I'm not sure viewings at 79 indicates only 7 hadn't read the topic. There can be double, triple or more reads by the same person. Possibly could be a better gauge on interest to the topic perhaps? I'm not familiar to the terms used but I assumed you are referring to between the TBE event as opposed to the one coming against AOS. I was looking for per event attendance rates, but I can't seem to find them to compare.

??? No no lol. I don't mean that at all. I certainly do not view members to the idea of numbers and statistics. I was indicating the operations of the idea, in service to the communal purposes, for the members. Not the members. Perhaps would have been more appropriate to simply say IDK, functions?

Certainly not associating to people as in people, it is merely an idea of tool used for trend awareness and application.

I'm definitely not into supporting any kicking of people just because they don't meet new requisites. Requisites are just numbers on achievements wise, but does not mean it defines the person in character.

What you have said is true. So, it is clear to see, you cannot have the best of both worlds. To be fair when you ban, kick or demote, the reasons should not be based solely or even mainly on pressures to add a potential candidate. It needs to have its valid reasons pertaining to the individual member only. By valuing the current members who stayed on in the first place as first priority, they mean the world, and nothing else. If we worry about openness to potential candidates then it boils down only a mindful concept and not application.

Kiwi's suggestion isn't at all irrelevant TBH. But only if we are really comfortable to execute this in the first place.

The way I look at it, this whole topic is not futile, at all. It is very educative and should be something we need to be always mindful about.

And that is, we understand, from past incidents and trends, 170 as a gauge to breaking point becomes something we need to be wary of. Therefore, with everything that have been discussed so far, it all boils down to consistent adherence in the quality of apps because we know what are the downsides when one grows too large, at what point.

Then I do agree with you about heading towards strict apps. Abs has certainly made alot of good points there.

I would just like to throw this in, for considerations, that strictness should include alot on background & history checks on the applicant as well, and not simply judge based on their apps alone. Sometimes, we can make very good applications, that can be a skill achieved but it doesn't mean the pinnacle gauge for quality. Or even just because they are friendly during applications via members' statements. That's only a touch on the surface, because you won't know until they are in.

At the end of the day, I thought everything discussed in this topic is actually fruitful, very enlightening as a matter of fact.
 
--------------------
"I will listen to you, especially when we disagree." - Barack Obama

By "read" I meant, signed up saying if they were available at that time, meaning they were aware of what was going on.
 
--------------------


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

By "read" I meant, signed up saying if they were available at that time, meaning they were aware of what was going on.

Ah righto. Gotcha.




-------------------
And umm trick or treat, what are you looking at? lol jk here.
 
--------------------
"I will listen to you, especially when we disagree." - Barack Obama

Although DI is very successful, WG is certainly not DI.
I don't think they should be a model for WG's success.
 
--------------------