Curse

Avarre · Jul 11, 2007, 12:32 PM // 12:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRaven

Hmm, didn't think of that one. That would be an interesting guild.

Ok, I'm curious. Are their any officers in high ranked PvP guilds reading this right now? I'm talking about any guilds that are serious about the game. It's more than just a hobby to you, it's serious business. You take your ranking seriously and work hard to earn your guild's place on the ladder or town control. If so, how does your guild handle this problem? Or do you even have the problem in the first place?

P.S. Remind me never to play WOW.

I wouldn't call WASD serious, but I can answer this.

Most PvP guilds have their entire 'core team' all as officers, and often anyone who plays consistently has officer status. The standard members in the guild are typically not an integral part of the team. Because of this, it is impossible for this kind of problem to take place, save the leader raging.

Miral · Jul 11, 2007, 12:40 PM // 12:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

I wouldn't call WASD serious, but I can answer this.

Most PvP guilds have their entire 'core team' all as officers, and often anyone who plays consistently has officer status. The standard members in the guild are typically not an integral part of the team. Because of this, it is impossible for this kind of problem to take place, save the leader raging.

GEAR (which is a PvE guild mainly) promotes officers as needed based on a vote amongst current officers... it works well to solve any issues

we also play with people and chat with them before making anyone a member of the guild (not to see if they're a good player or not, but to see if they're a decent person). These two things together keeps things peaceful

lordelg · Jul 11, 2007, 12:44 PM // 12:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miral

o.O if being an ass was a bannable offense, 75% of PvP players and 90% of PvE players would be banned o.O

FIXED.......

Miral · Jul 11, 2007, 12:46 PM // 12:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordelg

FIXED.......

nah i put less pve people because most of the laid back casual gamers that just go off with henchmen and ignore everyone else play pve. pvp you're definitely interacting and conflicting with other people.

Rocky Raccoon · Jul 11, 2007, 01:32 PM // 13:32

I would like to hear ANET's opinion on this topic. It seems with the various opinions there should be some clarification.

nbajammer · Jul 11, 2007, 02:42 PM // 14:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miral

"While playing Guild Wars, you must respect the rights of others and their rights to play and enjoy the game. To this end, you may not defraud, harass, threaten, or cause distress and/or unwanted attention to other players."
thats the rule #1 you're talking about, ya?
well then what I said stands... 90% of PvPers and 75% of PvEers violate this at one point or another. hell the way the rules are written just saying hi to someone in local chat could be a violation if they chose to report it.

anywho, the point being, while purging members from a guild is a mean thing to do, it is no more a violation of the rules than what 90% of the players say or do on a daily basis without action taken against them...

You're also neglecting to take into account the severity of the breach of conduct, which plays the biggest factor in determining whether a mark or a ban is necessitated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xenex Xclame

Why are you so against the idea of making everyone officers ?
How does that prevent the Leader from having a life?

Like miral said the way the rules are written, saying hello to someone can be enough for a ban.

I agree with some here saying that it's something that should be handled by the guild.

It is the guild leaders responsibility no matter what, by promoting him he passes down his powers to be used as the player promoted seems fit,otherwise they should not be promoted.

If the leader can not handle whatever decision the officer makes , then the leader should NOT promote the person(s)

You said it yourself , its up to the Anet to decide if anything should be done and they seem to agree with us, that this is something that should be handled by the guild not by them, with this post you are trying to decide how they should act.

Im not against the idea at all, stop putting words into my mouth. I said the concept does not work, and I showed exactly why. A guild leader who has only officers is no better off than one with only members in the sense that someone has to keep order when the guild leader cannot be there, because guild leaders have lives too.

The way the rules are written, they state that the severity of the situation is taken into account by Anet in determining the action to take. It's clearly spelled out on their own website.

A guild cannot handle a situation that it does not know exists. People can and do show false images to get something they want, and yet Anet does not provide tools to us leaders and officers on how to protect our guilds from these malicious individuals. This is what we are trying to change here.

I've said this many times before, and I will say it again - it is NOT the guild leader's responsibility, because the guild leader cannot read other people's minds. Anyone could pretend to be a decent, worthy person just to get promoted and then do whatever they so choose - unless a guild leader can read their mind and discover their true intent, the leader is powerless to prevent it.

Yes I did say it is up to Anet, and I'm telling you what Anet's own policies state. Perhaps you should go and read them.

Xenex Xclame · Jul 11, 2007, 03:15 PM // 15:15

Nice way to avoid answering the questions, I'll post them again in a simple matter so you can answer.

How does making everyone officer,not allow the guild leader to have a life and how does it prevent from people in the guild that is full of officers to keep order themselfs ?

They do provide you the tools, its called promoting and demoting people,we just have to learn how to use them.

It is the leaders responsibly ,because he is the one that gave that person the powers.

Let me put it in an example that i know you will twist around and some people might not like, but it makes things clear.

If i had a gun and i gave it to a good friend cause he just wants to hold it and he turns around and kills my neighbor, am i not also to blame?( i mean if i never gave him the gun it would have not happen , now would it? )

Do not treat me like an idiot,i am being kind , no need to insult me -_-
Now you acknowledge that the Anet policies state that, but you seem to be ignore the part about them already having decided how to act on such things, which is not to act, which gives the impressions they think its not something they should "fix" .

nbajammer · Jul 11, 2007, 04:41 PM // 16:41

I suggest you read posts before you reply to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xenex Xclame

Nice way to avoid answering the questions, I'll post them again in a simple matter so you can answer.

I've already answered them all, you did not properly read my post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xenex Xclame

How does making everyone officer,not allow the guild leader to have a life and how does it prevent from people in the guild that is full of officers to keep order themselfs ?

Because if there are only a leader and all officers, if the leader is not on because of life, who will "police" the officers and ensure order in the guild? Answer: No one. This was blatantly obvious from my post, which you didn't read.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xenex Xclame

They do provide you the tools, its called promoting and demoting people,we just have to learn how to use them.

They forgot to give me the power to read minds, because the anonymity of the internet allows a malicious person to put on any face they want to get what they want with no repurcussions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xenex Xclame

It is the leaders responsibly ,because he is the one that gave that person the powers.

And the leader is by default able to read minds, no? Of course not. Therefore, with no reason to distrust the person giving the impression of trustworthiness, it CANNOT be the fault of the leader!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xenex Xclame

Let me put it in an example that i know you will twist around and some people might not like, but it makes things clear.

Things have been clear from the beginning, but you haven't been reading the posts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xenex Xclame

If i had a gun and i gave it to a good friend cause he just wants to hold it and he turns around and kills my neighbor, am i not also to blame?( i mean if i never gave him the gun it would have not happen , now would it? )

Bad example - 2 entirely different matters. One thing is a criminal act, the other is a rule violation. One results in loss of life, one does not. The underlying principle is the same - just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xenex Xclame

Do not treat me like an idiot,i am being kind , no need to insult me -_-
Now you acknowledge that the Anet policies state that, but you seem to be ignore the part about them already having decided how to act on such things, which is not to act, which gives the impressions they think its not something they should "fix" .

You are not being kind but rudely forthcoming. You are replying to posts that you clearly have neither read, nor thought through. If you want to compare apples to oranges, so be it, but two similar yet very different situations do not make them the same. In our case, Anet DID act, and it "fixed" our problem but the big picture still remains, and thus needs to be fixed. Therefore your claim that their decision was not to act is clearly wrong and blindly put forth. Please re-read all the posts before you reply further.

oceanicdemigod · Jul 11, 2007, 07:39 PM // 19:39

The ONLY time I would blame a leader is when you see the Guild Advertisements along the lines of - NEW GUILD - FIRST X number of invites will be Officers! Where the promotion of people to officer status is made with no thought.

I would agree that if an officer wanted to kick someone, he would only be able to do so when the leader is online. Then when the Leader is online, and the officer tries to kick someone, a notification for the guild leader will pop up saying "(Officer Name) is attempting to kick (Member Name). Will you allow this to proceed?" (Yes) - (No). That way, the leader is always kept aware of which officer is doing what. Which officer is trying to kick who...or even Promote who. The Leader should be able to cancel out an officer's decision to promote as well. Yes, it's a bit Leader-Centric but since the leader is supposed to be the figurehead for the guild..the founder (not always) will always have the guild's best interest at heart (one would hope).

Or, if that's not possible, maybe have a kick/promote cap on officer ranks. 2 Kicks a day?

I'd still like to see greater Guild heirarchy customization. Have the Leader title the various ranks of membership....Change "Member" to "Peon"? haha. Ok that's just aesthetics...but at least have various ranks to portion out guild privileges. "People in THIS group can only invite new people with / without leader approval" etc. Per officer privileges. Each officer will have a set of variables to determine what they can and cannot do. Maybe like a General's Stars....a 1 Star Officer to a 5 Star Officer...1 star can only invite...2 star can invite and promote Members...3 star can invite, promote members, and kick members...4 star can invite, promote, kick, and change cape5 star can invite, promote members AND officers, kick, and change cape - all of which allow for leader intervention.

It would be nice to have a lil Guild Enhancement Pack

Available in the online store hahah ^_^

Kook~NBK~ · Jul 11, 2007, 08:36 PM // 20:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xenex Xclame

Let me put it in an example that i know you will twist around and some people might not like, but it makes things clear.

If i had a gun and i gave it to a good friend cause he just wants to hold it and he turns around and kills my neighbor, am i not also to blame?( i mean if i never gave him the gun it would have not happen , now would it? )

Why do you insist on trying to place blame for one jerk's acts on everyone else? My hope is that if you thought that your friend was capable of doing something like that, you wouldn't give him the gun! (or would you?) Maybe we should blame his neighbor for being on the wrong end of the gun? Maybe we should blame the gun company, since if they never made the gun, you wouldn't have it to give your friend. Or is it the guy who invented gunpowder's fault? After all: no gun powder, no bullet!

The bottom line is this: If someone does something that low (or kicks their entire guild), the only people responsible are the low-life and anyone who knowingly and intentionally helps them do it.