|
Post by MacBook on Jun 26, 2008 15:17:28 GMT -5
Hello everybody. I am asking for some assistance. What do you all think the best process of recruitment is for when the server goes live? There are many ways we can do it, but there will only be one.
The first process I have dealt with in recruiting a new member is simply just inviting someone who is interested in joining, whether we know nothing of him or not, then telling him to submit a guild application form on the forums so we can add him to the roster. This is a lot easier, but it is a lot riskier. I have found out about half of the people that join this way don't even stay for over two weeks, and sometimes they can mooch off equipment or give us a bad reputation.
The second process is just simply have them make a guild application form on the forums ahead of time, and then when their guild application form is done, we make them a trial member for two weeks, this means we see how they act, how they play, all the bits and pieces, but they don't get guild points for the raids. After the two weeks is over, the officers and I will critique on how they played, and will invite them in as a full member accordingly.
Any other suggestions, or which of these two do you like more?
|
|
|
Post by Seritaph on Jun 27, 2008 13:06:27 GMT -5
I like the second option, because if someone is truly interested, they won't mind the initiation process. I know I wouldn't. Plus this will also give the applicant time to decide if the guild is a good match for them, as well as the player being a good match for the guild.
People are going to come and go, and most will hopefully be a good fit a stick around. I like that I was welcomed quickly with open arms, so I wouldn't change that attitude too much with too complicated of an application process.
|
|
|
Post by MacBook on Jun 27, 2008 13:50:45 GMT -5
Personally I think we are just going to do the second option without the 2 week trial member thing. I don't have enough officers to help out as of right now, and I don't want an overly complicated system.
This will change when we start hitting raids though.
|
|
|
Post by legoniel on Jul 2, 2008 2:46:29 GMT -5
Honestly, I think people are forgetting how HARD the game was to play at first. I expect for a few weeks for people to storm the game and then eventually to get bored and disappear. It may be the entire server functions as a guild rather than consistently competing with one another - taking dragons down is going to be a huge undertaking, and as I imagine everyone is going to want to have the ultimate gear for that, then that alone is going to take a considerable amount of time, with people eventually grouping together from other guilds because the population won't be large enough to do it any other way.
A trial therefore would be very good as I would expect maybe only about 50% of the current guild to even show up ingame, and then a further 25 % to disappear once they decide they really don't like it. The test of a true guild, is keeping that remaining 25% together.
My tuppence
|
|
|
Post by kraann on Jul 3, 2008 9:23:02 GMT -5
I always beleived in quality over quantity, and in guild where i was an officer, i went as far as what i called "weed out"; every month i would go thru who hadnt logged on in that last month send a PM for a week and if no LOA was announced or no reply, then punt! Of course it was easy with the guild management system they had, but it kept the roster clean and we didnt notice much on the raids for most part. Anyways, to add to Legon's last paragraph, 25% of 100 is 25, when we can acheive a whole lot with 25 strong. That's 4 full group. I'll take that to perma....
Pick your officers and start option number 2 when things settles. Put everyone except leader and officers thru recruitment. This is the foundation, the base of the guild, if there is a S**t brick at the bottom then the rest is history.
Having said all that, i would vote suggestion 2 with the 2 weeks.
|
|
|
Post by dalkice on Jul 3, 2008 13:26:08 GMT -5
Honestly, if we have to pick one of the two options presented, I'd suggest the second one, but have a flexible trial period, based on a number of criteria (friendliness, willingness to help the guild, etc.) However, as I think we all agree that quality of membership is vastly more important than quantity, I suggest we do neither, and only invite people who we group with or speak with and enjoy their company. Invite friends after they're friends, rather than making friends out of recruits.
|
|
|
Post by MacBook on Jul 3, 2008 17:11:15 GMT -5
Personally, I see both sides of the story. I think I might just do the recruitment process #2, but with one week, because two weeks seems a little long.
|
|
Golad
Full Member
Posts: 172
|
Post by Golad on Jul 4, 2008 15:21:40 GMT -5
I like the concept of process 2. I would like to know someone could be laid back, but serious need be. I would hate to have a total tard who always took everything as a joke.
|
|
|
Post by dalkice on Jul 8, 2008 13:20:48 GMT -5
If we do process two, I don't think shortening it to one week is a good idea. That's an awfully short time to get to know people.
|
|
|
Post by Beneliel on Jul 9, 2008 0:13:37 GMT -5
i like process 2 but i don't think that there should be a finite amount of time i think that there should be a trial period until someone steps up to "sponsor" the new member then that sponsor would present there case before the officers,
this makes more sense then a simple trial period, if say someone is not on much then the time to find a sponsor, and by the same token if someone plays with someone for 3 days in a row for like 12 hours a day then that person would know if they were good for the guild or not
|
|
|
Post by MacBook on Jul 9, 2008 0:42:55 GMT -5
A sponsor idea sounds good too.
Maybe in order to join they need to have a 2 week period trial membership and during that time they need to play with either me or an officer and need to be approved by atleast one of us during that time?
|
|
|
Post by Beneliel on Jul 9, 2008 13:32:59 GMT -5
that sounds good but you run into the problem of if an officer or your self is not being avalible to play with them, and if your going to do it that way it would be easier to just let anyone join and kick them out after there a jerk
|
|
|
Post by dalkice on Jul 9, 2008 15:22:17 GMT -5
I like the sponsoring idea, however, I feel that if someone sponsors a member who ends up being a problem and requiring removal from the guild, it would be best to impose some kind of penalty upon the sponsor. Say a three strike rule, first bad sponsorship causes the sponsor to lose any priveleges of sponsoring for a month, second time two months, third time they can't be a sponsor at all anymore. Otherwise, people could be bribed into sponsoring, not that any of us would fall prey to such a thing.
|
|
|
Post by MacBook on Jul 9, 2008 16:26:09 GMT -5
True true, Dalkice.
So far I think the sponsorship idea with the two week trial membership sounds good.
I never liked the idea of having a minimum level requirement, but what do you guys think? With this server being free, and with a lot of people going to join and play for a week or two and quit, what do you guys think?
|
|
Golad
Full Member
Posts: 172
|
Post by Golad on Jul 9, 2008 17:36:26 GMT -5
Thought it wasn't really needed back then, I am sure we don't want to become a "back path" guild. I wouldn't so much set a level requirement but put out more of a "we prefer levels x - x.", and be sure to let people that join that are lower than that that we aren't a pl guild.
|
|