Citizenship Requirements: Is the bar set too high, or is it just par for the course?

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Has rumbled across the evening's sky, leaving both ponderances and elightenment
in his wake.....




There have been discussions in chambers regarding the level of contribution currently required in order for a baseline member to pass their application review. In short:

Some say that over time the bar has been set too high .

So is the bar indeed set too high, and does it need to be lowered? Or...is it where it should be and is simply,
"Par for the course." ?


Well as you can readily guess for me it's simply where it should be. Each sitting boards view is somewhat different and will change depending upon member composition, established judgemnt trends, and of course the prevailing winds.

The point has been put forth that in past times 50-100 posts and some well aimed chutzpah* would get you through the door. True dat, but I would counter that that is from the day when time forum was quite intimate in both size and membership. With the passage of time has come extreme growth, a myriad of investiture oppurtunites {modding. graphic arts, and so forth}, and new complexities that go with the changing times.

My tenure on the CdeC began when Aden{the Black Prince} relinquished his seat and moved on to embrace the vast horizons of off site life. So in awe I began my internship following the Brothers Grim** around like a stary eyed pup, screaming "Not just no but Hell no!" to every application I saw until it was proven to be worthy. I bring this up to underscore the point that at one time there were three automatic no votes on any application until the full body of the application was exposed and due justice and diligence then served.

For my part I say that times have changed and citizenship requirements right along with them.

This my friends is simply a par 5 hole with a dog-leg to the right, and two or three water traps on your way to the green.
{Tis Texas golf slang for those who don't get it.}






* http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/searc...on&FORM=DTPDIA

** Squid & Hesus de bodemloze

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

This will sound like an awful answer, but I honestly think it is the truth... the bar changes. Different counsellors have different expectations, the Citizenship bar has changed with the site, and should continue to do so. CdeC should judge on what they think, not a predefined "bar", and members should still apply when they think they are ready.

[M D]

This site has changed indescribably since even I joined 3 and a half years ago, and I'm sure the older members would say even more so. I mean look at Content, and the great work done to make it such a good branch, and compare it to the less organised one of 2009. As a result, more is done on the site, and therefore more is slightly expected from members but in a different way from several years ago. Then it was about what they were in the Community, and focused on modding and debating, but now its much more about "so what has he done for us?"

[Robin de Bodemloze]

The other question is: have applicants become less or more patient?

[M D]

Much less patient, I had a potential client who went through 3 patrons in as many weeks

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

It depends on the applicants.

[Aikanár]

*Looks at the QP* What applicants?

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

CASTRO eatsHotPockets

Kick start the fundraiser/recruitment drive. I want a half decent expresso maker this go round...and that Jamican massage therapist that they sent round last week has got to go!!!

[Bethencourt]

Cæterīs pāribus yes and no, immo et non.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Let's hear it then. Why so?

[Bethencourt]

Every votation is different. People passes the process or not by random causes many times. Not that they are not important but in some cases the causes or circumstances are evaluated positively or negatively, and in other cases are not evaluated. But the system is like it is, nothing, none is perfect. I think that is why there is a votation, or else things would be clear and then there would not need of it.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Is there a notable failure in the way the CdeC judges applicants & applications?
Is there something that we are doing that we should not, or perhaps something that we have missed, not doing at all?

......

[Bethencourt]

If we were more active members, more brains would be dedicated to evaluate applications in a specialized way. I guess some before me have had proposed it too, but some kind of premilinar evaluation by citizens or members of the contribution of the applicant could help the CdC to make a decision. The CdC is not elected following a technical composition of its members so every kind of contribution can be evaluated. And members do not have time or a guide of the levels required in every field of contribution. But can the creation of this things be realistic and necessary?

[General Brewster]

I'd say yes. The bar is to high.
simply because so many people do good for the site yet won't ever be able to get a badge.

[Lord William]

First we must evaluate what we want citizenship to mean before determine how difficult we want to make the barriers of entry. Now my opinion on the matter is that citizenship should be regarded loosely, yes contributions should be valued but only as they show that the member has an interest with the site. We shouldn't expect extraordinary contributions for citizenship applications since that is why we have the large awards.

[Bethencourt]

First we must evaluate what we want citizenship to mean before determine how difficult we want to make the barriers of entry. Now my opinion on the matter is that citizenship should be regarded loosely, yes contributions should be valued but only as they show that the member has an interest with the site. We shouldn't expect extraordinary contributions for citizenship applications since that is why we have the large awards.

That could be a possibility, but it would change the system so you would have a group of old contributors and a new group of interested people. Some kind of patricians and plebians. And more important, how to evaluate the interest?

[General Brewster]

Agreed

[Lord William]

I'm not saying we eliminate the idea of contributions as it is the simplest way of measuring someone's involvement but what I am trying to say is that we shouldn't be looking for long lists of contributions. It is my opinion that a couple of well written articles should suffice for citizenship so long as they meet the behavioural requirements

[Diamat]

CdeC is NOT looking for "extraordinary contributions," as was claimed. If this were the case, I would never have become a citizen. I'm an empirical guy. I usually base my opinions on empirical evidence and refrain from commenting when it is unavailable. I was but an average candidate. I made a minor submod, helped people, wrote some stuff, and debated every so often in the Academy and Philosophy subforums. I was accepted unanimously. Moreover, I did all this within less than a year! Point is, it's not that hard to become a citizen, if one really wants to.

The other point is that the current bar incentivized me to work more than I would have if citizenship was more easily attainable. In other words, the current bar helps TWC in that it encourages members to contribute more. It did for me.

[Robin de Bodemloze]

The other point is that the current bar incentivized me to work more than I would have if citizenship was more easily attainable. In other words, the current bar helps TWC in that it encourages members to contribute more. It did for me.

The budgie is correct!