Three months is a long time...

[Nihil]

Something puzzles me about the current rules for patronage, and it is the new rule that states that a member must have been registered for three months before they are eligible to be considered for civitatedom.

I don't remember noticing when this came into effect, but it seems awfully long. How many of us were members for three months before we were patronised? I think a month or so is plenty of time to gauge somebody's posting abilities, particularly if they have a decent number of posts by which to estimate their character and intelligence.

So does this rule do any good? I'm quite open to being convinced, but it seems unnecessary and a little irksome to me. :hmmm:

[Tom Paine]

Why did the same once apply to Patricians under the old Syntagma? It has beenfits in making us analyse those e wish to patronise, I must say, and making sure they aren't just here for a few days then off and inactive.

[imb39]

The theory behind it was so that the member in question has shown commitment. forexample, tGS would have qualified in 2 days! Admittedly he is a poor example as he is currently on 20,183 posts. By the time this post has been written no doubt it will be 20, 185.

[Tom Paine]

2 and a half days, imb. But your point is a good one, despite the fact it took me a month to be patronised (which includes the time of the vote...) because people know that there has to be evidence of commitment.

[Lusted]

I was a member for about 10 months before i was patronised. The 3 month period allows a good period in which to gauge someones character and posting style. Some people for instance may join, do loads of good posts, look like great candidates for patronage but then get into a flame war with someone or something. A 3 month period allowd plenty of time to judge someone.

[Nihil]

I still think it's too long...but I guess I'm the only one.

In theory, what you guys say sounds fine, but in practice, I would imagine that the theory has been disproved by the number of good civitates that have been patronised in less time.

[Boudicca]

I am still rather into the quality of posts than into time. Three months can be awfully long, especially considering the amount of input which can come in the first months after the release of MTW2. We really ought to have a solution for such time periods where more input than currently is to be expected.

And yes...we have had an awful lot of very good civitates material patronized after a short time solely for their work here. I don't think that such a "hard" borderline should really be the last word.

[Evariste]

I still think it's too long...but I guess I'm the only one.

In theory, what you guys say sounds fine, but in practice, I would imagine that the theory has been disproved by the number of good civitates that have been patronised in less time.

I'm inclined to agree with you Nihil. I wasn't aware of this rule until quite recently when I found a worthy lad with a little over a month of exlemplary posts. Is it really necessary to make an obviously qualified member wait for this? If anything, it seems to frustrate the potential new civitate. I was under the impression that the civitate class would be a little bit easier to get into now that the patricians are truly elite.

My vote's firmly in the "no three months law" camp.

[Aemilianus]

Inactivity?

Ok, how would you all judge me, then? I was patronized after about a month, at about roughly 120 posts. I've had several periods of prolonged inactivity, including my European trips in the summer, and a while right at the beginning of school (which is still presenting a bit of a problem now). Would any of you say I don't deserve my position? I think Civitateship should be based on a combination of some time on the forum as well as posts, both of which should be met before Civitateship should be conferred. I would say 100 posts and 2 months, or roughly that, but that's just one member's opinion....

[Ragabash]

I was wondering that we could always remove time limit for Civitateship and replace it with 200-500 posts limit. Just something that came to mind while eating my breakfist. :hmmm:

I was patronized just after 100 posts, and it seems that many other members have been Patronized with quite small post numbers also. I would like to see post limit raised for Patrician rank rather then the time limit as a whole.

[Silver Guard]

I was patronised after about four months, with only 160 posts. Not only does that not seem the most committed, but it was over the month line, which meant I was staying for at least a little while. There are quite a few patronised below 200 posts

[imb39]

You can usually tell within the first 100 posts if they are going to be suitable candidates. Sometimes more are required as a posting maturity develops. The real problem is the commitment bit - hence the time limit.

[Muizer]

Actually I was thinking the reverse. I think some members, especially amongst the modders have been members for ages but haven't reached the post number qualification for, in this case, artifex, even though their contributions clearly merit the promotion. On the other hand, members in the debating forums regularly rack up the required number of posts in no time (I would consider 3 months "no time" really). I would actually be in favour of stressing commitment (as in time of residence) over post count more than is currently the case in the formal entry requirements.

[scottishranger]

Well I am inclined to agree Muizer and Imb, It took me about 6 months to become a civitate. I think that even with quality posts a user most be dedicated to the forum to be a civ, and that means activity in my terms.

[Oldgamer]

I was a member for about a year, before Wild Bill contacted me at another site. At the time, I had about 500-600 posts, if I recall correctly. Three months isn't too long.

[Silver Guard]

There lies the problem Evariste, we don't want Civitate quality dropping further simply becasue they are no longer in the Curia, further destroying the meaning of the rank

[Kagemusha]

I agree with Oldgamer. Three months shouldnt be too long.