We need n00bs

January 17, 2005 1:44 PM

NerdFilter: So I'm part of an online gaming community/guild that runs some servers. We have a recruitment process that is a bit old, and we are starting to get rather large (50+).

What sort of recruitment process are you aware of for online communities? Any that you are particularly fond of?
posted by eurasian to (9 comments total)

Well met, fellow nerd. Our guild uses Guild Portal (www.guildportal.com) for management. There is also guild universe (www.guilduniverse.com).
posted by Medieval Maven at 2:10 PM on January 17, 2005

Ah, sorry, not talking software solutions. More process. Like for this group, we read the posts, watch the person play in-game for a few weeks, and then post yea or nay. If ANY recruit gets a veto vote, they are out. The problem with this is the more sensitve and idealistic folks can stop a recruit from joining quite easily.

The PLUS side of this is that we get a very selective, mature, fun group. The DOWN side is that as it grows larger, it stagnates. Turnover in any electronic community is high, and we need constant new QUALITY blood to keep going. How does one balance the two?
posted by eurasian at 2:15 PM on January 17, 2005

Charge new users $5?
posted by trondant at 2:25 PM on January 17, 2005

Kkick someone out of the group once a month and replace them with a new recruit. (Vote on who to kick out.) And raise the number of votes for kicking out a newbie to 2.
posted by kindall at 2:40 PM on January 17, 2005

Yeah, I'd say raise the number of votes to kick out a newbie, first, but...

I'm part of a community on the 'net that kicked out all of the dissenters and troublemakers, and stagnated. In fact, I've even left, because I got sat on HARD by the admin/owner for saying something that wasn't welcome. (I said something bad about kids when everyone in the community is suddenly pregnant or with little ones at once.) It's gotten to the "You kids! Get off my lawn!" point, and I don't go there much.

The only communities I see that thrive are those that welcome new players with open arms. The only way to maintain quality is to have a weeding process. You might consider accepting recruits in classes, like a university or academy would, or having two levels to your organization -- the novice / open level, where anyone can be invited to come and play, but only with other novices (and people can be barred from entry) and once the cream of the novices rises to the top, you ask them if they'd like to join the master league.
posted by SpecialK at 3:00 PM on January 17, 2005

Ah. I have information, then, as well. We Keep It Simple. New people have to play with a majority of the captains (I think there are six of us at this point) in any of our incarnations (read: alts). We then take it to the forum (Officers Only Forum) and the Officers talk about if the person is suitable. By now we have usually also polled the other members of the group to get a feel for their opinions, and based on that and our feelings, we come to a consensus. There is no such thing as an absolute veto with our group, unless exercised by Our Fearless Leader, who remains lovely and popular by not being an authoritanian control-freak.

I think we are an almost freakishly self-governing group, though. We use TeamSpeak, and so particularly the Officers know one another well at this point. We just don't have a lot of drama, I think because we are all refugees from the same group that got way too drama-ridden. Feel free to email me if you want -- our group is smaller than yours, but we are all very happy and we play a lot. We are probably one of the most self-associating groups on the server -- I play with my peeps nearly every night.
posted by Medieval Maven at 3:17 PM on January 17, 2005

Another thing, we keep new, fun people coming in, but we are not desperately seeking new people. That's what happened with the group we were in the imploded -- the leadership brought in too many people, too fast, and no one knew one another. The group just got to in-fighting (Powerlevelers v. RP, "Serious" v. Casual Gamers). We read people's backgrounds for their toons, and if they're funny, or obliquely reference something like say, Eddie Izzard or whatever someone finds amusing, we share that, and invite the kid, and evaluate his chops. We also make a big deal out of new members, so that they know we don't just think people who are very cool come along every ten minutes.
posted by Medieval Maven at 3:23 PM on January 17, 2005

I play with a fairly small group (under 50, for sure), but management of the group is pretty straightforward: There is one Supreme Leader by force of personality and sunny disposition. Everyone else is a member (except Supreme Leader's husband, who has Supreme Leader's admin account password for delegative purposes). Well, except for one of the utmost highly important members, who isn't a member purely for reasons of administrative convenience.

We all get along wonderfully and have a great time. We don't play for skill, ranking, or competition. It's just fun. Turnover is low -- occasionally someone brings in a spouse or friend or offspring, or is away for a while -- yet we aren't stagnant nor is there infighting. We do zero recruiting and would find ourselves scratching our heads if a prospective new member turned up.

I guess it helps somewhat that many of the core members have known each other personally for 10 to 20 years. I grew up with half these people. Another quarter of them, I know from weddings and funerals. The remainder, I've never met.
posted by majick at 3:51 PM on January 17, 2005

Hm, tricky business this all is. Well, tbh, our membership is 50, although probably 1/2 or so is active at any one time.

We maintain a somewhat flat hierarchy, which appeals to our group, since we are all somewhat older than the average gamer (probably not older than the average MeFi though).

I think a group based on Meatspace is the most stable and longest lasting. It's the purely online ones that are tricky. Yeargh. Tricky, tricky stuff.

So it seems there are very hierarchical and formal arrangements, and more democratic with a benevolent dictatorship. Our group is more the latter.

Will mull over this, thanks for the input :D
posted by eurasian at 9:06 AM on January 18, 2005