get into FT. Sometimes when I see a pointless bump or a couple of one liner posts I will point it out by saying something sarcastic. I don't try to be mean because I still want to give that member a chance. But we has a clan must implicate this "Pointing out forum spammers and immaturity" as a clan. This also is part of the reason why there should be a detailed logic if you vote "no" for a person. Most people that get nominated read the threads and see why they didn't get nominated, that way they know they can work on it to get nominated in the future.


Break out the lube Bubble because you're not alone. When I seen Wildcard's gigantic posts on some things it made me a little on the happy side myself. It's the same with Glitch. Those two are good examples of people that are a great example of a mature player. These are the people that appeal to me and should appeal to you. I tend to get along better with the people that have grammar because they tend to be more intelligent and have a mature personality. Of course you run into the pricks that think of themselves, but hell, it's the 24th century. You've got to expect these things.


Agreed. Forcing it on members might tend to sway long time members away because they may feel obligated to do something that they don't want to. Forum participation like I said earlier should be up to that person, but it's strongly recommended. As for new members, we have to look for the kind of dedication that shows they are real serious about the clan.

Re: Ft members
Wildcard23, Sat Feb 03 2007, 09:41AM

Ahhh Goose. I read your post. I had written that it might be a good idea because I wasn't entirely sure whether getting rid of it or not would be correct. I appreciate you taking the time out to explain to me the history behind the 30 forum post and I agree that it seems to have served it's purpose. The introduction post might need a bold statement such as you proposed and I will try to find some time tomorrow to work on it and try to get something in place. Thank you Goose. <3 Goose!!