Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5897503" data-attributes="member: 8835">The concept is similar to what I do for determining band-member membership, but the metric are different.  I'll address [MENTION=83796]nedjer[/MENTION]'s disagreement in a minute, as my metrics reveal some of the reasoning.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">must have their own transport </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">must have a job/self-support (could be a retired millionaire)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">must have their own place to live (not crashing in a van or couch-hopping)</li> </ul>the core objective of mine or Olive's metrics is that the candidate must have their Feces Coagulated.  Somebody who is always needing a ride, needing money, always looking for a place to crash does not have their act together.  It's the pyramid of needs thing.  Lacking a proper stable structure on the fundamentals means that stuff is more likely to intrude on the group activity.  Furthermore, I think a case can be made that if you don't have a job, you should be spending more time fixing that than working on the group activity.Anybody with metrics on who to let in to the group is doing a Risk Assessment.  What is the risk of disruption this candidate poses to the group.  A guy with a car and a job and a wife COULD listen to a country music song and lose all three in the next week and cause a disruption to the group.  But the probability of the disruption happening is lower for a guy who has those things, than a guy who does not.To address some of Nedjer's points, the metrics you employ should be chosen based on their suitability to the situation.  If you are 18 years old in an area with low employment, than you AND your candidates are likely living at home with no job.  So don't use "must have a job" as a metric.  The core goal is to verify the person has a stable living situation.  They have food, a place to sleep, a place to keep their stuff and that's not likely to change, nor drive them to steal from you because you have food and they do not, nore drive them to disappear on you, because they went on an opium binge because they had nothing better to do (I am being extreme with my example).Nedjer asserts that it is fear based.  I don't think so.  It's risk based.  If I bring in the drummer who has no job, and is bouncing from couch to couch, he may have all the enthusiasm in the world for the band, but statistically, he'll vanish in 3 weeks time and I'll be out looking for another drummer and have to ramp him up on the music.People who don't have their crap together have not proven their ability to be stable and in fact have higher risk of real-life emergencies that will disrupt their ability to be part of the group because they lack the resources to work around the problem with minimal disruption.Do people who's life isn't stable want to have fun and hobbies?  Sure.  Should it be their top priority?  Probably not.  But that's not my choice to make for them.  It is my choice to make on whether I let their problems add risk for me.</blockquote>

Verification