[Deptheads] Pre-Reg Pending

[Strategicon Department Heads]

I agree with this - approving someone, then yanking their approval, is
worse, PR-wise, than them having to wait to be approved with the knowledge
that they might be rejected. It's a problem that comes up so rarely, that
we forget it's a problem... but somewhere around 2% of everyone is
completely irrational, and will cause problems where you didn't even
realize that problems could exist.

It's not so much of a problem in my department, but in RPGs *especially,* the
GMs should have final approval on players before anyone gets approved.

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 8:55 AM Strategicon Department Heads <
deptheads at strategicon.net> wrote:

> Message From: Victor Bugg  fhoenix88 at yahoo.com
> I have always wanted "auto approval" and dept. supervisors going back in
> manually to clean up any potential conflict since 90% of time approval is
> auto and less than 10% require Supervisor to step in or have a  GM notify a
> supervisor of a potential player conflict. That said.........it is more a
> pr nightmare to remove an auto-approved player than vetting everyone and
> every event to begin with......even if 90% of time it doesn't matter. So
> that is why I never pushed or brought it up again the past years. Leave it
> up to those on both sides of approval and deny and what works best for
> majority.
>
>
> Victor
> On Wednesday, June 24, 2020, 12:06:05 AM MST, Strategicon Department Heads
> <deptheads at strategicon.net> wrote:
>
>
> I think the pending step should be kept. I've had GMs notify me about
> problem players before who they would prefer be kept out of their games,
> and those specific players would then show up in the pre-reg approval
> queues. Essentially, I know it's a bit of a pain, but I think it's a bit of
> a security risk if people are just automatically approved wholesale.
>
> --Will
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 6:56 PM Strategicon Department Heads <
> deptheads at strategicon.net> wrote:
>
> Message From: Tanya Aldrich  taldrich at strategicon.net
> Hi All,
>
> With the addition of the waitlist feature, I’m wondering if we really need
> to keep the Pending step for limited capacity events.
>
> I need to know, if anyone has an issue with auto approval for all events.
>
> Admins will still have the ability to add and drop people from an event,
> and soon bump someone back to waitlist.
>
> Currently the code allows a capacity which is a max of 50% pre-reg (100%
> for virtual) and a waitlist (virtual and 100%) for pre-reg users.
>
> I’ve included the waitlist feature in the new code for both physical and
> virtual events (a waitlist is not required, it is purely an available
> option for all). The new setup would be 50% of max capacity plus 50% of
> waitlist capacity for pre-reg of on-site events. 100% for both for virtual
> (I wonder why).
>
> If we get rid of the pending step, if someone drops from an event, the
> next person on the waitlist will be approved (if the event permits).
>
> I say, "if event permits", because the department head can manually
> approve above 50%. For example, a couple where only one got auto approved
> and the other waitlisted. A drop from this event would not automatically
> move someone up from the waitlist.
>
> Manual approval should never fill an on-site event to capacity.
>
> *So, does anyone *need* the pending step to remain?*
>
> If I haven’t heard a request to keep it by Monday morning, I will assume
> Pending is no long needed in the new format.
>
> Tanya
> _______________________________________________
> Deptheads mailing list
> Deptheads at strategicon.net
> https://strategicon.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/deptheads
>
> Message From: William Hillstrom  urbanjediwill at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> Deptheads mailing list
> Deptheads at strategicon.net
> https://strategicon.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/deptheads
> _______________________________________________
> Deptheads mailing list
> Deptheads at strategicon.net
> https://strategicon.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/deptheads
>


-- 
"Would you like another drink, sir?" asked the bartender.
"I think not," replied Descartes, and promptly vanished.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://strategicon.net/archives/deptheads/attachments/20200624/8972513f/attachment-0001.html>