Curse

Miral · May 08, 2007, 03:55 PM // 15:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Age

What if you are having personal problems in real life like say unemployment or health problems like being the hospital.That doesn't mean some make some unfit to lead a guild and there could be other reasons say marriage.There are some who lose their internet connection for awhile if money is tight and iit is the least important utility.

if you become disabled, you are considered unfit to work. you may make a full recovery and return to work, but for the moment you are unfit. same deal with guild leadership. if you don't log in for a month, you ARE unfit to lead that guild at the moment. You may return in a couple months and then be more active than anyone else, and that is just fine. But for now, an inactive leader is an unfit leader.

Lonesamurai · May 08, 2007, 03:59 PM // 15:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miral

if you become disabled, you are considered unfit to work. you may make a full recovery and return to work, but for the moment you are unfit. same deal with guild leadership. if you don't log in for a month, you ARE unfit to lead that guild at the moment. You may return in a couple months and then be more active than anyone else, and that is just fine. But for now, an inactive leader is an unfit leader.

Thats complete BS... again, just because your inactive in one game, why should that be the case?

Ec]-[oMaN · May 08, 2007, 04:05 PM // 16:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonesamurai

Thats complete BS... again, just because your inactive in one game, why should that be the case?

Seriously Lonesamurai, if you're inactive in a game, why the hell would you want to be a leader? No ethics eh?

Thunder79 · May 08, 2007, 04:55 PM // 16:55

The OP's guild is like my guild....a casual...loosely knit guild...who plays for fun. We don't organize things...we just enjoy playing together...when we are on.

The OP is fit for being the leader of such a guild. His guild does not require strict leadership...they have no reason to have a constantly active guild leader because they rarely add new people and there's really no duties the leader takes care of....he is a leader really in name only. If a leader is gone for a couple weeks or a month it doesn't really affect the guild at all. They appoint one of the members to be the guild leader just so someone semi-active will take the role. They appoint someone who is semi active so that if they really need to add someone or kick someone...they have a reasonable chance of finding them online.

If you aren't in a guild like the OP's or my own...you don't really have any place commenting on whether or not he is fit to be a guild leader because you have no idea what that kind of guild is like. So stop it. Comment on what you think of the auto designation all you want...but quit beating up on the OP and other people who choose to play in casual guilds.

They should have some sort of mutiny button instead of the auto designation. The mutiny button should always be active and when pushed should ask officers if the leader should be demoted after a week long vote...if they hit the button they should be asked who they chose to replace the leader of the officers who have been active within the past 2 weeks. If no majority happens the leader remains in office...if they can't get a majority on who should replace the leader the most senior officer who has been active in 2 weeks should replace the leader, this auto designation should happen 2 weeks after the officers first vote to replace the leader. If there are no officers then the members take the place of the officers in the mutiny voting system.

This system would allow guilds to operate and replace leaders at will...but allow casual guilds such as the OP's and my own...to keep their current leader indefinitely. If a leader is inactive then people have the option to replace them.