Like I have said, when you harp on numbers, quality will become secondary.

I never said "best' members. And I have clearly stated it depends on which focus you're looking at. Quality as oppose to quantity. And its easy to equate that quality if we look at stats and knowledge as the key aspects - measurable by numbers to define "quality". But quality in its own sense cannot be defined by numbers in any sense. Those can be added bonus but not the intrinsic value of quality. It's almost like trying to compare a pear to an orange. But their breed is different, taste is different, the givings are different.

I would rather have 30 strong dedicative members than 200 members moping in the crowd, come and go, come and go.

And, I do not denote that having lack of patience inevitably means a bad member. But it is one of the qualities that signifies the intensity of sincerity and wishes to join. To uphold an amount of patience, requires alot of good reasons enough to stick with it.

To be fair, to balance both requires immense other factors, in a totality sense to keep that balance. In logic and common sense, its almost impossible. Note: "almost" which is giving space to the possibility of the most minute sense.

There is no harm in not implementing this idea but it can add more gains by implementing it, provided, and I will say this again, provided the several aspects of the ups and downs are considered carefully, starting off with a good foundation. Otherwise, it will backfire. Not because the idea is faulty but because there can be slips in not covering its sensitive potential. Note again "sensitive" because its one of a kind.

Btw, I lend most of the thoughts here because I had been a Trial during one of the most high period in WG. And during when it was in its lowest, d-day period. I could safely say I know what it is talking about. And I speak from my own experience where patience and decision to remain to it as to why. I am not saying no one had that experience including you. But I do know the eye-openings that speaks its truth from almost every aspect of what this idea was based on. However, we do have to be aware in how, why and when such implementation should move - up and down the scale of numbers in relation to communal which largely disregards numbers as its core. Hence, it needs careful and good understanding to implement it. When done well, the rewards are more than what the norm brings.

Sure, why fix something when its not damage. Provided we are not always panicking about "Recruitment! Recruitment!" when the numbers are low, coming with all sorts of ideas just to hit those numbers and the tendency to forget, its not those potential numbers that counts but those who stayed and make it greater than numbers. People, the members.
 
--------------------
"I will listen to you, especially when we disagree." - Barack Obama

I agree with alot of what you are saying Tmal, it is just that I am looking at the long run and you are looking at the short run. Growing at our full potential seems like a good idea but it inherently creates instability in the clan, ill try to explain why:

-Mass recruiting brings in members who are attracted to the strength of WG rather than the clan itself. These members are likely to leave if WG starts doing poorly.
-In a clan with lots of members people do not know eachother very well, and hence create groups of friends (hence all the "crews" we had). They associate more with these groups then with the clan itself. These members are likely to leave as a group if any one of the group decides to leave.

This is why we have the infamous "snowball effect" because those in the clan who only are familiar with their own group or "crew" leave as one. As more members start to leave the clan gets weaker, and then all those members who only joined for the strength of WG start to leave also. The momentum of the downfall even causes some of the more loyal members to leave, and in the end we are worse off than if we would have just not recruited at all.

In the long-term interests of WG, it is better for us to have a member cap. Saying that there is no problem now and so we should not be trying to fix a future problem is extremely short sighted. WG has a history of growth and collapse, and while history is not doomed to repeat itself, we will be proven fools if we do not learn from it.

I agree with your sentiments about not restricting our current momentum. A member cap will infact be less restrictive on our current momentum then stricter membership requirements, because we can keep recruiting at a steady rate until the cap is reached. On the other hand if we make it harder to get into WG by stricter requirement or application standards we risk curtailing our current growth.

I also agree that WG is not ok with 65 people. A member cap ensures that we continue to grow giving us a reputation of an elite clan. Once the cap is reached we can continue to periodically move it up until we reach a number that is a good compromise between strength and community.

Judging on the history of WG, and I have been here for 3+ years without ever leaving so I think I am a good judge, I would say 170 is a good number to stop at.
 
--------------------

I agree with that part of your sentiments for sure. I probably didn't consider it. Now I don't necessarily happening as bad now as in previous days, but the factions do form and you are right, they need to be spread out into one big group to prevent mass leaving.

I think 170 members is actually quite reasonable.
It is a large amount, but this clan is set up to handle that. It is not so big that it is unmanageable, and if worst comes to worst, it CAN be adjusted as a last resort.

What I was and am concerned with is a limit being set at 100 or 120.
That is ridiculously low and would hinder WG in my opinion.


Also a member cap should come or an application difficulty increase, not both.
If you are going to only allow 170 in, then keep apps easyish and just do inactivity checks.
If you aren't going to limit it, make them hard and only accept the best members.


 
--------------------

I agree with that part of your sentiments for sure. I probably didn't consider it. Now I don't necessarily happening as bad now as in previous days, but the factions do form and you are right, they need to be spread out into one big group to prevent mass leaving.

Allow me to barge in but its truly a +++1. Non contention.

Although I cannot say at what gauge is best but it truly lends itself to the more seasoned and experienced seniors for that. And 170 sounds like it has a high approval rating to start with from just simply here.

IDK but the agreement here is resounding. Danke.
 
--------------------
"I will listen to you, especially when we disagree." - Barack Obama

I agree with that part of your sentiments for sure. I probably didn't consider it. Now I don't necessarily happening as bad now as in previous days, but the factions do form and you are right, they need to be spread out into one big group to prevent mass leaving.

Allow me to barge in but its truly a +++1. Non contention.

Although I cannot say at what gauge is best but it truly lends itself to the more seasoned and experienced seniors for that. And 170 sounds like it has a high approval rating to start with from just simply here.

IDK but the agreement here is resounding. Danke.

Yes, I think we have some sort of agreement. First of all, as Tmal said we should not have both a member cap and increased application standards. Having both of them would suffocate our intake of new applicants and increased application standards would probably ensure that the member cap is not reached anyways.

Second, we are doing well not and the current growth should not be impeded. If there is a member cap it should not be set so low that it blocks large amounts of new applicants for coming in, and if there is increased application standards it should not be so rigorous that it prevents us from gaining enough members to sustain our current growth.

Third, 170 members seems like a reasonable and sustainable goal for us. This is a good number to ensure that we have a balance of high activity and participation, a strong united community, and can do well in CW or BH if it becomes multi again.


What is at dispute still is what is the best way to reach the 170 member mark and still have high quality of members? My main concern is that increased standards, while insuring higher quality of members, will curtail our growth. A member cap would also have the same problem if it is set too low, however it also cannot be set to high. The number does not have to be a permanent target, but it must be a realistic one. If we set the member cap at 170 right away, we will not see any effects. Say we set the member cap at 120 though, potential members will see that in the near future they will not able able to get into WG unless they hurry, and so we should see a rise in the amount of applications. Once we reach 120 hopefully we will still be receiving applications, and this is a good thing because we cannot expect all of our new members to stay with us. The applicants after the 120 mark can replace those new members who simply do not fit into the clan. We now have a good base (look at runehead, most of the clans ranked above us do not even have 120 members) upon which to improve our reputation as an elite clan. I would expect it to take atleast a month before we are confident enough with demand to raise our member cap, probably to 140 at first, and then maybe a few months later to 170.

Another way to do it would be simply announce that we will accept a max of 10 new members each week for 7 weeks and then cap our memberlist at 170 members. If we can gain 70 members in 7 weeks, that would be phenomenal growth.






 
--------------------

Sounds good to me. We could even use it as a morale booster, as it might be encouraging to many members to know that in 7 weeks we will have 170 members.

Sorry Squelchy, but a member cap does not really mean we will be having less members, it just means we are putting a limit on the number of members we have so we can maintain a healthy community and a stable clan. If all goes as planned we will have enough members to get 100 guardians at a war.
 
--------------------

I somewhat agree with you Saad - I remember my first days in WG, I was told I'd be dropped if I didn't train enough or was active enough, and it really increased my motivation to be part of the elite group that WG consisted of.

If we tighten our applications a bit more, I bet we can accept less people and grow less fast, yet managing to keep members that'll stay for a while, since they fought so hard to get in.
 
--------------------


London RL Meeting attendee - Paris RL meeting attendee
Joined WG in October 2005 - Original DG - Ex-Raid Leader
Proud Council Member from October 21st 2007 to May 19th 2008

I somewhat agree with you Saad - I remember my first days in WG, I was told I'd be dropped if I didn't train enough or was active enough, and it really increased my motivation to be part of the elite group that WG consisted of.

If we tighten our applications a bit more, I bet we can accept less people and grow less fast, yet managing to keep members that'll stay for a while, since they fought so hard to get in.

Well, if we do the 70 members thing in 7 weeks memberships will only be competetive if we have over 10 applicants per week. I do not think that is a problem because in the long run the member cap will make membership applications very competetive. We have to get to that point first though. In essense the next 70 members who get in would be given a kind of "free pass" which should encourage more people to apply if they know that it will be alot harder to get in later on.

I do worry though increasing application standards now is litttle premature, and could really hurt our current momentum.
 
--------------------

Jagex made it that a clanchat could only carry 100 RS players at a time.

OIC well %^$ jagex then >.>
 
--------------------

Yeah, that is something I kind of worry about also, I do not want to see new combat requirements applied to old members just in order to make room for new members. I think the thing to remember though is that if we want to make being a guardian an elite status, we need to value our current members over potential new members. It also would be a sign that we have a weak community if people let you be kicked solely because of your combat level.

Snow, I actually think starting to be a little more demanding in apps is a pretty good idea. In the long run I really want us to be able to cement our repuation as an elite clan by having some sort of application system that is very competitive, but if we impliment such a system right now we are not going to get noticed as a clan that is worth all the effort to get into.

We can always put in a member cap later on if we are doing well, but right now it does seem that support is pretty mixed.
 
--------------------

Which is the main reason I decided to post the idea in the first place (even though my point of view has chose an alternative): our rate of activity has dropped greatly, you just need to look at the sign ups for the next war, only about 50 members have READ the post. Whereas two weeks ago, for the 2m war, only 7 HADN'T.
 
--------------------


London RL Meeting attendee - Paris RL meeting attendee
Joined WG in October 2005 - Original DG - Ex-Raid Leader
Proud Council Member from October 21st 2007 to May 19th 2008

I ussually do not like to look at WG members is such "economic" (for lack of better word) terms. Certianly I think we serve to benefit as a clan from making such analysis, however there is a tendancy to marginalize the individual member in such decisions.

Lordy did hit on an issue that I have been purposely trying to ignore; how do we justify excluding qualified people from the clan simply because we have run out of spots. I guess in my mind the morality argument Lordy brings up is simply not as strong as the potential benefits in stability from a member cap. I also believe that if a member really really wants to get into WG, eventually that dedication will be evident to us and we will accept that person when a spot opens up.

To be honest I have kind of given up on the possibility of having a member cap. I still think it is a good idea, however there is one fear I have about its implimentation that has somewhat challenged my confidence in the idea. With a member cap there might be too much pressure to demote to emeritus, give arbitrary bans, kick inactives, or remove people under requirements in order to make room for new members in the clan. Considerations of individual members might be completely pushed aside in order to improve the clan as a whole. I have a serious moral delema with the possibility of this happening; it is certianly much more of a moral delema to me than refusing potential members because we have reached our cap.

This idea also seems to be a dead end in that it lacks council support, and has mixed support from WG at large. While it might not be an issue directly, I could not in good concience push through a member cap system if it is directly in opposition to an ideal or value that the founder of WG tried to incorporate into the clan.

If we are moving towards the direction of sticter application requirements in the near future, that is something that I am definitly in support of.
 
--------------------