Post by Zeli on Sept 25, 2006 17:45:32 GMT -5
This is an archive of our September 2006 Newsletter.
Don't miss out on October's Newsletter due out October 1.
Sign up today!
Circle of Trust Newsletter
September 2006
Issue #1
Officer Edition
Welcome to the first official newsletter of CoT.
If you have any suggestions, questions or concerns, please email them to circleoftrust.guild@gmail.com.
RP and WAR
by Zeli
It's pretty easy to see how Circle of Trust is a good fitting name for the side of Order, but what if we choose to go Destruction? Lately I've been thinking about this dilemma and I think I may have found an answer. I posted this over on the Only-WAR website so that Warhammer guru's could rip it apart if it was really wrong:
In reading "World of Warhammer" (since I am a newb this is a very useful text for me) I saw, (pgs 91 & 101) in the Chaos section, "...Thus everyone, from the power-hungry and ignorant to the most erudite seekers of the Truth, can fall foul of Chaos' enticement." and I thought I read that Tzeentch was the god of chaos available at release? I don't know if that's right or even confirmed, but I saw that he's also called the "Changer of Ways." So I'm thinking we can still be Circle of Trust and simply have deluded ourselves, manipulated by his treachery, and we can wrongly believe that we can hold on to our honor and trust even while we slip further and further into Destruction by the unending pursuit of greater power.
and here's the response I got:
Absolutely possible. Not only that, but it's probably something that happens pretty often to those that fall prey to the lures of Chaos. Some embrace, some fight it, some fool themselves into believing they are actually still what they once were but in the end, all fall to the lures and temptations. I think it would make for a nice dramatic RP for you and everyone you interact with.
Woot! CoT - we're delusional! From the posts afterwards, it seems we are okay with this idea if we choose to go bad guy in this one!
Movies
Check out these new movies made by your guildies:
* Ragnaros:
* Taint:
* In Retrospect:
Personal Gratz
Kaarenyth had a baby girl!
Molley got a promotion!
Winin sold his condo & got a new job!
Aberrant is getting a new certification for work!
Gratz all! Remember to congratulate them if you see these guildies in-game!
Guild News
CoT's Guild Member History archive is a work in progress.
You can find it here:
www.circleoftrust.org/MemHist.htm
I entered every poll that was still on ezboard, but because of the hack, we lost a lot of history. If you remember someone who needs to be added, please let me know.
Man of Action
by Aberrant
Listen to a reporter comment on this month's Man of Action, a brave mountain climber with a disability.
Click the link to hear more!
www.circleoftrust.org/Newsletter/gaymountainclimber.mp3
According to Molley
“I just came to the site as a guest (it logged me out), and could read the core members forums, when I went back to the main forum page, I no longer had access, I clicked on it, was denined, hit back and I was logged back in as Molley again. WTH? I thought I noticed that once before, but wasn't sure, this time I was paying attention. Anyone else notice weirdness?”
This will become a major concern for us as we reorganize in a new game. I encourage everyone to attempt to get into the secure areas when they are logged out and please report any success right away.
Half-Assed Review (tm)
by Aberrant
V for Vendetta:
I expected mucho action and good dialogue, didn't really get either. Disappointing.
Guild Procedure Update
A New Procedure for Enlisting
by Zeli
I want to get back to basics with enlisting and I updated our enlisting process. When we originally made CoT, we wanted quality, not quantity. We wanted folks who were truly interested in CoT. Please read through it here and let me know if it's acceptable:
www.circleoftrust.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8
The changes are:
In applicant must post on the forums before their initiation starts. I understand that folks may not be avid website people, but they have to at least have enough interest in our guild to read through our Laws.After they post an intro, then they are not yet an initiate, they are an applicant. They cannot yet be invited to the guild. Their sponsor must post under their intro showing that they are their sponsor. Once the sponsor has posted support, then the applicant can be invited as an initiate.
Any guild member can view, reply to discussion and create a poll for an initiate. If you can be a sponsor, then you can create the poll. That means the sponsor should create the poll. If you do not have enough interest in your initiate to be bothered with creating a poll, then you shouldn't be sponsoring them.
Not all guildies can vote on initiates. Only guildies at Trust Member or higher can vote on initiates. That means that sponsors may not be able to vote on their own initiate, but this has always been the case with CoT.
You have to have 2 'no' votes as an initiate to be denied membership. You should have the courage to post why you voted no. This is because we did have an accidental 'no' vote on someone in the past. Your reason does not have to be complex. Simply stating "He/She seems like a good person but I don't think they fit into CoT" is more than acceptable. We don't have to create enemies with the process.
An initiate has to get '10' yes votes to be moved up to guild member.This number will change depending upon how many people we have with voting abilities. My thoughts are that this number should be half of the total number of eligible voters. So if we have 18 people who can vote on intiates, then this number would be at 9. But I think 10 is good enough. Even if we get 40 people who can vote on guild members, making someone receive 20 yes votes seems excessive. If 10 people vote yes and no one votes no, then I think that's apretty good indicator. This is up for debate of course! I just set it at 10 for now. It's flexible.
But why the change? Upon archiving our history, I noticed that we had quite a string of folks in the past who got no votes either way, so we moved them up because they had gone through the 2 week initiation, but no one was really sure if they wanted them in the guild. I want us to be sure of our welcoming of new members. If, after 2 weeks, there are not enough 'yes' votes, then the initiate will remain at initiate status for another 2 weeks. An initiate can only go through initiation 3 times (6 weeks max) in a row and if after that time, there are still not enough 'yes' votes to get them in and not enough 'no' votes to disqualify them, then they are removed from the guild with the understanding that they can try again at a later date.
An initiate is expected to be on line regularly during initiate status. If an initiate is not online for 30 consecutive days during their initiate phase, they will be removed from the guild. They can retry enlisting once they return to the game if they are still interested. Once someone is a guild member, they will never be removed due to their lack of online participation, but initiates need to be online to allow us to get to know them.
If someone is a past CoTer and left in good standing, they can rejoin without going through the initiation phase.
Friends and Family of CoTers do not have to wait for a sponsor to post support. Once they post an intro and express who their friend or family member is, then they get invited as an initiate.
Even though only certain members can vote on initiates, we obviously do not want any initiate invited to CoT that would cause a current member so much discomfort that they would have to leave CoT to enjoy their play experience. Our current members are our primary responsibility. Therefor I added a 'Mortal Enemy' (ME) policy. Any current member has the option of ME'ing an applicant based on past experience. ME's are very serious. Members should only invoke this option if the admission of an applicant would leave the existing member no other recourse but guild removal. Should an applicant receive an ME, their application will be permanently suspended. ME's may be posted or reported via email to an officer. As with any issue or concern it is best if the member approaches an officer to resolve it without an ME. You may only ME an applicant during the initiate review. You may not ME after someone has become a member.
These changes are up for debate and conversation should be posted in our officers section of the forums. I would like to have this settled before we enter a new game.
Don't miss out on October's Newsletter due out October 1.
Sign up today!
Circle of Trust Newsletter
September 2006
Issue #1
Officer Edition
Welcome to the first official newsletter of CoT.
If you have any suggestions, questions or concerns, please email them to circleoftrust.guild@gmail.com.
RP and WAR
by Zeli
It's pretty easy to see how Circle of Trust is a good fitting name for the side of Order, but what if we choose to go Destruction? Lately I've been thinking about this dilemma and I think I may have found an answer. I posted this over on the Only-WAR website so that Warhammer guru's could rip it apart if it was really wrong:
In reading "World of Warhammer" (since I am a newb this is a very useful text for me) I saw, (pgs 91 & 101) in the Chaos section, "...Thus everyone, from the power-hungry and ignorant to the most erudite seekers of the Truth, can fall foul of Chaos' enticement." and I thought I read that Tzeentch was the god of chaos available at release? I don't know if that's right or even confirmed, but I saw that he's also called the "Changer of Ways." So I'm thinking we can still be Circle of Trust and simply have deluded ourselves, manipulated by his treachery, and we can wrongly believe that we can hold on to our honor and trust even while we slip further and further into Destruction by the unending pursuit of greater power.
and here's the response I got:
Absolutely possible. Not only that, but it's probably something that happens pretty often to those that fall prey to the lures of Chaos. Some embrace, some fight it, some fool themselves into believing they are actually still what they once were but in the end, all fall to the lures and temptations. I think it would make for a nice dramatic RP for you and everyone you interact with.
Woot! CoT - we're delusional! From the posts afterwards, it seems we are okay with this idea if we choose to go bad guy in this one!
Movies
Check out these new movies made by your guildies:
* Ragnaros:
* Taint:
* In Retrospect:
Personal Gratz
Kaarenyth had a baby girl!
Molley got a promotion!
Winin sold his condo & got a new job!
Aberrant is getting a new certification for work!
Gratz all! Remember to congratulate them if you see these guildies in-game!
Guild News
CoT's Guild Member History archive is a work in progress.
You can find it here:
www.circleoftrust.org/MemHist.htm
I entered every poll that was still on ezboard, but because of the hack, we lost a lot of history. If you remember someone who needs to be added, please let me know.
Man of Action
by Aberrant
Listen to a reporter comment on this month's Man of Action, a brave mountain climber with a disability.
Click the link to hear more!
www.circleoftrust.org/Newsletter/gaymountainclimber.mp3
According to Molley
“I just came to the site as a guest (it logged me out), and could read the core members forums, when I went back to the main forum page, I no longer had access, I clicked on it, was denined, hit back and I was logged back in as Molley again. WTH? I thought I noticed that once before, but wasn't sure, this time I was paying attention. Anyone else notice weirdness?”
This will become a major concern for us as we reorganize in a new game. I encourage everyone to attempt to get into the secure areas when they are logged out and please report any success right away.
Half-Assed Review (tm)
by Aberrant
V for Vendetta:
I expected mucho action and good dialogue, didn't really get either. Disappointing.
Guild Procedure Update
A New Procedure for Enlisting
by Zeli
I want to get back to basics with enlisting and I updated our enlisting process. When we originally made CoT, we wanted quality, not quantity. We wanted folks who were truly interested in CoT. Please read through it here and let me know if it's acceptable:
www.circleoftrust.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8
The changes are:
In applicant must post on the forums before their initiation starts. I understand that folks may not be avid website people, but they have to at least have enough interest in our guild to read through our Laws.After they post an intro, then they are not yet an initiate, they are an applicant. They cannot yet be invited to the guild. Their sponsor must post under their intro showing that they are their sponsor. Once the sponsor has posted support, then the applicant can be invited as an initiate.
Any guild member can view, reply to discussion and create a poll for an initiate. If you can be a sponsor, then you can create the poll. That means the sponsor should create the poll. If you do not have enough interest in your initiate to be bothered with creating a poll, then you shouldn't be sponsoring them.
Not all guildies can vote on initiates. Only guildies at Trust Member or higher can vote on initiates. That means that sponsors may not be able to vote on their own initiate, but this has always been the case with CoT.
You have to have 2 'no' votes as an initiate to be denied membership. You should have the courage to post why you voted no. This is because we did have an accidental 'no' vote on someone in the past. Your reason does not have to be complex. Simply stating "He/She seems like a good person but I don't think they fit into CoT" is more than acceptable. We don't have to create enemies with the process.
An initiate has to get '10' yes votes to be moved up to guild member.This number will change depending upon how many people we have with voting abilities. My thoughts are that this number should be half of the total number of eligible voters. So if we have 18 people who can vote on intiates, then this number would be at 9. But I think 10 is good enough. Even if we get 40 people who can vote on guild members, making someone receive 20 yes votes seems excessive. If 10 people vote yes and no one votes no, then I think that's apretty good indicator. This is up for debate of course! I just set it at 10 for now. It's flexible.
But why the change? Upon archiving our history, I noticed that we had quite a string of folks in the past who got no votes either way, so we moved them up because they had gone through the 2 week initiation, but no one was really sure if they wanted them in the guild. I want us to be sure of our welcoming of new members. If, after 2 weeks, there are not enough 'yes' votes, then the initiate will remain at initiate status for another 2 weeks. An initiate can only go through initiation 3 times (6 weeks max) in a row and if after that time, there are still not enough 'yes' votes to get them in and not enough 'no' votes to disqualify them, then they are removed from the guild with the understanding that they can try again at a later date.
An initiate is expected to be on line regularly during initiate status. If an initiate is not online for 30 consecutive days during their initiate phase, they will be removed from the guild. They can retry enlisting once they return to the game if they are still interested. Once someone is a guild member, they will never be removed due to their lack of online participation, but initiates need to be online to allow us to get to know them.
If someone is a past CoTer and left in good standing, they can rejoin without going through the initiation phase.
Friends and Family of CoTers do not have to wait for a sponsor to post support. Once they post an intro and express who their friend or family member is, then they get invited as an initiate.
Even though only certain members can vote on initiates, we obviously do not want any initiate invited to CoT that would cause a current member so much discomfort that they would have to leave CoT to enjoy their play experience. Our current members are our primary responsibility. Therefor I added a 'Mortal Enemy' (ME) policy. Any current member has the option of ME'ing an applicant based on past experience. ME's are very serious. Members should only invoke this option if the admission of an applicant would leave the existing member no other recourse but guild removal. Should an applicant receive an ME, their application will be permanently suspended. ME's may be posted or reported via email to an officer. As with any issue or concern it is best if the member approaches an officer to resolve it without an ME. You may only ME an applicant during the initiate review. You may not ME after someone has become a member.
These changes are up for debate and conversation should be posted in our officers section of the forums. I would like to have this settled before we enter a new game.