Originally Posted by Boss-Hog
When it became apparent that we were looking at making drastic changes, we were also in agreement that we should select a set number of existing ORG users whose posts and attitude towards others best exemplify the values that the site was founded upon. Along with input from the moderators, we trimmed the existing ORG access list down from over 450 to 240 because we felt it was a necessary step, due to the inflation that had occurred with the reputation system. That's not to say that those who no longer have access didn't deserve to be there (although I do feel that way about a handful of people). It is, however, a necessary evil in order to cut down the revised ORG member list to a number that GIK and I felt comfortable with.
Question...if you felt the number needed to be lowered to 240 or so ORG members, is it a philosophy that you'll have to keep the number down??...I'm all for "cleaning the board up" as a rule and don't even have issue with being caught in the crossfire of the cleansing though I seem to pass the "markers of inclusion"...but I would be troubled if we ( I guess I mean the mods and leaders of RZ) didn't have the desire to include other worthy members into this group regardless of the amount of ORG members that would give us/you...I'd hate to think inclusion to the ORG is limited to a certain number of members rather than by person-by-person evaluation as to the quality of input they provide to the site...
Does that question make sense