Curse

Emik · Nov 09, 2006, 09:10 AM // 09:10

Don't see any problem having this 'option' available.
As stated before me, you don't HAVE to use this if you don't want to

/signed

Altair · Nov 09, 2006, 09:28 AM // 09:28

/signed

King_of_Eles · Nov 13, 2006, 02:16 AM // 02:16

/signed

Belleal · Jan 18, 2007, 09:45 AM // 09:45

I agree with this. A very nice option to have available.

/signed

Aegeroth · Jan 18, 2007, 10:19 AM // 10:19

/signed

this would relieve so many people.

Janonymous · Feb 23, 2007, 02:56 PM // 14:56

/signed

I once created a guild with a friend but I haven't tried to make it big yet. He wants to, so I assigned him as Guild Leader, while we actually both should be leader.

duncan99 · Feb 23, 2007, 03:10 PM // 15:10

very nice, i made a guild with 2 friends of mine but im the leader while they deserve that spot too.

/signed

Ilithis Mithilander · Mar 12, 2007, 01:04 AM // 01:04

/signed

I co-leader my guild with my girlfriend. Unfortunatly I got the short end of the stick as the officer...this would make things so much better.

Alex Morningstar · Apr 08, 2007, 09:47 PM // 21:47

Our current setup is 3 co-leaders as officers and a mule account the 3 of us can access in the leader spot. Though it is great fun to play "guess which asshat is on the mule account" from time to time.

Rurik Jangeer · Apr 08, 2007, 10:47 PM // 22:47

/signed

Alliance Roster too pl0x!

The ranked guilds in alliance idea earlier mentioned would also be a great improvement.

Customizeable ranks with customizeable powers pl0x pl0x.

So signed

Drelias Melaku · Apr 27, 2007, 09:41 PM // 21:41

/signed

My boyfriend and I are co-leaders, but I am merely seen as an "officer." It would be convenient if I didn't have to log into his account to change the cape when it's my turn.

Ama Seraphim · Apr 30, 2007, 03:41 PM // 15:41

/signed
would love to see NEW ranks for members.. Some are great for officers, others like being members, but some have alot of knowledge and would be great to give a better RANK system for those types of players!! So..
/signed
/signed
and /signed

mikeejimbo · Apr 30, 2007, 04:52 PM // 16:52

/signed

I think anything that would improve our options in guilds would be good, especially if your titles could reflect your organization. Our guild is extremely Lax, for example... it's not that everyone is in charge so much as no one is.

tyche7 · Apr 30, 2007, 05:07 PM // 17:07

/signed

very good idea. My guild is basically two people but both of us are pretty much leaders. (-:

evil joo · Apr 30, 2007, 07:56 PM // 19:56

/signed ftw

Exterminate all · Apr 30, 2007, 10:44 PM // 22:44

/Signed

Great idea, i would love this.

Link Kokori · Apr 30, 2007, 11:45 PM // 23:45

/signed
my best friend and i started the guild and i think he should share leadership with me

Throm · May 01, 2007, 12:37 PM // 12:37

/signed ranks would be good

Darkpower Alchemist · May 01, 2007, 01:20 PM // 13:20

The thought of co leaders, though admirable, is not logical. As leader of my guild, I realized that it's not always best to have multiple leaders due to the confusion that it can create.

I had some computer issues a few months back and had to make one of my officers to be the leader. While I was offline most of the time, the guild and alliance grew rather large under her watchful eyes. However, when I regained control, the alliance seemed abit unnerved by the change in leadership and the guild seemed more inclined to respond to her than I, who was the leader.

It caused abit of confusion for some time, but eventually sorted itself out. My point is that people generally rather have 1 leader and a cabinet of high level officers than have the confusion of co leaders. Having multiple leaders doesn't show the stability that a group needs from its core membership. If a leader needs to step down for some reason, the option of having co leaders would be helpful to retain his/her position, but isn't best for the overall guild populace.

In any and every governing body, 1 primary leader holds the position of leadership, even if their are governing bodies that offer checks and balances to that leadership. To make multiple leaders will only cause confusion and weaken the position.

I have seen guilds that rotate leadership duties between specific officers, and for some that works, but usually their guild is small and has a high turnover rate with recruits or their leaders have their own agendas to accomplish and have conflicts within. So, I feel that 1 leader is enough, but officers should always voice their opinions.

Also, in the case of alliance leadership, the thought of alliance co leaders is similar to guild co leaders. Leadership is not to be held by more than 1 person, yet a ruling council is a good idea due to each guild's needs and desires. Leaders should always communicate amongst one another, and regular meetings among leaders would be a good thing for discussing the status and growth or lack there of, that each leader is looking for from their guild and/or alliance. Rank differences may be interesting, but how would that work? Elder members over new members? More experienced over less experience? The word "member" keeps all who are not core members on an even level, and thus keeping down the thoughts of elitism within the structure.

However, that's just my opinion. We can't all be chiefs, because their has to be indians in order for a chief to exist.

Feldar · May 02, 2007, 12:19 AM // 00:19

/signed
Same thing in my guild. This would be good.