RuneScape:Clan Chat/Requests for CC Rank/King kolton9

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search

King kolton9(RSN: King Kolton9)

Rank requested: Lieutenant

Previous RfR

Hi, this is the second time I am nominating myself for a lieutenant rank. The 1st request did not reach consensus. I expect (request, and encourage, mind you) to be interrogated as much as possible in-game, or here. I believe I deserve this rank, because I fit all the requirements:

  • The user must have an account here, even if he or she never uses it. Users running for clan adminship should have it for at least 3 months. Check, I have had it for exactly 1 year and one day, and I have been using it a lot more (about every day as opposed to once a week) in the past month.
  • The user must be recognized in the clan chat, and must have been in it consistently for 1-3 months. Check, I am both recognized, and have been in it very consistently from (I believe) march of 2012, to now, and I intend to do so for many years to come.
  • Candidates should be well-known, trusted, and helpful contributors to the wiki and clan chat. Check, again. Everyone who is on regularly knows me, I am trusted, and though I do not make many edits on the wiki, again, the pace of me doing so is picking up, and I intend to do many more edits in the future. Regarding being a helpful contributor to the Clan chat, I try to help anyone as much as I can, though sometimes my help is useless (For example, things like merchanting, and how to kill high level monsters effectively).
  • Candidates should have been an active contributor to the wiki/clan chat for at least eight weeks to a few months. Check, I have been in and helping the clan chat for around 10 months, so I more than fit the requirement.
  • Candidates should have shown their ability to help other users. Check, I have done this many, many times, and as I explained above, sometimes I am useless and clueless, but I still try to help as much as I can.
  • If a request fails, it is generally a good idea to wait a few weeks before nominating that person again. Once that person has been around for a longer period of time they can be nominated again. This also remains the case for self-nominations. Though this doesn’t necessarily need to be here, I included it to cover all bases. Last time I had a request for rank, there was no consensus, so in the last hour I told ty (Via the Clan Chat) to just close the RfR. In it I was told I needed to mature, so over the past two months I have been slowly improving. If you want to see my previous RfR, it is in Archive 5.

I, King kolton9, accept this nomination for a RSW Clan Chat rank. I have read the clan chat rules and the rank guide pertaining to my rank. I understand that this nomination may fail. If I do get community consensus, I promise not to abuse my tools because I am cognizant that this is a serious transgression. If the community finds that I have done so, my rank will be revoked, and in extreme cases I could be given a community ban. Signed, King kolton9 (talk) 02:27, December 23, 2012 (UTC)


Comment I added a link to your previous RfR at the TOP of the page, that way I am able to find it without having to read this entire RfR for a link. WgvxeSr.png - frouZAC.png 03:43, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

Also, to my understanding, I'll point out the nominee feels they deserve the ranks due to fufilled requirements. WgvxeSr.png - frouZAC.png 03:49, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
    Sorry for not pointing this out, but I do want to help the quality of the clan chat. There have been multiple instances when a  guest has come in spamming/flaming/advertising/ and I would have jumped on the chance to kick them. I felt the best way to show that I should get the rank was that I meet the requirements, and that I try to do my best, As a side note, I want to work my way up to admin at sometime in the future, but I feel that in a couple years when I try to go for an admin rank, I do not want to jump right in. I believe doing something gradually is the best way to go.King kolton9 (talk) 04:29, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

Slight Oppose - You're a genuine guy, and your heart is in the right place, but I don't think that you're the best person for this job, nor do you really need the tools.--Cheers, Off-hand ascension crossbow.pngYodaAscension crossbow.png 04:02, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

Yoda, the only two things that Lieutenants have over my current rank (corporal) is that they can kick guests. beyond that, it is absolutely the same. Again, I'll try to improve, so could you please tell me why I am not the best person for the job?King kolton9 (talk) 04:26, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

I feel that you aren't the right person for the job because we've had a recent influx of RfLs by users who I feel are more mature, and better represent RSW as a whole. Also, you mentioned that you're "trying to improve". While this is definitely a good thing that you should pursue, you did an RfR not so long ago. I haven't perused it intensively, but I imagine you made similar statements in that one. What we need to see to give you a rank is improvements from your last attempt, rather than more promises to try in the future.--Cheers, Off-hand ascension crossbow.pngYodaAscension crossbow.png 04:42, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm going to say what I really think here. When someone says that he "deserves" a rank because he fulfills all the requirements in a checklist, especially for a mostly cosmetic rank like lieutenant, that tells me that he wants the rank mostly for the rank itself. The checklist is a set of rough guidelines that the community uses as part of a holistic approach in evaluating a candidate, not an automatic entry to a rank. I'm sorry, but I don't think you've matured at all since the last RfR.

Secondly, I must point out your overzealous adherence to some of the points on the list. I'll use bullet 5 (helping people) as an example. When someone asks to join the clan, you generally aggressively interrogate him for the passphrase from RS:CC. While I don't have an issue with someone asking for the passphrase in itself (despite my personal distaste for it), the mannerism in which you do so tends to give new users a negative first impression of RSW and possibly scares them away. Furthermore, on several occasions I've seen you do this when you yourself were not available to invite the user. It's one thing to ask for a passphrase before you invite someone. It's a whole other thing to do it and shunt the invitation to someone else. This looks very much like overzealous adherence to the "checklist."

Lastly, your nomination statement, while lengthy, shows no indication of how you would use the lieutenant rank. Everything listed there could apply to your current rank.

I should also say that when I look at an RfL, in the back of my mind I am thinking about whether or not this person would be a good clan chat administrator down the road. Based on your behavior and this request, my answer to that would be a definitive no. While I'm willing to support lieutenants who I don't think would be good admins (or vice versa), in this case I feel that you're not making this request for the right reasons, and so I must oppose. --LiquidTalk 05:52, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

After a lengthy in-game discussion, I as well as all the people on this rfr, feel that I still need to improve. It is at this time I am requesting the rfr to end, but I'd like to add a note: I realize that I still have someway to go, grammatically, the way I treat new recruits, and mannerisms in general. I'll be observing how everyone deals with the problems they face in hopes that it will make me a better rank, and person. As someone in the cc said "You don't get the rank then mature for it; you mature for the rank then get it."  When the time arises that my services are needed, and I'll be able to provide the quality the clan needs, I shall do another RfR. Perhaps I may be nominated for it, perhaps not, I'll leave the past in the past, and work towards a better future. King kolton9 (talk) 06:45, December 23, 2012 (UTC)  

Closed - Nominee has withdrawn. --LiquidTalk 06:47, December 23, 2012 (UTC)