[Deptheads] Pre-Reg Pending

Wed Jun 24 13:13:05 PDT 2020

That's not a minefield I'd wish to traverse. My two cents, then, is to
leave the system as is. I don't have trouble approving the players.

Brandon

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:23 PM Strategicon Department Heads <
deptheads at strategicon.net> wrote:

> Message From: Eric Aldrich  ealdrich at mac.com
>
>
> On Jun 24, 2020, at 12:18 PM, Strategicon Department Heads <
> deptheads at strategicon.net> wrote:
>
> Message From: Brandon Weiss  rogue2125 at gmail.com
> I've never had a problem with a player sufficient to require me to not
> approve them but can see where the problems could occur (especially in
> Party Games, LARPs, and RPGs).
>
> Is there a way to flag an account as a "Problem Child" that would then
> require approval but leave all otherwise unflagged accounts as
> auto-approved? I don't know how much of a headache that could cause on the
> backend.
>
>
> There is, but not without potential legal repercussions.
>
> Eric
>
>
> Brandon
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:13 AM Strategicon Department Heads <
> deptheads at strategicon.net> wrote:
>
>> Message From: Tanya Aldrich  taldrich at strategicon.net
>> 1. Yes
>>
>> 2. No. I leave this to Eric A. to consider.
>>
>> 3. Assuming supervisor is someone with admin access, I believe Robert has
>> implemented this. Not ported to live site yet.
>>
>> Tanya
>>
>> On Jun 24, 2020, at 10:37 AM, Strategicon Department Heads <
>> deptheads at strategicon.net> wrote:
>>
>> Message From: Mike James  minis.tyrant at gmail.com
>> Couple of questions and clarifications so everyone is on the same page.
>>
>> 1. Do players still have the ability to un-preregister?
>>
>> 2. Can the department head see the contact email of registrant?
>>
>> 3. Is there a way for the supervisor to contact all the attendees in one
>> message?
>>
>> Personally, Miniatures has no problem with auto-approving all pre-regs,
>> but that’s not a huge thing in my department.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:19 AM Strategicon Department Heads <
>> deptheads at strategicon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Message From: Jason DuVall  nekojin at gmail.com
>>> 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.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Deptheads mailing list
> Deptheads at strategicon.net
> https://strategicon.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/deptheads
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://strategicon.net/archives/deptheads/attachments/20200624/4bfc8de1/attachment.html>