What are the 'rules' for seeking crypt membership?
 

It used to be a three-week time limit and a vote.

But Archaea recently told me that Mike added a new rule -- 180 days without any suspensions.

Are there any other rules?

Is there any reason to think that the 180 rule wasn't invented for my personal benefit?

Would dying be a criteria? What are you talking about?

The Crypt is a private forum on this board. You have to be a member to have access to the crypt. It was originally invented because participants here were getting in trouble on CB for some of what they said on CG. In the crypt, members didn't have to worry about getting punished by El Jefe for speaking their mind. There are rules for entry. The old rules used to be simple -- Be an active contributor to CG for a minimum of three weeks, and then receive a vote of confidence from the current members of the crypt.

I have hoped to participate in the crypt for a long time, but the old rules have changed, and now include a requirement of not having any suspensions from Mike for at least 180 days. What earn's a person a suspension from Mike? Whatever bugs Mike is what earns a suspension. So apparently being on Mike's good side is a NEW rule of crypt entry. Since Mike has beef with me, and frequently bans me with no reason given, I have given up on the hope of ever participating in the crypt.

Why 180 days without suspension is any indication of whether or not a person could be found trustworthy among his peers, or whether he could contribute to the community inside the crypt is a mystery to me, which is why I think it is Mike's anti-Robin-in-the-crypt rule.

The crypt has proven to be somewhat controversial, as its purpose for existence has changed over time, and has been percieved by some as a clique.

But for most active participants, entry isn't an issue. If you wait long enough, you will probably get a mysterious private message that invites you to join. Enjoy.

Robin you forgot the part where you tried to destroy the community and openly confessed to such selfish aims. You're lucky you weren't banned forever. I resisted this, though it was suggested by many.

Your behavior has placed you in your own short-leashed category.

Don't remember hearing a 180 day good behavior requirement. The "don't piss off the big guy" clause is in full effect, however.

I never tried to 'destroy the community.' What I confessed to was an ill-conceived attempt to illustrate why a sense of personal investment in community is so important for its existence. I think it was Creekster who wrote the hypothosis for my unfortunate experiment when he asked why I should care so much about the acceptance or rejection of a bunch of people on a semi-anonymous sports board. In other words, if this is all just a diversion from work and the drudgery of day-to-day life, then who cares what the people here think of you?

My experiment was to illustrate what happens when people treat CG as a diversion rather than a community. So I gave up courtesy and manners, the glue of community, and treated people and their feelings and ideas as diversion, rather than showing patience and respect, which is what people do when they are invested in community. I suppose I chose the negative approach because I was pissed, but it was never my belief that any single person could 'destroy community.' There are still plenty of people here who treat this place as diversion rather than community, but community persists.

Since then I have had a serious change of heart. I have decided to illustrate why a sense of personal investment in community is so important for its existence by taking a positive approach to participation here. If it was my behavior that won me my own special short leash, I hope it is my behavior that will win back trust and the same status that everyone else gets to enjoy.

But I'm not pinning any hope on being able to avoid Mike's heavy hand for 180 days... ever. Because I've never REALLY had normal status here, and Mike has beef with me, and he did from day uno, and I don't expect that to change. But I appreciate friendship and community with many of the interesting people here, and that is what really matters, crypt or not.

Cheers,

R.

However we might choose to interpret what I 'confessed,' I find it very interesting that you use my confession as ammo against me. I had seen it as part of a genuine repentence process, and hoped that others would accept it as such. I had done people here wrong. I confessed as much and have been trying to make ammends ever since. Contrition, Confession, Correction. I learned SOMETHING from teaching Sunday School.

While I wrote words along those lines, I certainly don't take credit nor do I accept blame for the behavior associated with your "unfortunate experiment."

Pussy, never taking credit, where credit is due.

All depends on one's POV, eh?