| . : News : . | . : Message of the Week : . |
You are currently viewing an archive of the Wilderness Guardians clan's IPB1 forums.
These forums were used by WG from 2008 to 2011, and now exist for historical and achival purposes only. For the clan's current forums, CLICK HERE. |
"You are a Wilderness Guardian. That northern wasteland; that land of blood, desolation and death is your dominion. Tonight we are going home." ~His Lordship |
|---|---|---|
| War Alert: OFF | Raid Alert: OFF | |
PM a WG Official |
||
Posted: April 7, 2008 04:33 pm  | |||
      IRC Nickname: Snowzak Group: Emeritus Posts: 1193 Member No.: 5 Joined: December 26, 2007 Total Events Attended: 67    | Idea brought to mind by Karlfischer - Looking at WG's fast growth, I think we could maybe implement a member cap. Now what would it imply - it would mean limiting the amount of members in WG to a certain amount. It could be 100, 125... I don't know. Having too sudden a growth to gigantic proportions is generally bad for a clan and can ensure a fast fall - EG: DDay. Secondly, the CWA is for now limited to 100 attendees, we're bound to have a limitation some day, it'd be awkward sending off members at a full out. Why, you may ask? -The entry into WG would be a bit more competitive, thus displaying us as a quality clan, detaching ourselves from the "mass recruiting" image some have of us (we were voted among one of the "Best Recruiting Clans"). -Our community would be tightly knit. -We would have a very active base, since the membercap will bring motivation to be as active as possible, and inactives very quickly singled out (we're talking people who never come on IRC and very rarely to wars, don't care about the forums etc...). I'm not sure if it could be a good idea, hence the suggestions forum. Opinions? --------------------  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 | ||
Posted: April 7, 2008 04:54 pm | |||
 IRC Nickname: Mickey Group: Emeritus Posts: 5305 Member No.: 48 Joined: December 30, 2007 Total Events Attended: 282 | It sounds like a good idea. Most clans that mass recruit fall. We need to make sure our current members are loyal and stuff. --------------------    | ||
Posted: April 7, 2008 05:54 pm | |||
 IRC Nickname: Zlat Group: Clan Friend Posts: 2781 Member No.: 9 Joined: December 29, 2007 Total Events Attended: 60 | Agreed , our cap should be at 100-120 because you can only bring 100 people to wars. --------------------   | ||
Posted: April 7, 2008 06:11 pm | |||
 IRC Nickname: Dnovelta Group: Emeritus Posts: 2750 Member No.: 130 Joined: January 20, 2008 Total Events Attended: 137 | I think this would be a good idea, but the idea of activity should be kept in perspective. I myself am practically never on the IRC simply because I lag so badly when I use it, it much more of a burden than a blessing to me. However, I make up for this by going to every war I am available for, as well as every event I am online for and am generally on TS when my internet allows it. I'm sure this will be kept into consideration anyway, but I just wanted to say this anyway. This would be quite good for the WG image, because I remember back when I was really active (some 2 years ago) when we had wars, people always made their decisions about our success based on the number of people we would bring, not on the talent and quality of our fighting. If we're able to cap ourselves at 125 members and continue to win wars people will really know we're not just growing, but we're getting better. That would be a great push in the right direction. --------------------   | ||
Posted: April 7, 2008 06:21 pm | |||
 IRC Nickname: General199 Group: Ex-Member Posts: 1073 Member No.: 318 Joined: March 11, 2008 Total Events Attended: 0 | In my eyes right now I think that the entire application process needs to be rethought and reworked. If we want to have a tighter knit community then we need to tighten up a little bit on the application process. With certain changes to Applying we can ensure that we get to know the Trials better and that we are sure we would want them to be a part of this family. --------------------  | ||
Posted: April 7, 2008 06:32 pm | |||
| IRC Nickname: Snowzak Group: Emeritus Posts: 1193 Member No.: 5 Joined: December 26, 2007 Total Events Attended: 67 |
The problem is, we've been adapting our application process to the amount of members in WG. The system right now is quite free and rapid. However, as the spots get filled up, we'll start choosing more selectively, with more care, taking more time. If eventually there's a big leaving or rush of inactivity, we'll laxen up a bit. The member cap gives us the possibility not to change our app process every three months, while keeping the inflow of members adapted to our current state. -------------------- 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 | ||
Posted: April 7, 2008 06:36 pm | |||
| IRC Nickname: Group: Guests Posts: Member No.: 0 Joined: January 1, 1970 Total Events Attended: 1 | I don't think a member cap is necessary. WG has always been a clan that thrived under circumstances where there were a ton of members. I think this clan has the potential to go up and compete with the big clans in wars and have a good community in the process, and putting up a member cap can only hinder that. Sure if there was an issue with community in the present then you should look at fixing it, but if everyone is feeling welcome and getting along why tamper with that? Ride it as high as you can go. Also I feel like trying to prevent another Dday is the wrong course of action. You can prevent mass leavings by making everyone feel welcome, not by simply stopping people from joining. -------------------- | ||
Posted: April 7, 2008 06:41 pm | |||
 IRC Nickname: Pazenon Group: Emeritus Posts: 1477 Member No.: 33 Joined: December 30, 2007 Total Events Attended: 79 | I think it's time to stricten the application process, like it used to be, to limit the amount of members coming in. This would do us more good than having a member cap. -------------------- | ||
Posted: April 7, 2008 09:59 pm | |||
 IRC Nickname: Kiwi011 Group: Emeritus Posts: 3052 Member No.: 40 Joined: December 30, 2007 Total Events Attended: 21 | 115 or so, anymore and community starts to suck again. --------------------  | ||
Posted: April 7, 2008 10:28 pm | |||
 IRC Nickname: Tnuac Group: Emeritus Posts: 1806 Member No.: 51 Joined: December 30, 2007 Total Events Attended: 58 | You need to get attendance figures and run them against total member count. You won't get 100 to wars unless you have at least 140 members (very vauge). Smaller wars, probably 170. But yes, the more members there are the harder it is to keep the community strong. I'd probably stick around 120, with slightly tighter activity regulations. But also bear in mind its possible to be a successful clan with 300 or more members, it just requires a reliable and effective staff team, along with a strong community. -------------------- ~Aetas: carpe diem quam minimum credula postero~ "Seize the day and place no trust in tomorrow"  | ||
Posted: April 8, 2008 12:58 am | |||
 IRC Nickname: Me9 Group: Ex-Member Posts: 459 Member No.: 59 Joined: December 31, 2007 Total Events Attended: 51 | Reading all the points made by the people who have posted, I believe a good approach would be to change our Application system. With a tight system, like one where all members have to vote on every application, would allow us to have quality players joining the clan. This would not necessarily stop our growth in numbers either. When to implement the change would be the debatable point, but I'd say when we're doing well in terms of events and activity and when we reach the 100 mark, thereabouts. --------------------   -The End- | ||
Posted: April 8, 2008 01:05 am | |||
 IRC Nickname: Mr Glennfase Group: Emeritus Posts: 3064 Member No.: 39 Joined: December 30, 2007 Total Events Attended: 220 | I somewhat agree. I don't see ourselves being there quite yet, but I'd say we need to encourage much more activity. With 85+ members, we should be able to pull more than 49 to a war. But I wouldn't set a limit to any less than 110. -------------------- That's Mr. Glennfase to you. Ex-Warlord/Council  | ||
Posted: April 8, 2008 04:06 am | |||
 IRC Nickname: Karlfischer Group: Ex-Member Posts: 664 Member No.: 124 Joined: January 12, 2008 Total Events Attended: 55 | Having a member cap does not mean the clan will be weaker. The idea of a member cap is actually to stimulate growth by creating demand for WG membership. We need to cultivate the image of an elite clan that is difficult to get into. Granted, this will take more than a member cap; we need to keep doing well in wars, be active, and have a strong community. Fortunately, all these things go hand in hand with a member cap. Once a member cap is in place and has been reached, members will be reluctant to leave WG if they know they might not be able to get back in. For ex-members trying to get back into the clan, a few spots might open up for them eventually, but even then they will have to compete with all of the others who want to get into WG. The predicted result of a member cap is that we will hang on to our current members much longer. If that is the case we can expect us to do better in wars since most of our current members will be well experienced at wars, and we will not be constantly trying to train new members. Activity levels will be higher since we can choose our new members based on how active we think they will be, plus we can give inactive people emeritus in which case there needs to be an opening for them to rejoin as an active member. Community will of course be stronger because we will have a more stable and active member list and people will know each other better. The member cap is not really intended to be permanent. Once we feel demand is strong enough, we can say we are adding some extra spaces to our member cap. We could start out with a 100 member cap now, and if we do that as we get closer to reaching the member cap we should see a burst of applications as people try to compete for the remaining spots. A month or two later, we could raise the member cap to 120 if we are getting alot of applications. However eventually we want to stick to a member cap that I would recommend be somewhere between 150 and 200 members. --------------------   | ||
Posted: April 8, 2008 04:49 am | |||
| IRC Nickname: Kero2|bryan Group: Guest Posts: 1302 Member No.: 91 Joined: January 2, 2008 Total Events Attended: 26 | 120 adelias does it and their reqs are u ahve to know 3 members for over 6 months. Thats what you call community excluding the RSC muck ups. They are all about fun and trying their best as a single unit and not 120 members. If we were to have a 120 member cap i would support this idea. Tbh having too many members people start to think they dont have to attend someone will replace them and thats not right. Some people did that in EoS and we had only 100 members roughly. It increase community. And dats what keeps the clan alive -------------------- Best pure f2p Guardian Post here http://www.wildernessguardians.com/forum/i...owtopic=20&st=0   | ||
Posted: April 8, 2008 05:36 am | |||
 IRC Nickname: karel Group: Emeritus Posts: 1021 Member No.: 57 Joined: December 31, 2007 Total Events Attended: 89 | 150 Max, and start doing activity sweeps once we start pulling 100+ people to wars -------------------- Sig? | ||
Posted: April 8, 2008 07:15 am | |||
| IRC Nickname: Group: Guests Posts: Member No.: 0 Joined: January 1, 1970 Total Events Attended: 1 | The thing is, having a set number seems overly strict. One of two things possibly happen that you probably don't want. 1. You hit the cap, someone with a huge amount of potential wants to join. You have to decline them because it is your rule and a great member joins another clan. 2. You hit the cap, someone with a huge amount of potential wants to join. You choose to let them in and look like a hypocrite for not following your own rules. The inherent flaw in the idea is the thought that all good members are willing to wait, and those who don't are disposable. That is not necessarily the case. Some great members simply lack patience. The idea of changing applications around is fine, I think it would work. It happens all the time, so I urge you to not make it TOO tough. A voting system is always good because members get their say in who should be in the clan. The cap system is flawed though. -------------------- | ||
Posted: April 8, 2008 08:35 am | |||
 IRC Nickname: RobbieThe1st Group: Founder Posts: 770 Member No.: 2 Joined: December 26, 2007 Total Events Attended: 49 | I say just have a very strict registration process - Make it so it takes work to join, but not time. If you make people wait for an indefinite period of time, they probably will go "F you", and leave for another clan. I figure the requirements should include a reasonable working knowledge of English(along with an agreement NOT to use TXT-speak/1337-speak on the forums), and knowing our history(Have a few questions about it on the application)[If someone cannot take the time to go read our website, they don't need to be here]. I figure once we reach a certain mark, the new rules will come into effect, and as new people come in that meet my requirements, older ones who don't will leave over time, leaving us with a bunch of well-spoken people who actually care about the clan. -RobbieThe1st -------------------- Old Avatar - Paypal donation link  I am left handed, and proud of it! Retired from RuneScape. Old forum posts: 2275(s4+s10+wg.com)+1759(z6 old account)+474(z6 new account) Total: 4508 Join date: 4/16/05 | Get Firefox 3.5 now: http://www.getfirefox.com | RobbieSwich for Firefox | ||
Posted: April 8, 2008 08:46 am | |||
| IRC Nickname: Group: Guests Posts: Member No.: 0 Joined: January 1, 1970 Total Events Attended: 1 | I dissagree with the part where you said capping 100 members at full outs, this would be stupid because that would make some members wanting to leave, they come to a war and find out they cant go (maybe getting up at an early time just so they can make it), and when they get there they are told they can not come. Im pretty sure this would not compliment the clan but cause many problems. What kind of problems? Well firstly recruiting problems, if people find out that we have a cap for full outs a trial guardian would probably be told to leave over a proper WG member, thus making the trial guardian think its pointless. Besides the fact we need as many opts as we possibly can get at wars, yes we may have 100 ppl at a war but we could still do with more, it would show a well active clan and thus getting more recruitments. Id say cap the members at about 150. But i dont think you should not allow people to attend wars that is a silly idea in my opinion  ~Devy -------------------- | ||
Posted: April 8, 2008 10:59 am | |||
| IRC Nickname: Pazenon Group: Emeritus Posts: 1477 Member No.: 33 Joined: December 30, 2007 Total Events Attended: 79 |
Jagex made it that a clanchat could only carry 100 RS players at a time. -------------------- | ||
Posted: April 8, 2008 11:28 am | |||
| IRC Nickname: pk331 Group: Guest Posts: 51 Member No.: 436 Joined: April 6, 2008 Total Events Attended: 0 | ive got to agree with TMAL just have a better eye on those whos inactive and those who dont care. and rule breakers, dont deal lightly with them  just tighten alittle up on some stuff, and its a good cap right there, cos i cannot belive were all active maybe give those under 100+ f2p cmb a deadline to get it? and actully stick to it? look at the ideas  good luck  --------------------  | ||
Posted: April 8, 2008 11:30 am | |||
| IRC Nickname: Group: Guests Posts: Member No.: 0 Joined: January 1, 1970 Total Events Attended: 1 | I like the idea, i say we stop it at around 110-120 just to make sure that the members are loyal tbh -------------------- | ||
Posted: April 8, 2008 03:03 pm | |||
| IRC Nickname: Karlfischer Group: Ex-Member Posts: 664 Member No.: 124 Joined: January 12, 2008 Total Events Attended: 55 |
Yes, we might lose some potential good members to other clans, however with a member cap I am not sure we are going to be attracting those kinds of members in the first place. Secondly, potential members are disposable compared to the members we already have. Our current members should always, regardless of combat level, be valued more than potential members. A member cap focuses not on getting potential members but on keeping the current members. Right now we just have a revolving door system where if alot of members leave we will mass recruit to try to make up for it. The result is that the image of our clan goes down the drain and the members that we recruit are not always the most loyal or dedicated. A more rigorous recruitment system is a good idea so long as the clan is doing well, but once it starts heading towards a low point your own recruiting system works against you as you cannot replace members fast enough. A member cap is some ways is like a dam, it builds up a reserve of potential members that you can then use when the clan does start losing members. Not only will people be reluctant to leave if they know they cannot get back in, but when we have members leaving there will always be new applicants ready to jump at the new spots. In this way a member cap is self-correcting; if a few members start leaving then new applicants in a standard application system might take that as a sign that we are not doing well and look for another clan, but with a capped system new applicants see it as an opportunity to get into a clan that they might not otherwise be able to join. A strict application system works well in high times and helps us fail in low times, while a capped member system brings stability and helps prevent low times from happening in the first place. Also, as I said before the cap can be adjusted if demand is very high. If we get some really really good members applying it might justify bumping the cap up an extra 10 members. However, the idea is to brand ourselves as an elite clan and that means not trying to sell ourselves to any high level we see. Loyalty to the clan should take precedence of combat level; we do not want members who are joining WG just because we are strong, because those are the same members who will leave us when we need them the most. We want the members who are not looking to join any strong clan, but who want to join WG specifically. If you look at is this way those who wait until a spot opens for them instead of joining another clan deserve to be in WG more than the guy with the seemingly huge potential anyways. -------------------- | ||
Posted: April 8, 2008 04:27 pm | |||
 IRC Nickname: Valdremia Group: Ex-Member Posts: 289 Member No.: 64 Joined: December 31, 2007 Total Events Attended: 9 | This idea works provided there is no fear about numbers being the less priority but rather community takes precedence over all else. It works most effectively IMV when numbers grows large, disallowing the communal scope to spread thin, because it WILL. And when the number grows low, you focus on your strong low numbers than trying to look for more, its about people more than anything. There will be very potential members who happens to want apply when the numbers had grown and there's no space. It is true, that when someone potential specifically wants to join a clan only, they will wait - even probable they might go join another clan only to spend time but come back to relinquish on their application when the opportunity is open. Yes, it may not apply to every potential members, who might have already lost patience, say for weeks and months. However, when we define what we think is potential we need to be very clear ourselves - what kind of qualities are we looking for? The downside, it seems, where potentials are concerned - say levels, or experience cum knowledge - potential members as such easily can fall into the lot that won't wait that long. Then again, the upside as a result of this downside, is when you do get those who wait, it absolutely means they mean it when they join. However, those who get in by then may not necessarily have great skills or levels or even experience but they can highly possess alot of character, simply from the point of patience and why they had waited that long. Knowledge and experience can be built but character is something you get it or you don't. Patience is not a quality you get from many in general, when you do have it - it means a whole lot more than patience. Quality over quantity. And quality that's not measured by stats, technical knowledge but rather of very sound and strong character defined by the reasons they waited that long to join in the first place. Then you do have to decide, what kind do you wish to have? If, we keep harping about numbers even though ironically this is about capping, it is about being in service to what's more important to it - quality. Unfortunately, in the common law of relationships between anything - quality to quantity is always in a tangent relationship (edit: more like a curve, lose one point to gain a point for the other). Unless you insert a 3rd or even more support to hold a forever parallel relationship...that requires absolution (not about sharing balance) of communal + skills + levels teaming - is that possible? To a large extent - NO. Then you must decide, again - what is important? Quality or quantity. You cannot have both, one must be forsaken for the other. It is almost impossible to ask for both, that would be, daydreaming. P.S. Afterthoughts - there's more to it than meets the eye when this is implemented, if it is. There will be a whole new system needed to deal with the ups and downs, plus the decisions on what to do with various scenarios that results because of this. BEFORE this is implemented, the structure MUST be formed and rethink. Be very secured for a start and cannot be implemented in haste. Otherwise, it will backfire into a complete mess and you lose faith on something that has vast potential, but can be abandoned, simply because there's lack of tact it dealing with it before it spread its wings. P.S.S. Oh btw, I like this idea, very much. * Had edited in expression, uhh very tired sorry lol  -------------------- "I will listen to you, especially when we disagree." - Barack Obama  | ||
Posted: April 8, 2008 05:33 pm | |||
| IRC Nickname: Group: Guests Posts: Member No.: 0 Joined: January 1, 1970 Total Events Attended: 1 | I would never want to suggest anything which hurts WG's community and I do realize that too many members could do that. But do any of us know the right amount to set a cap at? What if WG had 300 good members and everyone was happy? Why should the cap limit WG to a third of that? Right now there is not a problem, so why try and fix one? If there comes a time when community shows signs of slipping, then THAT is the time to close applications for a while. Right now instigating a cap would be preventing a problem which might never happen. WG has goals of pulling certain amounts of members to wars, I can see the IAs and talk to people about it. Right now 50-60% is about the max that the clan is pulling. 50ish out of 92. If you set the cap at 120 for example you are limiting the clan to pulling 65 or so members max. No matter how many activity requirements you put in place, that is pretty much going to be the amount you get, not many clans do better than 60%. So say that happens. Is WG ok with 65 people? It would look bad in my opinion to just up the cap everytime you feel like it. If you set something like that it needs to be taken seriously or else there wont be a point to it. All a cap does is hinder growth. If you want to hinder growth or if hindering it is necessary then by all means instigate a cap. I just don't see why you would want to kill the current momentum. And Valdremia. The focus of your argument is the belief that the best members are willing to wait because they really want to be in. That is putting patience at the top of all personal qualities and that isn't necessarily justified. There are other things equally important to patience which good members possess. If someone is not patient they don't automatically turn into a bad member. -------------------- | ||
Posted: April 8, 2008 06:08 pm | |||
| IRC Nickname: Spicy63 Group: Emeritus Posts: 785 Member No.: 50 Joined: December 30, 2007 Total Events Attended: 0 |
That is the main point I got out of your post Thomas. And I agree with you. You can't fix what's not broken. In the future it might be, but for now this isn't a problem. --------------------  | ||
Suggestion: Member Cap