Alliance Admissions

[KingOfPain]

OMG WB, if that's your baby picture... I am sorry

Edit: oh sure delete the picture. Now it's an inside joke

KoP

[WarBlade]

Oh should I put it back?

[Sciros]

Probably not ^^

[FoxBat]

Getting the convo back on track...

On the private alliance forum:
-At least one member nominates a guild for an invite.
-At least three other members (from at least two existing guilds) second the proposal. More are welcome.
-For one week, the floor is open to objections from existing alliance members.
-If no objections are recieved, the guild is invited.
-If objections are received, and not resolved within the week, then that guild can be invited, say, for two weeks as a trial. The sponsor(s) for that guild has an opportunity to convince the "naysayers" to drop their objections.
-If there are still objections, it goes to a vote for one week, with a two thirds majority required for an invite. Abstentions have no effect. If only 6 people vote, 4 votes in favour are enough for an invite.

This is the first detailed proposal I've seen and it does take into consideration the opposing viewpoints. It allows "common sense" and debate to prevail initially, but has a backup process in case of muddy disagreements. So barring others having wildly different proposals, I suggest we take this a starting point for discussion.

One thing I don't like about the system given above is that while it requires a minimal initial involvement, it doesn't specifically encourage involvement beyond that. So in the first week period people that would otherwise have objections might never develop them, and then its difficult to object and remove the guild afterwards. I still like the idea of a "temporary" period as mandatory, it's the best way to get to know a guild in my opinion. This is how I would streamline the process:

- Four nominators from two+ guilds.

- Once requisite number of nominations is established, short period for initial objections (3 days or even less, but I could live with a week. Just that I think best way to get to know a guild is to expose them to everyone.)

- Two week "novice" period; guild is added to the alliance, but can't access alliance app forum.

- If no objections posted in alliance app forum during these two weeks, thread is deleted and they are given access. If objections are registered and not resolved, a poll is taken in the last week on whether to keep or eject. (Though generaly if vote goes the latter way, first suggest that they should leave of their own accord. )

What I like:

- gives new guilds a chance to "get a feel" for the alliance before being brought into decision-making process
- doesn't force and unduly long wait when the best evaluation is natural exposure, instead of a few members on "good behavior" during an evaluative period.
- gives people who might have objections plenty of opportunity to educate themselves and make said objections

P.S. I think the best compromise for the "private vs public" forum debate is that alliance apps and those only will be subject to private discussion. The forum should therefore be empty most of the time! There is no need to hide any other aspect of alliance discussion as was done on the ZoS forums, especially alliance events.

[Sciros]

Yeah this all works for me.

[KingOfPain]

Sounds good.

Now time to move on and vote on a name!

KoP