Jump to content

? servers

? players online

Meet requirement first

Recommended Posts


  • Content Count:  729
  • Joined:  02/26/17
  • Status:  Offline

Could ya make it so that whoever apply for admin that doesnt meet requirement won't be able to view the admin application. it'll helps shorten the thread. Or make it so that everytime someone who doesnt meet the requirement apply for it, they get an auto message that said "you dont meet the requirement" and show them the requirements they needed to apply for admins.

Link to comment

  • Content Count:  1987
  • Joined:  12/24/18
  • Status:  Offline

I don’t think it’s that necessary to have an automated message or mask them completely from the section. We have CA+ that handle unqualified candidates already. To also not allow them from posting in the admin application section wouldn’t be fair as they haven’t done anything wrong and should still have the right to vote on another applicants thread.

 

It’s not that big of a deal or really one at all to create something auto to combat this IMHO.

Link to comment

  • Content Count:  824
  • Joined:  10/15/18
  • Status:  Offline

I mean, people could also actually read the requirements before hitting submit and then realize that they have to wait, but i dont think that's ever gonna happen. And also, I don't think it's that huge of a problem that it has to be changed from how it currently is.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

  • Content Count:  1918
  • Joined:  05/04/16
  • Status:  Offline

I'm on board with urp and Trazz here, I don't see a need to change anything as of now. It's not that big of a deal (at least from a CA perspective) to have to make a quick post, close, and reject the application.

 

At the same time, I don't get why people don't just read the requirements and realize they shouldn't apply until they have a month + 10 posts. It's not that big of a deal though tbh.

Link to comment

  • Content Count:  1797
  • Joined:  12/31/17
  • Status:  Offline

Good idea with great merit. Though this probably would’ve already been done if this was capable with vbulletin, which I assume is not possible, but there is no reason to completely shut this down just yet. While this might not be necessary, since any CA+ can handle it, it’s obviously an issue since people make the mistake over and over again. An issue which can be prevented a handful of times which can end up saving everyone their time. This might not be something of high priority but if the opportunity to ever have an automated system like this does arise, you should take advantage of it.

 

While I would love to live in a utopia where everyone understands to read the requirements, we don’t. Some people might just be incompetent or some people might be joining a forum based community for the first time and aren’t use to going to guides and threads to read everything they need. They just see the opportunity to apply and assume since it allows them to post that it’ll be okay.

  • Like 5
Link to comment

  • Content Count:  729
  • Joined:  02/26/17
  • Status:  Offline

I was just suggesting that so that the admin apps thread wouldn't be fill with a bunch of these rejections that didn't meet the quote. Just trying to come up with ideas to make CA+ jobs easier man. But hey, if you guys think that spending another 10+ sec to comment and close the thread then thats aite i guess.

Link to comment

  • Content Count:  5674
  • Joined:  01/07/16
  • Status:  Offline

Sort of confused as to why there's any retaliation to this idea. He didn't say he wanted to bar them from viewing the section or being able to post in applications, just not be able to view the application if they don't meet the requirements. Makes pretty perfect sense to me especially considering the fact that we've had an extreme increase in unqualified people submitting applications recently.

 

Haven't thought too much into if it's possible but it doesn't seem far-fetched. In any case it'd probably wait until the new forums but I don't see any harm in the idea, only a small benefit.

 

Would implementing this cause something negative that I'm missing / hasn't been brought up?

  • Like 5
Link to comment

Reply to Thread

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...