New MM Idea?

Well, instead of relying so Heavily on vouches, and such...

Make a firmer requirement.

I say:

You MUST have at least 3 proofs from trades in dealing with official middlemen.
You MUST have at least 3 trades with another person using an official middleman, and that official middleman must have vouched you.
You MUST have been around sythe for at LEAST 3 months to start an application, during which point you must have become a "member" and broken no rules (Warnings are ok).
EDIT:You MUST show KNOWLEDGE and ABILITY in all trades that occur on sythe. Either through answering questions, walking a staff member through the process via a discussion with them 1-on-1, or through proof of doing such.

Then I say we do something where the staff judges the person BEFORE and AFTER the application is put through.

Basically, when a person wants to go for MM, they post a new thread with their application. The forum acts like that of the debate forum, and only the owner and staff/OMM's may post in it. The thread gets an attatched poll from the staff...

Staff votes. If majority says yes, the person is allowed to continue with their application.

If staff votes no, then the application is denied, and the applicant must wait a week before re-applying.

In the application, the person must have the above mentioned included.



And any middleman/staff vouching for a member MUST BE HELD accountable. Making it harder/more difficult to recieve a vouch from an official middleman or a staff member.

(ie. incorporate a way of suspension for staff members if a person who they vouched ends up scamming).

(((VOUCHES FROM REGULAR MEMBERS WHO ARE NOT APPLYING FOR MIDDLEMAN ARE NOT CONISDERED)))
((((AND EACH PERSON WHO VOUCHES IS HELD ACCOUNTABLE. IT COULD JEOPORDIZE THEIR CHANCES OF BEING AN OFFICIAL))))


Yes, no?


EDIT:

If you recieved an infraction, and are ineligible to apply for middleman, YOU MUST recieve a waiver from an administrator to go through the process!

 

I DO think it's a good idea, however the trades could get complicated to attain. Although I like the '3 month' idea.

 

Thanks!

I edited another part that I just remembered into the post.

 

Before I forget to ask, weren't you a User Educator? -And why did you lose it?

 

Pmd you.

I edited a part in.

 

I support the idea, it could need modifying and and the applications would need to be viewed carefully. I strongly agree that doing MM's for proofs isn't going to continue to work.

 

All ideas need work . But this process would be more strict, much quicker, and even more trusted.

I edited in another part .

 

I Support. this is a great idea. relying SO much on vouches is truly a bad idea. especially when 80% of them are from people that are leechers or have only joined for like a month.

this is a fantastic idea. good job deacon!

 

I have voted "no" to this, my main reason being your requirement that an Official MM must never have broken any rules.

Rules being broken for things like flaming, spam etc dont really make you untrustworthy, if that requirement was put in then there would be very few possible candidates for Official. I know for certain both me and Macro would have no chance

 

Nah, i dont agree with u. it should just stay the way it is. it will cause to much hastle.

 

You sir. Have no idea how much hastle it is to get 25MM's done these days.

Mike, If you read the thread properly it said that those with prior infractions just need to get green light from an Administrator.

 

PIMP SLAP DAT HOE!! KWEEPESHHH!!!

Supportive all the way bro.
MACRO MAN RAWKS

 

1.) I agree with the 3 month rule. If you are active for three months, it is showing that if you do become an Official Middleman, you're more likely to maintain your activity. In this 3 month period, you're also able to get to know the site, and the people of it.

In all honesty, you're unlikely to get a 'yes' vote on a middleman poll if you have 20 posts and have been here for a week.

2.) I do not think rule breaking should be taken into account. Middlemanning has absolutely nothing to do with rule breaking, except for scamming. Preventing/considering the prevention of a person from being accepted simply due to their warning for double posting would be simply idiotic.

3.) Surely having to go through an entire process of showing you're capable of trading with a staff member will be highly time consumptive. (Although it is a good idea.)

 

This seems a bit more opinion based than the current method, and opinions only end up causing trouble. MM applicants that are just as caipable as others but adminds/mods don't like them then have a lessened chance to become an official that way.

The 3 month time idea is good, i like that.

Disagree with needing member status, status is done by postcount. Having that would contradict other rules on sythe.

Walking through with a mod, is in some ways a good idea, if the mod is selected at random.

 

I dont understand what infractions have anything to do with anything. Some people break rules, but that shouldnt be accounted for as not being trusted enough.

 

I must say the 3 month activity rule is a great idea, and the MM-Application definitely does need to be changed to reflect the current state of RWT in Runescape.

Breaking of the rules section I still dont support, thats the kind of thing thats looked into when the votes for the MM Application are cast (or at least I would assume it is).

MiddleMan Moderator- A great idea I think, either Fouisgras, Finniscool or Shredderbeam I would personnaly believe would fill this roll excelently if it came into place

 

Gah, being IP Blocked is shitty >.>.. Ok, I'll go through and answer all your questions since I couldn't answer that question in the first place as to why that rule is there.

The reason we would use the infractions is actually a very good reason. Showing your ability to keep your nose clean shows that you are mature, and don't break any rules in circumstances. Middlemanning has everything to do with your infractions, because it shows that you are able to follow a guideline, and you stick to it.

Who honestly wants an official middleman who's been banned 8 times for spamming? What are the odds of that person being banned after they become a middleman?

I'm saying, if you make it where they have to have a WAIVER from an administrator telling them they may post their application, then you will find that the people going for official middleman are much more professional, much smarter, and less noobish. Meaning the application process will be like it used to be.

Yes, going through and trading with a staff member who is willing to just throw themselves out there is a big thing. It means putting their money on the line, as well as a chance of putting their position in sythe on the line.

But the people who come out of those situations better than they were before would be grateful. It is a simulated environment in which the people get to know how to properly do things BEFORE they have to deal with the immaturity that comes from those wanting middlemen.

What do you think the current method is? Easy? No, it's not. You go through, turn in 25 gay fuckin proofs, and then your application is put on hold from anywhere from 1 day to 10 months. Why is that done? Because they research who you are, they get to know you, they get to see you in action, etc.

If we do the process before and after, it will shorten the time, however, it will make it more difficult for people to actually be accepted/ even apply.

The member status goes hand in hand with the three month rule. The reason that is in tact is because it shows that you have been active, and during your time of being active you have not broken any rules. That's what we want, because that shows your intention of actually working for that position. (See above WHY not breaking rules is important).

The mod would be A) Selected by an administrator, B) An official Middleman, or C) Chosen by the person wishing to complete their application. It can be one of those three, or the person could just change the top of the application saying "NEEDING STAFF MEMBER". Or something to that effect, so they can progress in their application.

If you have traded with someone who is an official, and this official has vouched you, using this system, I'm more likely to trust YOU than a person with a thousand trades. Why is this? Because if the middleman vouched you, and lied, and you end up scamming, that person will lose their position for a set amount of time. More than likely a middleman will often completely lose their position for vouching a scammer.

This means vouches will be harder to obtain, and you will have to prove your right to have them. Ask any mod you know if they would "Put their position on sythe on the line" for you. The main reason this is done during the application process is because during actually doing things in the real world, you're not confronted with the issue during applying. People who go for official middleman, are not going have to deal with the immaturity, stupidity, and scammers that come from random leechers. It's a controlled environment, where they are not going to be frustrated, but are going to learn, and grow.

The only problem is, we may have a couple of people who make official decide they do not want the rank because they don't wanna deal with the immaturity. Which is better than letting in scammers .

No more moderators are needed. Especially ones in the middleman section. Why? Market moderators, and Steph. This section is highly touchy, and allowing anyone to tamper with anything could prove to be very traumatic to the staff. Say one of the above suggested did so much as sticky an application for a friend...?

The others who see this would become furious and request stickies as well. And that's the LEAST that could happen.

Anymore questions or ideas I haven't covered?

 

One problem with this is like what someone mentioned before, If the administrators dislike a person then it could be unfair against him.

 

It's already unfair if that happens. And if administrators are disliking a person, maybe that person should change their attitude? Seriously, the admins won't dislike you until you do something wrong/stupid.

And any ways, there's not only one admin, if they all hate you, then there's no reason for you to try anyways.

 

I guess the down side is , if someone scams "Blame the administrators"