Forum:Usergroups

I know I have brought up this subject before, but from recent events I am now going to again ask for a vote to determine if we ought to have usergroups. A minimum of at least two. These usergroups would be doing different tasks.
 * Creating a group wide RP
 * Keeping all of the members fanon's up to date.
 * And anything else that is brought up during this discussion.

My observations have brought me to my opinion that user groups would help the community grow and up the standard of fanon. These groups would lead by example and become leaders on Halo Fanon to help all users in need of help. Each usergroup though is also given a special task for itself and its own promotion standards.
 * Example: Group one would have the job of making important policy pages that they feel would be needed. After they say, okay we like this, the admins will look over it and then have their own vote.
 * Another example would be general helping of the community, making sure that all Fanon meet standards, this group will mainly be focusing on Standards and not official policy stuff. They may still submit ideas, but it must go onto the other usergroups page. Also, they will be in charge of the User's Fanon of the Month, which is what I am considering for the user vote for a fanon of the month, which is still separate from the fanon of the month that the admins vote in.

These are just some ideas, feel free to submit other ideas.

Both groups will be in charge of keeping the peace and making sure everyone gets along, but they must not over step the proper civility policy that was created by RelentlessRecusant.

I know that I have not informed the admins about this, but none were on to talk about this and thus I felt compelled to talk about this. If you feel that an email is in order I will send one immediately following my reading of you wanting an email.

This is just to be able to have the ability to give charters to usergroups and to see if anyone actually want usergroups.

For
 The Soldier  The Best 20:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * per what I said above. Thanks, H*bad (talk)
 * Yeah why not...hope this won't turn out like CAF...
 * C F 00 1 17:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It good be a very good prospcet. The Data  The Database
 * It may be worth seeing the outcome.  Ha lo Du de 23:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea because its about time we sort out some standards for fanon!  Th e p  ark  st er  Co mu  ni  c  at  io ns  Co  nt  ri  b  ut  io <font color="darkgoldenrod">ns |undefined 07:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah...just what we need...another CAF...I'LL give it a try though... SPARTAN-118

Against

 * Call me blunt but aren't both of these pointless? A usergroup to make up policies? The admin team looks over any policy idea a member raises anyway. Why would people need to join a group to do that? A group to go around improving fanon and get it to meet standards? Isn't that what alot of members do anyway? Am i the only person who sees no point to these groups?
 * I said those were examples, not actual groups. Those were just something that came out of the top of my head. Besides I am sure that we can defiantly think of other ideas. This isn't for the charter of both of those groups, this is just to be able to even have the ability to give charter to usergroups that want to be official Halo Fanon usergroups. I shall make that clear in the statement above. Thanks, H*bad (talk)
 * These user group ideas but forward are though, in all honesty, pathetic. Most of its stuff with no point or has been put forward before. And why do we need a charterto put forward a group? Somebody suggests an idea, we decline on wether its trash or accept if it isn't. It all seems very, very pointless
 * Okay those where just ideas that just came out of my head at the second I was writing that statement above. Halopedia does it and it works. This is to make sure that we don't have an excess of user groups. Thanks, H*bad (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * I think I'll wait and decide later. I want to see what arguments come up. --<font color=#00FF00>MCPO James Davis LOMI HQ<font color=#33FFFF>I here your cries<font color=#CC3333>May your works be honorable 15:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll just stay neutral for now. -- <font color="Red">Your Worst <font color="Red">Enemy <font color="White"><The Original> <font color="Red"><The SPARTAN>  <font color="White"><The Thriller><font color="Red"><The Project> 23:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ideas
Heres an idea I've been thinking about for a while: connected article group. When you join, you get a template placed on all your articles saying that "this article is connected and shares the same "universe/canon" as all other articles with this tag". This also means that there can be no two articles of the same name in the group. If two people join at the same time, or nearly the same time, maybe like a buffer of a week or so, then the better article is included, and the other one is not. Just a thought.

Spartan 501 22:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that's interesting, perhaps if creating Usergroups become allowed it might get a charter to be created. I can't say whether or not if it will or anything. Thanks, H*bad (talk)

This is an excellent idea, i get quite annoyed, personally, when i find five or six different pages of the same name (a bit like all of the Spartan 4 programmes!). Also my idea; will these user groups have themes? They would still have the main roles (standard checking, policy making, etc...) but could they be like the CAF but different factions? I wouldn't mind putting the CN up for a user group. I could make the ranks and be one of the leaders. You could do one for the Forrunners or Precuroereuoers whatever it is, or even the flood or hydra? This would make the user groups a lot more intersting and i'm willing to help. I think that these user groups should be accepted via the community vote rather than the admin vote, also. Thanks for reading!  <font color="darkgoldenrod">Th e p  ark  st <font color="darkgoldenrod">er  <font color="darkgoldenrod">Co mu  ni  c  at  io <font color="darkgoldenrod">ns  <font color="darkgoldenrod">Co  nt  ri  b  ut  io <font color="darkgoldenrod">ns |undefined 07:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Hydra do not need a usergroup. They're out of there. --<font color=#00FF00>MCPO James Davis LOMI HQ<font color=#33FFFF>I here your cries<font color=#CC3333>May your works be honorable 14:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Idea: A Usergroup based off of the UoH/CoH only 3 High Ranking officers and 2 secondary officers to come to power in case of emergency. Each user can chose what species they want to be(Human or Elite). Every user has the same rank at first.(Minor Domo or Pvt.) My next point, 2 Representives, 1 from each species. Their job, Represent the lower ranks and give the promotion requests to the High Ranking officials. But they first need a reason for the promotion. Which brings me to my next point, No one can become a general because "I WANT GENRAL CUZ I R AWESOME!!11!!!". Thats just stupid. If this idea goes go through, I will be one of the High-Ranks as will 2 other very qualified users. The Mid-Ranks will not be assigned until the first "Election For Positions". And every user has the same rights. No admins can just waltz in as a Private and automatically become a High-Rank official, It doesn't work like that. (Ajax, this is just an example no offense) Lets say Ajax comes and joins as Private/Minor Domo and says he deserves a promotion for past articles written. "My articles are good, I think i deserve a promotion." Yes you do, But your articles are before the user group started therefore they aren't worth the same as fresh articles. Those are what improve the wikia, not past articles. Thank you for your time. <font color="Green">The Data <font color="Green"> The Database <font color="Green"> The Soldier <font color="Green"> The Best 04:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)