Revisiting Applications and Admittance
A Treatise on Guild Processes or The Paradox of the Open and Closed Spaces
Consensus was founded on the principles of radical openness, and practice that has held us in good stead until fairly recently. Since its creation the guild has existed primarily as a safe haven for refuges from our previous guild, and for friends and relatives of those guildies. Recently (in part probably due to our Christmas Party) we have attracted some attention within the World of Warcraft Community, and we have had a few members apply who are not known by any current guildmates.
The purpose of this document is to examine the processes by which we deal with applicants who are completely unknown and are not associated in any way with current members. We will examine possible concerns and solutions in dealing with “unknown” applicants.
The Current State-- Totally Open to Some…
Currently Consensus is run with total and complete openness…. to people that we know and have some contact with. Lieutenants have the ability to invite any of their friends or family, and this power seems to be used on a regular basis. So far, to the best of my knowledge no problems have arisen from the use of this power for Lieutenants. If we truly believe that our members (especially Lieutenants) are trustworthy, then we trust them to extend invitations only to members that will follow the rules and spirit of our community. For people who are known to at least one member there is essentially no application process, beyond contacting someone who has invite privileges and being encouraged to introduce themselves on the website.
The Problem
We have had two people recently who have expressed interest in the guild. One person has posted on the forums, and here is the relevant thread: [1]
In this case we clearly have an individual who has no clear grasp of what our guild is, and who no one in our guild has had any previous experience. Additionally, there has been one more person who has expressed interest in the guild but has been unable to navigate through the website to post anything. Currently we have no process in place for taking, evaluating, and providing feedback on applications.
Solutions-- Solution # 1: Totally Open Space Totally Open Space is guided only by the directive that inclusiveness knows no bounds. This solution would be the most extreme interpretation of our policy of transparency and openness. In this solution we simply invite everyone who expresses interest in the guild, trusting that people either know what we are about, or will be able to evaluate what we are about as Stowaways and then make an informed decision about whether the guild is for them or not.
Using this paradigm we make the following assumptions: 1. People who apply to the guild are deemed trustworthy until proved otherwise 2. People will be responsible and are capable of making informed decisions 3. People who decide the guild is for them will make their interest known after an appropriate (though currently undefined) length of time. 4. If the guild is a poor fit it becomes the responsibility of the joining member to recognize this fact and then leave or adjust.
Some advantages of this paradigm: 1. No time spent in designing an application process, and screening applicants 2. Expresses our ideals of openness and transparency 3. All applicants are treated exactly the same-- fairness 4. Gives people the benefit of the doubt 5. Applicants are not at the mercy of their shortcomings; i.e, if they are painfully shy this is not a major disadvantage in their application process. 6. Applicants are not at the mercy of the feelings and grudges of current members 7. Allows our community to draw from the WoW Community at large
Some disadvantages of this paradigm: 1. No way of validating our assumptions 2. No process for taking current member thoughts and feelings into consideration 3. No limits on who may be invited -- Unsupervised children, rude people, loot ninjas, internet stalkers…. you get the idea… 4. New members are essentially free-acting individuals who may or may not develop community ties and values, and have no obligation to do so 5. Improper, disruptive, or hurtful behaviors are difficult to address, as no standards are presented as necessary on entrance, and the only effective sanctions we can use are removal from the guild
Solution # 2: Totally Bounded Space
Bounded space is bound and defined by the written and unwritten policies that guide it. Our previous guild under its current leadership is an example of totally bounded space. All people, regardless of their relationship with any current member are required to put in an application. People’s acceptance, rank, rewards, and any punishment are dictated by written standards that are applied equally to all members.
Using this paradigm we make the following assumptions: 1. Rules are clearly written in advance 2. Rules are applied fairly and without favoritism or special considerations 3. Application processes truly reflect the values of the community
Some advantages of this paradigm: 1. All applicants and members are treated exactly the same 2. Rules are in place for all processes 3. Individuals are not governed by the emotions, feelings, or grudges of others 4. The application process screens out people who will be problematic or don’t agree with or understand the ideals of the community
Some disadvantages of this paradigm: 1. No room for individual differences, i.e., there is no case by case basis of application or applying the rules 2. People can get upset when their friends/relatives are not allowed in the guild 3. Lots of time spent writing the application, and reviewing the application 4. All rules must be written up front and/or approved by the general community 5. Violates our policy of openness and trust
Solution # 3: Exploration of the Paradox of Open and Bounded Space
I propose that the degree to which we use open or bounded spaces is based on clear policies which, while bounded, encourage openness. I will present some cases with examples where relevant to explore why using a totally bounded or totally open space is not in our best interest.
Example # 1: We apply a different strategy in the recruitment and application of new members depending on who they know within the guild.
Assume that Player A is the wife of current member Player B. Player B has been with the guild for a year, and before that he was friends with other current guildies. He has always been a model player and everyone finds him agreeable. Player A recently started playing WoW in order to spend time with her husband, and her husband is willing to vouch for her.
Now, assume that Player C is a complete unknown. No one in our guild has ever heard of, ran with, or talked to this player. We don’t know if they are a wonderful human being, or if they routinely rename their character to get away from the rumors of ninjaing loot and making racist comments in trade chat. They post a general introduction on the website, but no one is willing to vouch for this person or take them as a mentee
Problems with this strategy: 1. We assume that if Player B is a good guildmate, that anyone he invites or trusts will also be a good guildmate, when this might not be true. 2. We assume that people who are unknown are less trustworthy simply by virtue of being unknown.
Proposal # 1: Differing strategies and applications
I propose that we do not require people of the lowest “risk” to make applications to the guild. People in this category include: Players who currently know at least one person in the guild, Players who have made an appropriate and intelligent introduction on our forums, Players who have made an effort to schedule a run with current members, attend an event, or participate on the forums.
Players in the “medium risk” category would be required to put in an application. This category would include people with whom none of us are familiar, players under a certain age who are not supervised by a parent (to be determined), players whose application and or communication with the guild imply that they do not understand our values. During the application process we take the opportunity to get to know the applicants (perhaps doing an in-game interview instead of a written application on the website), and at least one interviewer would be responsible for “vouching” for the person coming in. Additionally if one interviewer unequivocally disagrees with allowing admittance to that person then that person is denied admittance.
I would assume that people in the “high risk” category would not be allowed to join, but perhaps an alternate application and admittance strategy could be employed. This category would include people who are known to be guild bank stealers, ninja looters, disruptive in trade/general chat, or under the age of 9 and unsupervised (personally I don’t think that anyone under this age should be allowed in the guild, but this again is debatable)
Example #2 : We admit everyone but have an evaluation period one month (or some time) later.
Player C joined the guild with his father, Player D. Everyone knows, likes and respects Player D, but he has been increasingly busy. When C first joined he was on his best behavior in front of his father, but with D logging on less and less C begins to show his true colors. Player C constantly complains that he is being left out of things, even though many people have sat down with him and explained that he is not high enough level to participate in things, or that they are not comfortable with his presence in raid without supervision. Player C also constantly teases or calls people names, and often logs off in a fit to go pout, returning as though nothing had happened. After one month 3 separate lieutenants have anonymously approached the Guild Leader that something needs to be done. A letter is written to Player D and C, giving D and C (some amount of time) to arrive at a solution and for C to work on his behavior. If C has not improved at the end of that period of time, he will be removed from the guild.
Player E joined the guild as a new invite who no one knew. He has been in the guild a month and in that time he has participated on the website, filled in on a 10 man raid group, set up several events, and been generally pleasant. He does have an unfortunate habit of swearing in guild chat, but no one has ever approached him about it, and there is not a written rule that applies to the situation. A letter is written to Player E extending an invitation to be promoted to Gunner, contingent on him trying to reduce his cursing in guild chat. Chagrined, Player E watches his mouth and becomes a full and valuable member of the community.
Proposal # 2: Evaluation occurs after admittance.
I propose that we admit everyone who expresses interest in the guild. Everyone is given an equal opportunity to uphold the trust that they are given when they join. Lieutenants and other members are encouraged to get to know the new admittee in a variety of circumstances and privately report their concerns to the person as well as (the guild leader, but perhaps lieutenants in general). At the end of the evaluation period the guild as a whole writes a letter to the person, and either:
1. Invites them to join the guild as a full member with no recommendations 2. Invites them to join the guild as a full member with recommendations 3. Gives the applicant 1 month to begin fixing any problem behaviors, and then re-evaluates at the end of that month 4. Asks the person to leave the guild.
Conclusion
Obviously every scenario I have presented has some problems and concerns. This document is not meant to be accepted or rejected as a whole, but rather as a basis for the guild to explore our options regarding how we handle new applicants as well as any problems that may arise once they are a member.
I thank you for your time and consideration.
