Page 2 of 3

Re: Proposed Constitution Change - POLL

PostPosted: 20 Aug 2014, 16:52
by charliep007
Dear fellow classicists.

I have not even had the time to read all the arguments, but I did read the last post by the esteemed almanmein (aka the voice of reason)

I'm currently in 3 mentor games myself (yes I do need THAT much help)

And I feel that if a newbie makes it through a mentor game with the high drop out rate etc and show that they want to be a classicist then I would like them to join asap and enjoy the benefits from the classicist way of playing.

I think they are more likely to stay with the site once they taste the fruit of the Kings :) I vote yes

Re: Proposed Constitution Change - POLL

PostPosted: 20 Aug 2014, 17:59
by gareth66
I don't think there is any disagreement with the principle that we should find a way of enabling a reliable performance in a mentor game to count towards Aspiring membership. The issue of discussion is not the general principle, it is what we put into place as the mechanism for enabling it. There is no easy way for a moderator to be able to verify the no surrenders requirement, that is the key problem, and it was proposed in the other thread that the way around this is to rely on recommendation from the mentor. That was the aspect of the prior discussion that has enabled this proposal to get as far as being put to a formal poll, but we have since had a concern raised by WHSeward (the originator of the proposal in the first place) about the number of steps involved. It is the mechanism for how we get the input of the mentor that is the discussion point here.

Re: Proposed Constitution Change - POLL

PostPosted: 20 Aug 2014, 19:08
by britneykay
Perhaps instead of asking the mentor to endorse a player or have a discussion about the merits of the Classicists during the game, you could just ask the mentor if the player surrendered or failed to enter moves. I imagine it would look like this: "I would like to be an aspiring member of the Classicists. I finished one mentor game with __mentor's name__. It was number ________. I entered orders for every year." Then the mod would message that mentor and ask if the player surrendered or stopped entering moves. I don't think a mentor would feel unstated pressure or feel obligated to lie about that, because it is a question of fact, not personal opinion, and therefore would not conflict with his role as a mentor, as was previously suggested. If the mentor was not sure, perhaps we could just click through the order history and verify the orders.

Re: Proposed Constitution Change - POLL

PostPosted: 20 Aug 2014, 19:46
by gareth66
Yep, that would work :)

Re: Proposed Constitution Change - POLL

PostPosted: 21 Aug 2014, 01:01
by Custer
I think they (anybody) should put in at least like 5 games without NMR or surrender at a minimum. Or what is the point? Everyone that plays one game is considered a Classicistist iss??? :roll:

Shiv

Re: Proposed Constitution Change - POLL

PostPosted: 21 Aug 2014, 03:30
by Mortiferus Rosa
I would like to point out that we already have a way around that in the Casual vs Strict Classicist games. If you dont want to play with Aspiring members because you view that they havent demonstrated the commitment necessary then only play Strict games. You get what you want and the people who are trying to prove that they have the fortitude to be a classicist have other like-minded players to enjoy games with while they work their way up the ladder.

Re: Proposed Constitution Change - POLL

PostPosted: 21 Aug 2014, 08:57
by gareth66
In theory that's true MR, though in practice the vast majority of Classicist games have been set up as Casual since we introduced the Aspiring tier, I think I can only remember seeing one or two set up as Strict. So the membership is tending to see Aspiring members in pretty much the same light as those in the full membership category (which is a good thing) and that can only be because they have confidence in the admission criteria.

In any case, the poll running is turning out to be pretty conclusive in support of the proposal as put. I am concerned about the reasons the six objectors have for not supporting the idea, but until they voice their concerns here it is difficult to address them. All of the contributors to the discussion are in favour of the idea, so if any of the objectors want their views to be considered they are going to need to voice what they are.

Re: Proposed Constitution Change - POLL

PostPosted: 22 Aug 2014, 23:31
by sinnybee
britneykay wrote:
rshivy wrote:I think I'm gonna start a Classical Classicistististiss with much harder criteria for admission....... :ugeek:

Shiv


Given how quickly the Classicists and Casual Classicists games have filled up recently, will the Classical Classicistististiss only play one vs. one shorthanded games? :lol: Maybe you can get Rick Leeds to build a single player dip version for you guys? ;)

I don't think there would even be one player available to play a Classical Classicistististiss game, because Shiv spells it differently every time--he wouldn't be able to get into his own club, having forgot how he spelled it ;).
____________________

My evil twin is a multi-accounter with six accounts... she voted "no" six times... I have a full confession... don't mind her...

Re: Proposed Constitution Change - POLL

PostPosted: 23 Aug 2014, 16:35
by Alman
britneykay wrote:Perhaps instead of asking the mentor to endorse a player or have a discussion about the merits of the Classicists during the game, you could just ask the mentor if the player surrendered or failed to enter moves. I imagine it would look like this: "I would like to be an aspiring member of the Classicists. I finished one mentor game with __mentor's name__. It was number ________. I entered orders for every year." Then the mod would message that mentor and ask if the player surrendered or stopped entering moves. I don't think a mentor would feel unstated pressure or feel obligated to lie about that, because it is a question of fact, not personal opinion, and therefore would not conflict with his role as a mentor, as was previously suggested. If the mentor was not sure, perhaps we could just click through the order history and verify the orders.


LOL! Now that's what I was trying to say, but expressed much more clearly and practically. :D Thank you BK. :D

Re: Proposed Constitution Change - POLL

PostPosted: 24 Aug 2014, 20:05
by Custer
You're probably right.........Classical Classics? Was that it? MMMMmmm......nope........thats not it............mmmmmmmmmmmClassics Classics................nope, wrong again...........LOL :oops: