Curse

Nightmare_Pwner · Jul 10, 2007, 02:40 AM // 02:40

Just a small suggestion for Guilds. Currently Officers can kick people outa of guilds and such. I do beleave that officers should not be able to kick members out of guilds. Iv been in some newer and older guilds where somehow some idiot manages to become an officer some how and kicks out all the members and leaves for his/hers entertainment.

Post what you think of this idea.

genofreek · Jul 10, 2007, 02:46 AM // 02:46

What's the point of being an officer if you have no power?

If you find a guild being run poorly, leave it. There are plenty of decent ones out there.

kurtas · Jul 10, 2007, 03:26 AM // 03:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightmare_Pwner

Post what you think of this idea.

It's bad. Officers can kick because they can recruit. They are designed to help the leader, if the leader came on and was flooded with people wanting people to be kicked or recruited than noone would want to be a GL.

nbajammer · Jul 10, 2007, 04:07 AM // 04:07

But what's to stop the dishonest players from gaining a guild's trust and then after being promoted, with the leader not online,kicking everyone out knowing the leader cant stop them? Perhaps a better solution is to have the leader be able to designate which officers can kick and which can't. People shouldn't be able to work to gain people's trust only to stab them in the back and get a free laugh out of it.

genofreek · Jul 10, 2007, 04:48 AM // 04:48

If the guild was good other than one rotten (and frankly, really pathetic) officer, players will go back to it. I have to say, I feel bad for anyone who puts that much effort into gaining status in a guild just to empty it.

If not, well, it sucks, but game abuse happens. There's always gonna be a jerk who exploits the loopholes and abuses the power. GW's staff do what they can to minimize that, for the most part, but disabling every potential problem-causer isn't the solution.

If this is seriously a problem -- I dunno, this is the first I've heard of it -- then maybe a compromise can be reached? Say that officers can only kick 5 people every 24 hours and leave the bulk kicking to the leader?

Div · Jul 10, 2007, 07:32 AM // 07:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightmare_Pwner

some idiot manages to become an officer

Then your guild has a problem and needs fixing.

MMSDome · Jul 10, 2007, 07:39 AM // 07:39

As was said, whats the point of officer then? "Stuff" happens when Guild Leaders are away and need to be "Taken Care of." Although in my guild we are tightly nit and pretty much all officers and leader and some select members discuss things before action is taking because we respect everyone. Buddy your in the wrong guild if thats a problem with you.

the_jos · Jul 10, 2007, 10:30 AM // 10:30

Quote:

But what's to stop the dishonest players from gaining a guild's trust and then after being promoted, with the leader not online,kicking everyone out knowing the leader cant stop them?

That's why you should not promote just anyone and observe a player carefully. It's hard to be dishonest for a long time.
Furtermore, except in specific cases, we decide as guild officers team whether or not people should be made officer.
I promoted one member without asking the rest once when I was officer, but that was after carefull observation of the player and his involvement in the guild.
I explained that later to the guild leader.
That's my responsibility and taking that kind of responsibility made me guild leader recently.
Furtermore, when an officer kicks all members and leaves afterwards, my other officers will invite everyone back in.
When he's a problem and stays in the guild, several officers know how to reach me, so I can take action fast.

I have seen similar requests before and I would aggree with appointing some 'roles' to people.
I want to honor people that stand out, but are not online enough to be promoted to officer.

But inviting and kicking should be at the same persons, being guild leader and officers.

JeniM · Jul 10, 2007, 11:43 AM // 11:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by genofreek

What's the point of being an officer if you have no power?

What more can be said?
If you don't trust a member DONT GIVE THEM POWER

EDIT : Fixing the quote code

nbajammer · Jul 10, 2007, 02:12 PM // 14:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_jos

That's why you should not promote just anyone and observe a player carefully. It's hard to be dishonest for a long time.

It may be hard, but people still do it, and it's a problem that needs to be addressed somehow. If someone wants to clear a guild's roster because he's dishonest and immature, that's not the fault of the guild for trusting someone they had no reason not to. If you, as a guild leader, start off by distrusting every player you meet, you wouldn't have a guild in the first place. People put varying images up for many reasons, and you can't say it was wrong of the guild to trust this person if the person was giving the guild the impression that he/she is a trustworthy player. That's why something has to be done. Do I agree with the suggestion? No. In light of that, do I think something needs to change? Yes, because if the guild is big enough, that would be a disruption of play of potentially many, many people and is a RoC violation.

the_jos · Jul 10, 2007, 04:22 PM // 16:22

Quote:

and you can't say it was wrong of the guild to trust this person if the person was giving the guild the impression that he/she is a trustworthy player.

Well, I trust everyone, but I know people could be dishonest.
That's why we (mid-sized guild) have a large officers base, some dating back to the foundation of the guild, others more recent. Our officers/members ratio is about 1/3.
This would lower when we were full, probably to 1/5 or 1/6.
One of the reasons for this is that a single person can never 'kill' the guild unless he becomes guild leader.
That's the risk a guild leader takes when promoting an officer to guild leader.
Most of our officers don't even recruit, they provide stability and are primary contacts for members.

Would it be disruptive if an officer decides to kick all the members?
To a certain extend it would be, but it would not affect us that much.
People stay in our guild because they like the guild and we share the same goals. Some will return, some will look for other guilds.
Because of the large officer base, there will be a core team of around 10active officers that can deal with the situation, by contacting the kicked players and informing me about the situation.
We can also use our guild website to communicate.
I don't control this website, it's administration is controlled by the guild founder and one of his friends (LotU is involved in several online games).

For guilds that don't want to run this way, the only option to solve this problem would be seperation of duties.
Where one officer can mark members for kick and one officer approves it.

I would prefer the current way we run the guild, were each and every officer is responsible for his/her own actions and together are able to deal with nasty situations.

Pogrim The Crusader · Oct 26, 2007, 04:45 AM // 04:45

You can't predict what somoene is going to do but i really think this is a decent idea and should have been discussed more thoroughly. i think it would be nice if there was at least an 'executive officer' who is above all the other officers and is the guild leaders right hand man. Every guild has this kind of person (that i've been in) but they do not have more power than any of the other officers. I think a position like this should be instated so that in absence of a guild leader there is a better chance of someone around to control a bad situation. Things can unpredicably get out of hand and if one officer does decide to start booting everyone at least theres a better chance that somoene will be around to stop them. The guild leader would still obviously have the power to demote and promote the executive officer but it would just be nice to have another person of a higher power in the guild infrastructure.

cyberjanet · Oct 26, 2007, 09:04 AM // 09:04

How often have you seen "Looking for guild members, 1st 20 can be officers.."
There lies the heart of the problem.

The guild leader needs an officer policy.

Sleeper Service · Oct 26, 2007, 11:07 AM // 11:07

I love the way more and more people propose workarounds instead of solutions on this forum.

Guild management is ABYSMAL in GW theres no question about that. Officers SHOULD have ranks and different powers attributed to them its management basics.

This is the internet. If you trust people on the 'net I'm afraid you are overestimating your analytical capabilities.

/signed (i'm sure this has been suggested before)

Socomruled Xi · Oct 26, 2007, 11:29 AM // 11:29

You can just make a Program by clicking on hes name and then :

" Acces to kick members "
" No Acces to kick members "

That will be great !

/Signed

Onarik Amrak · Oct 26, 2007, 11:32 AM // 11:32

The simple solution is to promote everyone to Officer.

Socomruled Xi · Oct 26, 2007, 11:34 AM // 11:34

Yea, but thats not cool xD.

Sleeper Service · Oct 26, 2007, 11:50 AM // 11:50

What it should be like:

Recruit (Yes/No)

Kick Regular Guild Member (Yes/No)

Kick Guild Officer (Yes/No) not able to kick leader, implies Kick Regular Guild Member Yes

Promote (Yes/No)

Kick Regular Alliance Member (Yes/No) implies Kick Regular Guild Member Yes

Kick Alliance Officer (Yes/No) implies Kick Guild officer Yes, Kick Regular Alliance Member Yes

Kick Alliance (yes/No) implies all Yes

What is Currently possible without too much change:

Limit the amount of members an Officer can kick within a given time frame.

Ex: max kick of 1 or 2 member per 24 hours.

Rinadan Farhunt · Oct 26, 2007, 12:04 PM // 12:04

I like Sleeper service's idea, that would be really good.

Antheus · Oct 26, 2007, 12:39 PM // 12:39

If you promote people that want power to officers, the proverbial #$@# will hit the fan.

If you promote people who want to improve the guild, things work great.

One of these, is indication of a good guild. The other, a cheap recruiting gimmick - "Recruiting for guild, first 5 are officers".